Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Removal of sexual misconduct allegations

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

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

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

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

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

The CTV Television Network seems to understand what "sexual touching" is.[1] I don't insist on that term, but "sexual misconduct" is certainly very vague and we ought to be more specific.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I knew no such thing. I hope you will respect that the consensus is to work within a 15-word limit, and there are many ways to do that apart from having zero words.[2] Good night.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFC:Recent allegations in lede

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

---

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

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

Survey and discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• No per nom. I think the number of words above, 15, is adequate mention of this area of controversy in the lead of this article about Donald Trump's 70-year life. Instruction manual: If you agree with me, !vote No. If you disagree with me, !vote Yes. If you're undecided, !vote No. (j/k) ―Mandruss ☎ 01:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: Hard to !vote on words that have been removed. Clearly the campaign article should contain more than the general bio. Just as clearly, in my mind, is that multiple accusations of possible criminal actions over a long period of his career should be in the lead. Offhand, I would suggest two or three sentences - and no more. Objective3000 (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Two or three sentences is what is discussed above, and agreed on by a majority there. I don't think anyone advocates more than two or three sentences. We had a wording (see [3]) which used two sentences to describe the actual controversy, and one sentence devoted to Trumps own views on it. --Tataral (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Factcheck: Pants on fire.
      Objective3000, your comment is problematic considering that your suggestion is not on the table in this particular RfC. Would you care to propose a specific RfC question that would work better? We can always scrap this RfC and start over, provided we don't wait until we have a lot of !votes that have to be thrown out. We should have pre-RfC RfCs to decide RfC questions, as there is so often a lot of pushback on the question itself. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Yes, because counterallegations.

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

  Well, MrX apparently thinks the lead can adequately cover this in fifteen words.[4]Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accusations of sexual misconduct in lead section

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Access Hollywood tape in lead section

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific wording in the body

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ummm....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dates of Donald and Ivana divorce and final settlement

Hi,

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

Concern about the lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think the current version[5] is a fair summary which gives the matter due weight in relation to how it is covered in reliable sources (as the Financial Times points out, Trump's "increasingly conspiratorial tone (...) appears to be a last-ditch effort to hold on to supporters by a campaign that is being engulfed by almost daily allegations of sexual misconduct"[6]). It actually only describes the matter in two sentences. The third sentence is devoted to Trump's views and how he defends himself against the allegations. --Tataral (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviewing previous discussions I find the following:

For Lede Inclusion:

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

One Sentence Summary:

• Mandruss
• James J. Lambden

Against Lede Inclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0.046 × 476 words ≈ 22 words in the lede,

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

Obvious BLP violation

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

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

On the other hand "sexual assault" is appropriate [7], [8], [9].Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I am insufficiently familiar with this subject, but there is a section about it on the relevant WP page [10] and it seems well sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further obvious BLP violation

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

“ A "Jane Doe" had charges brought forward in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on October 10, 2016, for alleged forcible and statutory rape in 1994, when Doe was thirteen years old; according to The Guardian newspaper, lawsuits by this "Jane Doe" against Trump "appear to have been orchestrated by an eccentric anti-Trump campaigner with a record of making outlandish claims about celebrities." ”

References

This edit was necessary per WP:NPOV which requires that "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." This article is about a living person, and so the actual view of The Guardian, or some similar view, must be included per WP:BLP. I provided in-text attribution, and of course The Guardian was already the source (and still remains the source) for the first part of the quoted sentence (not in bold). A similar view to the Guardian's (undermining the credibility of the allegation) is described by The Daily Beast here. Anyway, at 09:24, 17 October 2016 (i.e. two hours after my edit), User:Nomoskedasticity reverted[11] my edit described above (while also jamming "child rape" into the lead without consensus), and Nomoskedasticity's edit summary said, "manoeuvres on this article are getting totally out of hand. Let's please not make Wikipedia into a big joke, okay?" Because the current sentence in this BLP (as edited by Nomoskedasticity) grossly distorts the totality of what The Guardian has reported about this allegation, and summarizes The Guardian in a non-neutral way, and uses editorial bias to omit a very significant view of The Guardian, I am going to revert now, per WP:BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current material in lead

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

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

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

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

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

A less obvious BLP violation

Regarding this edit of mine, here is my edit summary: "Reverting huge edit to lead. Per WP:BLP, as I have explained and no one has disputed, 'Sexual assault is a broad term that often (if not usually) suggests rape or attempted rape'." My view is that numerous editors have tried during the past week to explicitly put "rape" into this lead, and having failed the next best thing is to insinuate rape in the lead. If that is not the intent, it has surely been the effect. In any event, the purpose of my edit was to revert that. The BLP edit that I just described has been reverted.[12] However, rape and attempted rape are among the most common forms of sexual assault, the most common form of sexual assault on college campuses,[13] and marital rape is another of the most common forms of sexual assault.[14][15] According to the lead of our Wikipedia article about sexual assault, "In some places...the crime of 'sexual assault' has replaced the traditional crime of rape, and is being defined as non-consensual penetrative sex." Use of the term "sexual assault" in the Trump lead is totally unnecessary and potentially very misleading, so I will continue to insist on the more specific language about forcible kissing and groping.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Fyddlestix, here's what the Oxford English Dictionary says: "The action or an act of forcing an unconsenting person to engage in sexual activity; a rape; (Law) a crime involving forced sexual contact, variously defined as inclusive or exclusive of rape."[16] What possible reason is there for us to use in the lead a rape-inclusive term instead of more specific terms that exclude rape?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stance on drugs

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of Politifact's reporting on Trump's contradictions

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miss Universe, Miss USA, and Miss Teen USA Contestants

"Trump has also been reported to have walked in on Miss Universe, Miss USA, and Miss Teen USA contestants in varying stages of undress without their prior notice of his arrival[370]; some of these contestants were as young as 15 years old". However, Buzzfeed, investigating the Miss Teen USA claims [18], interviewed 16 of the contestants, 5 said it happened, 11 said they did not remember such an incident happening - with most dismissing the possibility that such a thing could ever have happened given the level of supervision and control at the event. Also, while Guardian readers probably get off on the implied notion of a naked 15 year old, their source for a 15-year-old being there is Buzzfeed and Buzzfeed says the 15-year-old in question (who is one of the 5 saying it happened) also said she was fully clothed at the time. And we have this tabloid crap in a section titled "Sexual assault allegations" when all 5 of the women who said the walking in thing happened also said that absolutely no sexual conduct happened or any inappropriate things were said by Trump. Really, all this crap content needs to go. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

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

The Guardian article [19], the cited source, states that Buzzfeed was ITS source and links to the Buzzfeed article. Aside from the fact that in the Buzzfeed investigation of the allegation 2/3rds of those interviewed had no recollection of the alleged incident actually happening (with most saying it couldn't have happened), and that this is not being mentioned here, we have, more importantly, a double layer of extreme editorializing going on. Firstly there is the source unjustified connecting of the phrase "in varying stages of undress " with "as young as 15 years old", and secondly with the source unjustified placement of the whole alleged incident under a section titled "Sexual assault allegations". No "15 year old" was in a "state of undress", and none of those who allege the incident happened allege any sexual assault happened. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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