Jump to content

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 35

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37→Archive 40

RfC: Lead issues regarding recent news/allegations

I'm closing this after receiving a request to do so.

Regarding the question about whether to mention the topic in the lead, opinions are numerically nearly evenly divided. "Include" is slightly in the majority, particularly if one discounts the few opinions that incorrectly consider the mention of sourced allegations of misconduct libelous. Otherwise, though, there are valid arguments on both sides, and they boil down to whether the topic is so important to Donald Trump's life and career that it should appear in the concise summary that the lead is supposed to be. That is a question of editorial judgment, and I can't determine, as closer, who's right and who's wrong about this. So there's no consensus about whether the topic should appear in the lead. – The discussion mostly hasn't taken into account Trump's recent election victory, and I surmise that the lead will tend to grow to cover his (likely eventful) presidency. I therefore recommend that the discussion is repeated after some time to determine whether the issue is still considered to be of lead-worthy importance after the election.

Regarding the question about the length of the text in the lead (if the topic is covered in the lead at all), opinions range from one short sentence to a paragraph, but on average consensus seems to tend towards one or two short sentences.  Sandstein  20:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

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.
Summary of issue

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

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

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

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

Need for this RfC

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

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

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

RfC opinions and discussion

  • Note - I have left messages on the talk pages of users who !voted in the above closed discussion inviting them to comment on this RfC. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • 1. No; 2. One sentence. Our guideline on lead sections says that the lead should be a concise summary of the article's most important contents and as a general rule of thumb should be limited to 4 paragraphs. This article is extremely dense due to the... hm... richness of Mr. Trump's life, so some unusually extreme vetting must be done to keep the lead manageable. At this point, I have seen no evidence (such as reliable sources) indicating that the recent controversy surrounding allegations of sexual misconduct is any more biographically significant than other major controversies of the last year, including Trump University and the statements about Judge Curiel, which are not mentioned in the lead section. Therefore I oppose any inclusion at this point, and if we do include something, it should be minimal. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    One sentence could go on forever.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • No opinion at this time about whether it should go in the lead and if it is included it should not exceed 15 words. As of now, more than 15 words is undue weight especially given that not even the presidential debates are mentioned in the lead. There is also no justification for putting the word "rape" into the lead, nor for omitting Trump's denial of all the allegations. It can all be done in 15 words or less.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    I would like to add that the lead currently refers to "rape, and child rape". This is truly outrageous crap to have in this lead. After all, the rest of the BLP says nothing about any rape aside from the alleged child rape, for very good reason. The alleged adult rape victims withdrew the charges. For example, Collins, Eliza (July 28, 2015). "Ivana Trump denies accusing Donald Trump of rape". Politico. As for the alleged child rape, according to The Guardian newspaper, lawsuits by this "Jane Doe" against Trump "appear to have been orchestrated by an eccentric anti-Trump campaigner with a record of making outlandish claims about celebrities," a former producer on the The Jerry Springer Show. See Swaine, Jon (July 7, 2016). "Rape lawsuits against Donald Trump linked to former TV producer; Norm Lubow, formerly a producer on the Jerry Springer show, apparently coordinated lawsuits accusing Donald Trump of raping a child in the 1990s". The Guardian. Retrieved October 17, 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anythingyouwant (talk • contribs) 00:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • No and one short sentence - Would you have stuck Monica in Bill Clinton's lead a few days after the story broke? That scandal resulted in the historic impeachment of a president and threatened to force his resignation, and the whole thing gets two sentences and 57 words in the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Bill Clinton's biography does include the Lewinsky controversy in the lead. A key difference, of course, is that Bill Clinton is a former President of the United States with a very long track record and impact, whereas Trump is a guy with no political experience who is mainly known around the world for being accused of sexually assaulting women and spewing racist comments. Another difference is that Lewinsky was a consenting adult, and that Clinton has not been accused of (or admitted to!) sexually assaulting an endless list of women over many decades. The comparison with the treatment of the Lewinsky case in Bill Clinton's article indeed highlights why this (much more serious) controversy should obviously be included in this article (on a guy whose credentials/public track record is nothing compared to Clinton; hence this controversy is more important for and defining of the topic Donald Trump than Lewinsky is of the topic Bill Clinton). --Tataral (talk) 01:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Here's my counter to the "long track record and impact" argument, and I'll pass on the rest and leave that to the closer.
        Bill Clinton - file size 186K - readable prose size per User:Dr pda/prosesize 65K
        Donald Trump - file size 327K - readable prose size 88K
        I know, I've been here before, we can get into which sub-articles about each person should be included in that comparison, but I'm passing on that too. What's clear is that Trump has had plenty of "impact", just of a different type than Clinton.
        mainly known around the world for being accused of sexually assaulting women and spewing racist comments. No POV in that argument! ―Mandruss ☎ 01:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
        • Measuring impact by whether the article is bloated or not seems like an odd idea, and based on which policy/sources exactly? On Wikipedia, articles are supposed to be readable prose; it's not like there is a contest to make the longest article. A lot of hard work has probably gone into making the Bill Clinton article sufficiently concise. What you have found out is that Bill Clinton has a well written biography within the recommended range per Wikipedia:Article size, whereas Trump has a bloated biography (not due to the very short mentions in the lead and body of the sexual assault scandal, but due to tons of excessively detailed material on trivial stuff such as "Football, cycling and boxing", which is given far more weight than the much more prominent controversy discussed here) near the "almost certainly should be divided" range per Wikipedia:Article size. --Tataral (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Short sentence including denial, no more. No. Short sentence Anything else is WP:UNDUE. Editors arguing this is the most covered incident in his public life (or even his campaign) have a responsibility to demonstrate that with evidence. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • No and very short sentence - As I mentioned in previous discussions, I feel that any mention in the lead is currently undue and recentism. In the scope of this multi-decade biography, this topic is currently minor. Such discussion in the lead belongs more on the campaign page. WP:LEAD directs us to summarize the article is a balanced manner. Currently, only a very small portion of the article covers this issue. Given that, it would not seem important enough to cover in the lead at this point. If, and only if, these allegations (1) result in a conviction or (2) are cited as the primary reason for Trump losing the election, then that would make them significant enough for the lead. In the event of the latter case or consensus forms for inclusion, I do agree with James J. Lambden that Trump's denial should be included if they remain allegations (but not if there's a conviction). EvergreenFir (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yesish -- A mention should be included in the lead given the extent of claims, the extent of time period, the extent of coverage, and the extent of apparent effect. I added the "ish" as I don't think it can be summarized in the lead. It can be mentioned and the body will include the summarization. I would go for two or three sentences in the lead. Objective3000 (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Short paragraph (ec) of two to four sentences. I have no idea where this "15 words" thing was pulled out of but it's completely arbitrary. This is by far the biggest issue of the campaign and the fact that it is still getting extensive coverage in sources weeks later justifies its inclusion and giving it more than just "15 words". But I'm actually more concerned about what is included rather than how long. Specifically the sentence should not be something along the lines "Trump denied some accusations that were made" and leaving it at that, which is what some of the editors wanted to have. Write it straight - NPOV, no monkey business. What, when, who, where and how. First the allegations and their nature, then the fact that he denied them. Both the Bush tape and the women coming forward should be mentioned. The rape allegation can be left out of the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes One Paragraph such as the current,
"Trump has been publicly accused by at least twelve women of sexual misconduct—including sexual assault, rape, and child rape—since the 1980s. Several of these allegations preceded Trump's 2016 candidacy for president; many more arose during that campaign, especially after revelation of a 2005 audio recording, in which Trump appeared to brag about committing sexual assault. He has denied the allegations, describing them as part of a wider campaign to smear his candidacy and reputation." SPECIFICO talk 00:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section the lead "should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic" and "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". Donald Trump is mainly known (especially on a global scale) for his presidential candidacy, which is completely dominated by the sexual misconduct controversy. The sexual misconduct controversy has also received more coverage in reliable sources than any other topic related to Trump in his whole life. It is the most prominent issue related to Trump covered in reliable sources, and it is covered both in the article and in a lengthy in-depth sub article. The notion that such a prominent controversy should not be included in the lead is simply absurd and contrary to Wikipedia policy, such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. We should have two or three sentences (two sentences on the controversy itself with a possible third sentence devoted to Trump's defence/views/denial), as in the current paragraph, because it is impossible to cover this material in a responsible manner in just one sentence, which would also come across as an attempt to unduly downplay the issue. The two or three sentences must however not necessarily constitute a separate paragraph; the reason the three sentences became a separate paragraph in the first place was that this material was placed at the end of an extremely bloated paragraph.--Tataral (talk) 00:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. The sources clearly support this. One to two sentences that very briefly describe that allegations have been made, with details covered in the body of the article. ~ Rob13Talk 01:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - The content in the lead should cover Trump's Access Hollywood comments, the ensuing flood of allegations of sexual misconduct, and the impact to his presidential campaign and the GOP. Two to three sentences should be sufficient. Whether it's added to the campaign paragraph or a separate paragraph matters very little. The coverage of this scandal has gone well beyond the 24 hour news cycle. It's being covered in a sustained fashion by major international news agencies, and has even influenced pop culture [1] [2]. - MrX 02:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. Even if it were a single phrase, this should be a separate paragraph. But this must be more than one phrase. Main point here is that all the allegations by different women are very similar and consistent with each other and with something Donald Trump said himself on the widely publicized tape. We must tell also that he blindly denied everything. Three short phrases should be enough. My very best wishes (talk) 04:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Note: Based on the responses so far, and in the spirit of BLP, I have boldly merged the standalone paragraph into the campaign paragraph. [3] I realize there are a couple of people who have argued for a standalone paragraph (specifically Volunteer Marek, SPECIFICO, and My very best wishes) while some have said it doesn't matter (Tataral, Mrx) and others oppose it (Dr. Fleishmann, Anythingyouwant, Mandruss, James J. Lambden) while others don't specify (saying maybe 2-3 sentences but without specifying where). This isn't meant to be a "close" or a final wording, but a quick course correction on a highly visible BLP. ~Awilley (talk) 06:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • No Yes but make it very limited. Ideally just one sentence (and include the denial). The allegations are unproven and made in connection to the presidential campaign so should not be in a separate paragraph but in with the rest of the lede's presidential campaign material. However, lede material just summarizes important body content, so the content that the lede is summarizing is the content that is actually important and the content that should be used as the basis for deciding lede wording. This article is NOT Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 and about 80% of the article is NOT about his presidential campaign. And ALL content is subject to BLP policy - the existence of an ongoing AfD is not an excuse for allowing BLP violations. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
In the light of later no reasons presented, and also after reading the content discussions further down the page, I have changed my opinion to no. Anything but no is giving an open door to endless conflict and the insertion of tabloid like claims simply for effect. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • No not in the lead. Largest problem I guess is the WP:LIBEL aspect of the way it's failed to meet WP:BLPCRIME, by the lead having incorrectly presented a felony label, stating it in WP voice as fact rather than a second-party report, and that the article lower down is not saying what the cite said and also edited up the tape transcript. To me though, mostly it is just offtopic -- this is supposed to be a BLP article, and this material belongs to the campaign article or sexual allegations article. Finally -- this is a BLP so anything here should follow the additional bits from WP:BLP guidelines such as writing conservatively and avoiding tabloid. Right now this is too much sensationalism, not yet events in hand to gauge the BLP significance -- and edits may be suspect of being COI political motivated until a few weeks from now. Markbassett (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
How does it violate WP:LIBEL and WP:BLPCRIME? The lead currently states "and multiple women alleged sexual harassment ... Previous sexual assault claims ... Trump vigorously denied the allegations" -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • 1. Yes. 2. As short as possible to specifically state the essential facts: The Washington Post released a 2005 recording of Trump bragging about making sexual advances towards women. Add "Trump denied the allegations," but we don't have to give Trump's full non-defense. That's what I would do, but I realize some editors would give more space to defend Trump. I disagree but would go along for consensus. I also argue that it must go in the introduction because the charges of sexual advances aren't in the Table of Contents and aren't easy to find in the body. The introduction should say, "This article discusses that incident." If I were writing it, I would put “Grab them by the pussy” in the lede. That will tell readers that it's about that incident, they're in the right place if they're looking for it. I may not get consensus for that, but that would best serve the reader. --Nbauman (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes; the whole "tape, allegations, response, media plot" trail of events, in the lede, with 2 or 3 concise and succinct sentences. It speaks to his character and attitude...to moments in his life. Buster Seven Talk 12:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • No - Per WP:BALASPS/WP:RECENTISM - The lead is meant to summarize the whole life and times of Trump. These recent allegations have make up so little of that life and times that they don't deserve mention. NickCT (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
First, WP:RECENTISM is just an essay of the personal opinions of some WP editors, not a guideline or policy. In many cases, it doesn't make sense. When you have an article about a current issue, like an election, everything is recent. Would you like to delete everything more recent than 1 year from the article? Second, according to WP:RS, Trump has been doing this all his adult life, documented by his Howard Stern interviews and the complaints of many women. His sexual advances towards women are a major part of Trump's life and the personna that he himself presented. --Nbauman (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
His sexual advances towards women are a major part of Trump's life, you really believe that? Please don't answer, its a rhetorical question. --Malerooster (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
@Nbauman: - WP:BALASPS is a policy. re "Trump has been doing this all his adult life" - I don't really think you have any idea of what Trump has or has not been doing his whole life. Fact is that most of the "allegations" at this point are just that. Allegations. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of them are true, but I'm not so biased to assume they are. Unlike you apparently. NickCT (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
According to many WP:RS, his sexual advances towards women are a major part of Trump's life. http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-clinton-allegations-20161019-snap-htmlstory.html http://people.com/politics/every-sexual-assault-accusation-against-donald-trump/ and many more. --Nbauman (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@Nbauman: - You get that there are probably millions of RS's about Trump, right? You understand that a very, very small portion of them specifically cover these sexual allegations? You realize it only seems to you like this issue is important because you have a hard time remembering things which have occurred outside the past week's news cycle? NickCT (talk) 10:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
@NickCT: You get that the LAT and People magazine are major news media, right? I don't think there are any major news media covering the election that haven't covered Trump's sexual advances -- even the sober Christian Science Monitor http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2016/1010/Debate-fact-check-Teasing-the-truth-out-of-Trump-and-Clinton- . You realize that May 14 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html is longer than a week ago, right? You realize that I live in New York City and we've been hearing Trump brag about his sexual conquests since his appearances on the Howard Stern show, right? --Nbauman (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
While it should be possible to make a mention in the lede of the allegations without infringing on BLP requirements, ongoing RfCs don't place a hold on BLP obligations. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, absolutely - we have a separate article on this, which was WP:SNOW kept at AFD for pete's sake. That article is linked and summarized within this article - and linked in the infobox - so of course the lede should have at least a few sentences about it. More generally: this is something that is covered in literally hundreds of reliable sources now, there's really no excuse for not giving that coverage due weight in the lede. My suggestion would be 2-3 sentences but the important thing is that it's mentioned. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion, because the introduction should summarise the main points of the article, and the allegations have been a significant element in the election campaign. A couple of sentences will probably suffice, outlining the allegations and that he denies them. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • 1. No. 2. Short mention of allegations. – This affair is nothing but WP:RECENTist hyperventilation. If and when such allegations go beyond gossip with actual trials, then let's revisit. Note that even Bill Clinton's lead section does not mention sexual impropriety despite abundant mentions in the article itself and on a dedicated page. The lead just states he was impeached and pardoned following the Lewinski scandal. — JFG talk 00:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Minimal, and only if conjoined. The sexual allegations section takes up 2% of the entire 16,000-word article. But the allegations are 12% (57 words) of the lead. So it's a no-brainer, IMO. I'd give the topic max 4-6 words in the lead, which means it could be conjoined with other controversial issues. However, if WP starts selling and relying of advertising, like the MSM, we could go back to 12%, or up to 50%, to remain competitive. --Light show (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Addendum: I'm not sure about any specific guidelines about allegations, but it seems totally wrong to include things such as allegations, accusations, hearsay, innuendos, insinuations, or gossip anywhere in a lead. It can turn leads into tabloid-type leads. I've seen a number of famous people resign over the years to fight off simple allegations, even before a court hearing. For instance, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the IMF, resigned, and there was never even a trial. It was a pure case of "trial by media", which IMO is possibly one of the worst effects of the readership-hungry MSM. --Light show (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, one sentence. The coverage for this instance is enormous. I frequently examine man news sources outside the US because I use those for Wikipedia work: and this incident received global coverage in a big way. Leaving it out is not an option: a paragraph, though, is undue weight. Vanamonde (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • 1. Yes, 2. Up to the extent needed to adequately reflect it according MOS:LEAD. The current 3 sentences are appropriate according to the current status of findings. --SI 22:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes to include in lead, and the current wording and length is fine. Summoned to this by bot, and I commend EvergreenFir for an exceptonally clear and well-drafted RfC. So many RfCs are murky, this one set forth the issue clearly and in a neutral fashion. The coverage, as Vanamonde93 points out, is enormous. It has dominated the election campaign. An easy call. Coretheapple (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes prominent controversies can be covered in the lead per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and this controversy is definitely prominent enough for inclusion. But we should only have 1 sentence because per MOS:INTRO "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article." Furthermore, anything more than a sentence could give undue weight to the controversy since it's barely even covered in the article. WP:RECENTISM is an essay we could choose to follow if we wanted to, but since it's just an essay- there is no point in following it unless there is a very good reason why we should do so. (Summoned by bot). Prcc27🌍 (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, a few sentences. Yes, one sentence. Dervorguilla's detailed analysis of the coverage of this topic in mainstream media sources has changed my mind. While I might not argue for exactly 12 words of coverage, I think it should be at least a factor of two away from that ideal. The lead certainly isn't balanced in other areas (though it should be), so aiming for about twenty words should let it be covered accurately enough to avoid misinterpretation. Controversial subjects usually require more precise language, but I don't think that means they're being given undue weight.
In my opinion, we shouldn't give too much weight to the fact that the article covers some trivial topics more than important ones right now. It will probably have to be reworked later on, since its readable prose size is 89 kB. JasperTECH (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course, with two sentences. It is already clear that this issue amounts to a significant turning point in his presidential campaign, which is obviously the biggest part of his notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Athenean, we already have the sentence: "Trump's campaign has received unprecedented media coverage and international attention. Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false. Several rallies during the primaries were accompanied by protests or riots." To clarify, are you suggesting something in addition to this? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
"2 week news story is not why he is famous" - that's not what this is at all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes to include more than one sentence. The Access Hollywood tape appears to be an integral part of the narrative of how this election has unfolded, and hence of the narrative of Donald Trump's political career. It is having too many other effects in the election and political landscape to be considered just another controversy. Now, nearly three weeks later, sources report these impacts in other races [4] [5], the media [6], and the Republican party [7]. To do it NPOV justice, it should be framed as part of the election and it seems like more than one sentence will be required. It could be either a standalone paragraph or in a campaign paragraph, I think. Chris vLS (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Less than 12 9–25 words, otherwise no, per MOS:INTRO and WP:UNDUE/BALASP.
Relative emphasis, MOS:INTRO. The due-weight policy holds "for both the lead and the body of the article. If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy."
Calculating emphasis by total readable prose size:
§ Sexual misconduct allegations = 275 words,
Article = 14,675 words,
275 words ÷ 14,675 words = 0.019.
§ Intro = 451 words,
0.019 × 451 words = 8.5 words.
Balancing aspects, WP:BALASP. "An article ... should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject."
Calculating weight by the number of search results in five of the most reputable mainstream publications and news agencies:

Search results: Sexual assault "Donald Trump" site:bbc.com/news = about 5,720 results,
Search results: "Donald Trump" site:bbc.com/news = about 220,000 results.
5,720 results ÷ 220,000 results = 0.026,
0.026 × 451 words = 11.7 words.
Search results: Sexual assault "Donald Trump" site:wsj.com/articles/ = about 1,740 results,
Search results: "Donald Trump" site:wsj.com/articles/ = about 195,000 results.
1,740 results ÷ 195,000 results = 0.009,
0.009 × 451 words = 4.0 words.
Search results: Sexual assault "Donald Trump" site:www.nytimes.com: about 60,700 results,
Search results: "Donald Trump" site:www.nytimes.com: about 3,380,000 results.
60,700 results ÷ 3,380,000 results = 0.0180,
0.018 × 451 words = 8.1 words.
Search results: Sexual assault "Donald Trump" site:bigstory.ap.org = about 409 results,
Search results: "Donald Trump" site:bigstory.ap.org = about 6,080 results.
409 results ÷ 6,080 results = 0.0673,
0.0673 × 451 words = 30.3 words.
Search results: Sexual assault "Donald Trump" site:reuters.com/news = about 169 results,
Search results: "Donald Trump" site:reuters.com/news = about 5,090 results.
169 results ÷ 5,090 results = 0.033,
0.033 × 451 words = 15.0 words.
Trimmed mean = (8.1 + 11.7 + 15.0)/3 = 11.6 words. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC) 12:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
A most beautiful and dispassionate argument; I applaud your research, Dervorguilla! — JFG talk 09:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I must admit - that's pretty solid. Compressing it into 12 words will be... interesting. This approach, though time-intensive, could be used for balancing the lead in other areas too. For instance, there's a sentence that mentions that his campaigns have often been accompanied by protests and rallies, but as far as I can tell, there is literally just one corresponding sentence in the article body to back it up. JasperTECH (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
@JasperTech: I'll take the challenge: "After lewd comments from 2005 emerged, 15 women accused Trump of unwanted sexual advances." That's 14 words. Add one cite about the tape and one about the accusations; done! — JFG talk 20:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The earlier RFC made the mistake of counting words and was widely derided/disapproved of. We are writing an article not a spreadsheet and I strongly object to going down the "exactly x words" route. Dervorguilla's analysis does not account for synonyms, for whether a mention of Trump was on "page 1" or on page b7 of a newspaper (or in the classifieds, or about a Trump property, or in a weekly recap of "the apprentice"), etc. Weight simply cannot can't be" calculated" this way. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

(←)

@Fyddlestix: "Counting words" is actually mandated by policy. "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including ... quantity of text, prominence of placement..." Adding synonyms -- in particular, the word "groping" -- does make sense, though. (So does substituting the phrase "sexual assault" for the words "sexual AND assault".)
Search results: sexual-misconduct OR sexual-assault OR sexual-harassment OR forcible-fondling OR groping OR sexually-assaulted OR sexually-harassed OR forcibly-fondled "Donald Trump" site:bbc.com/news/ = about 4,970 results,
Search results: "Donald Trump" site:bbc.com/news/ = about 242,000 results.
4,970 Results ÷ 242,000 results = 0.021,
0.021× 451 Words = 9.3 words.
Search results: sexual-misconduct OR sexual-assault OR sexual-harassment OR forcible-fondling OR groping OR sexually-assaulted OR sexually-harassed OR forcibly-fondled "Donald Trump" site:wsj.com/articles/ = about 12,000 results,
Search results: "Donald Trump" site:wsj.com/articles/ = about 172,000 results.
12,000 Results ÷ 172,000 results = 0.070,
0.070 × 451 Words = 31.5 words.
Search results: sexual-misconduct OR sexual-assault OR sexual-harassment OR forcible-fondling OR groping OR sexually-assaulted OR sexually-harassed OR forcibly-fondled "Donald Trump" site:www.nytimes.com = about 104,000 results,
Search results: "Donald Trump" site:www.nytimes.com = about 3,390,000 results.
104,000 Results ÷ 3,390,000 results = 0.031,
0.031 × 451 Words = 13.8 words.
Search results: sexual-misconduct OR sexual-assault OR sexual-harassment OR forcible-fondling OR groping OR sexually-assaulted OR sexually-harassed OR forcibly-fondled "Donald Trump" site:bigstory.ap.org = about 520 results,
Search results: "Donald Trump" site:bigstory.ap.org = about 6,230 results,
520 Results ÷ 6,230 results = 0.081,
0.081 × 451 Words = 36.3 words.
Search results: sexual-misconduct OR sexual-assault OR sexual-harassment OR forcible-fondling OR groping OR sexually-assaulted OR sexually-harassed OR forcibly-fondled "Donald Trump" site:reuters.com/news/ = about 322 results,
Search results: "Donald Trump" site:reuters.com/news/ = about 4,660 results.
322 Results ÷ 4,660 results = 0.069,
0.069 × 451 Words = 31.2 words.
Mean = (9.3 + 31.5 + 13.8 + 36.3 + 31.2)/5 = 24.4 words.
--Dervorguilla (talk) 12:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • No This is a WP:BLP, let's not forget. This is extremely defamatory stuff in the most visited BLP article in Wikipedia, and worst of all: it's Donald Trump! This guy is known to have sued many people and institutions of defamatory things like this. Let's not play with fire here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, one sentence. The coverage of this is enormous (world-wide), to not mention that this is a key issue would be borderline censorship, there is no need to go through a, (accused), grope-by-grope account, which is dealt with in other articles. Pincrete (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
discussion re editor conduct
Notice Pleace take into account that there is an AE case opened by DrFleischman against My very best wishes and DrFleischman just wrote to "My very best wishes" on his talk page: "Tell you what, if you can somehow, miraculously convince everyone editing the article to stop edit warring and to leave sexual misconduct out of the lead section until the RfC is resolved, then I'll withdraw my complaint.". I'm really shocked. So as I understand, that AE-case is deliberately used to force content out of this article by trying to force one user to grant a consensus here. This is in no way acceptable. --SI 15:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Probably needs noting that down-page discussions have resulted in a consensus on the wording of a description of the Bush-Trump tape in the lede. See discussion closures here and here. I'm unclear how those closures impact this RFC - but I would encourage both new commenters and those who have already commented to take a look at the wording and sourcing that is in the lede currently (ie, in this version of the page). It is a single sentence (+ another discussing Trump's response) that is exceedingly well-sourced, and - after much discussion downpage - the wording of it appears to have consensus. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
No, it's two sentences, not one, when you include Trump's response, and I don't think there's consensus on the "smear campaign" clause. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Let's give it a few days. Headcount is only one aspect of determining consensus. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
@DrFleischman: I think you misunderstood my edit. I didn't add 2 sentences to the lead section, I took an already existing 3-sentence paragraph from the lead section, condensed it into 2 sentences, and merged it into the campaign paragraph. Take a closer look at the diff you linked. I'm sure you'll agree that there is also no consensus forming around having an entire paragraph in the lead. I'm not sure what the status quo was when the RfC was started, but hopefully it will end with something more definitive than "no consensus". ~Awilley (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

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

I think what Awilley did was mostly a proper course correction justified by comments thus far at this page. Editors who have commented in this subsection have further tweaked it, for the better I think.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Well if he doesn't revert himself, I am going to. We don't adjust to whoever comments first. And you know that. SPECIFICO talk 01:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
The lead is relatively quiescent now. If there are things about it that you dislike, let's talk about it. I'm against turning the clock back to before Awilley legitimately implemented talk page consensus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
You shoulda thoughta that before mounting various RfC's. SPECIFICO talk 01:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this edit of mine, here is my edit summary: "Reverting huge edit to lead. Per WP:BLP, as I have explained and no one has disputed, 'Sexual assault is a broad term that often (if not usually) suggests rape or attempted rape'." My view is that numerous editors have tried during the past week to explicitly put "rape" into this lead, and having failed the next best thing is to insinuate rape in the lead. If that is not the intent, it has surely been the effect. In any event, the purpose of my edit was to revert that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Sorry, I probably read through the Talk page too quickly before writing a summary on my recent revision. Yes, it seems that since the sexual harassment page interchangeably uses "sexual assault" and "sexual harassment," it doesn't matter which one is used. I do think that "assault" sounds more severe than "harassment," which sounds more severe than "misconduct."
EDIT: In my opinion, "assault" makes the most sense, considering that it is used 44 times in the other article (including references), compared to only three times for "harassment" and three times for "misconduct." JasperTECH (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Do you think it's appropriate for Wikipedia to choose ambiguous terms that suggest Trump may have done a lot worse (rape, attempted rape) than most reliable sources say is being alleged? I don't. Incidentally, this discussion seems scattered all over this page, and it should be consolidated in the "Less obvious BLP violation" subsection, so feel free to move both of our comments there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I think it will make the most sense for future readers if we leave these comments here and continue the discussion down there. JasperTECH (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

I've removed the material from the lead section, which keeps being re-added despite the pending RfC. Reviewing the above RfC, I don't see consensus to keep anything in the lead section about the allegations of sexual misconduct, let alone 3 sentences. Please do not re-add this material until there is consensus to do so. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Jeppiz, please self-revert your re-addition of this material, which lacks consensus, before administrative action becomes necessary. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
DrFleischman I utterly reject your accusations and remind you of WP:OWN. All I did was to restore material you deleted (and which I didn't add). For you to call that an edit war is frankly ridiculous. As for consensus, nowhere does it say that consensus or lack of consensus is in favour of leaving material out rather than in. Of course consensus is preferable but rather unlikely in this article. That's not an excuse to impose censorship of any criticism. Jeppiz (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
This is anything but censorship. The material is in the body of the article, and no one is trying to keep it out, least of all me. The majority of participants in the RfC above agree that 3 sentences in the lead section is undue emphasis. As for excluding material when there's no consensus, see our policy on the subject. No consensus generally means to revert back to the article before the bold edit(s), and when in doubt, exclude contentious material from BLPs. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment While I assume good faith, some users seem to use veeery long RfCs as a way to obstruct the addition of any material, no matter how factual, that doesn't favour their candidate. RfCs should not be use to impose censorship on Wikipedia. Jeppiz (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
That is the antithesis of AGF, and is completely unconstructive IMO. All I see is that you are imposing your will against the majority of your fellow editors, regardless of your good intentions, RfC bedamned. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
@DrFleischman:
  • The manual of style says, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."
  • WP:BLPCOI says, "Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved."
  • The manual of style also says, "When writing about controversies in the lead of the biography of a living person, notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, and make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article. Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves."
The RfC should be about how much content to put in the main paragraph - not whether it should be included at all. The quotations above clearly show that the lead paragraph needs to cover the allegations at least to some extent. JasperTECH (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
You are free to add your perspective to the RfC above, but this discussion is about something different. It's about whether we should be re-inserting and re-inserting and re-inserting three sentences into the lead section during a pending RfC when there's no consensus to do so. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Schmarrnintelligenz, where is this so-called longstanding consensus? Wikipedia is not a democracy so we don't go by majority vote, and even if we did, a majority of RfC participants are against including 3 sentences in the lead section. I am in fact about ready to take this to ANI or AE for those who (collectively) repeatedly reinsert controversial material into a BLP without consensus, and those who (collectively) repeatedly falsely cite some mysterious, unwritten consensus. I'm having a hard time seeing this as anything other than pre-election POV pushing and disruption. Please convince me otherwise. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with DrFleischman's assessment. We are talking about the LEAD here folks, where it was boldly added and reverted and discussion was started and I guess continues?!? There is NO clear consensus for inclusion in the LEAD, full stop, so we should default to the previous versions. Folks can quote WP:LEAD all day, but it comes down to editorial agreement/consensus. --Malerooster (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I just wanted to interject that while I favor inclusion of the allegations in the lead section, and have opined to that effect in the RfC, my general feeling is that such things should be excluded pending conclusion of an RfC, per our general attitude toward BLPs. Coretheapple (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Good points. But it's also worth noting that this single RfC about sexual allegations only, is already 6,600 words long, yet it concerns a subsection only 2% of the article body and isn't even in the table of contents. The article has numerous other controversies with much more commentary, all unrelated to sex, but none of which are mentioned in the lead. This obsession with sexual issues appears to be intent on equating Trump with Jimmy Savile, whose article was 38% about sexual issues. The implication from this debate is that merely making a public allegation against someone is all it takes to place that allegation in the lead, and thereby undermine the neutrality of a bio with MSM news and soapish commentary. Leads are too important in massive articles and should be heavily monitored to comply with BLP guidelines, not those used by tabloids. --Light show (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Can we please reserve these types of arguments to the RfC above? This section is about what to do in the short term while the RfC is pending. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, let's not re-litigate the underlying passage. I was commenting on what to do while this RfC was pending. Coretheapple (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • This material should remain out of the lead until the RfC closes, or there is a clear consensus (at least 67% in favor, after discounting !votes that do not cite a policy-based reason. {Currently, I see one !vote on each side of the dispute that would be almost entirely discounted}).- MrX 16:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • According to the previous section (RfC itself), there is consensus that the content should remain in the lead, although not necessarily as a separate paragraph, or at least this is my reading. My very best wishes (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
You are entitled that reading, though others are entitled to the opposite, and I think there's no doubt that consensus is against having three sentences in the lead, as you have re-inserted three times during the pendency of the RfC. The whole time you ignored my repeated good faith inquiries in this subsection and the one immediately above. This is known as disruption. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry, but you are mistaken. This is not a BLP violation as something extraordinary well sourced, highly notable and already described below on the page. It is generally accepted that we should not change version of text under discussion during standing RfC. Repeatedly doing so is indeed disruptive. My very best wishes (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any consensus for this third sentence you inserted: "Two sexual assault claims, made against him prior to the campaign, also received increased media attention." This wasn't in the BLP when the RFC began, there's clearly no consensus to have a third sentence in the lead about the general subject, this sentence refers to stuff that has gotten relatively little press coverage, and the allegations discussed in this third sentence were all withdrawn at one time or another, though some of them are subsequently revived.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Here is version of the page which existed at the moment of posting this RfC. Strictly speaking, any modifications of the last paragraph in intro of this version is a violation of the RfC guidelines. But OK, some people improved this last paragraph (according you your suggestions!) and made it more neutral and less visible by placing it in the end of another paragraph. But you demand to remove this completely, even before the official closing of an RfC. This is not the way to go. My very best wishes (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Helpful interim edits

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

'Trump bragged about...' -> 'Trump jokingly bragged about...'[1]

References

  1. ^ Fahrenthold, David (October 8, 2016). "Trump Recorded Having Extremely Lewd Conversation about Women in 2005". The Washington Post. 'This was locker-room banter...' Trump said in a statement.

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

'Trump jocularly bragged about...'

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

This would be very inconsistent with the majority of RS (which mention neither "jokingly" nor "banter"). And given Trumps well documented, easily verifiable propensity to fib there's no way we should be giving his own excuses more weight than a very large number of RS that say something different (although we could certainly note his perspective I guess - it just shouldn't be treated as factual). Fyddlestix (talk) 13:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. This is decidedly a minority view, and it doesn't help that it's the subject's own view (spin). We would also want to consider what reliable sources have had to say about this press release. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
@Fyddlestix and Nomoskedasticity: Thanks, and you're 100% right about their not mentioning "jokingly". Indeed, many don't bring up Trump's statement at all. Of those that do bring it up, however, the vast majority actually mention "banter" (usually citing Trump's phrase, "locker-room banter"). Indeed, you'll have trouble finding even one mainstream source who would assert that it wasn't locker-room banter -- the polite term for "bullshitting". (bullshit, vb. "To lie or exaggerate to.") Trump acknowledges he was exaggerating to Bush; most professional journalists already suspected he was exaggerating to Bush.
So at this point it looks like there's nothing to worry about: We can just go ahead and add "banteringly". (Do let me know if you come up with anything interesting, though.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I strongly object to that - you and I must be looking at very different sources because the suggestion that "most professional journalists already suspected he was exaggerating" appears completely unfounded to me. To me it appears crystal clear that most professional journalists have taken Trump's statements very seriously, and the 15 women who've come forward to accuse Trump of doing exactly what he said he had done on the tape suggests that this was very far from "bullshit" (NB: the media has obviously taken those women's claims seriously too). We can say that Trump says this was banter (and properly source that statement), but we can't say that it was banter (much less "bullshit," or a similar synonym) - because most sources suggest that it was actually a pretty accurate description of things Trump has done and how he behaves. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
This is not helpful, and discussion of the language used if we do include something is already ongoing below in the section entitled "Language in lead section about sexual misconduct." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Do you think an early close to the RfC would help? It's been running for over 2 weeks now, and could provide some sort of guidance. ~Awilley (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I think that would be helpful. The last time I requested an early close I got slapped, so I'm not going to do it myself. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes an early close would be very helpful, or at least an evaluation of the consensus so far, by an involved editor.- MrX 22:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I think you mean UNinvolved... --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, yes! MrX is distracted as usual.- MrX 23:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
The RfC process appears to have stagnated, in spite of some consensus on some questions seemingly being reached. The process as of November 6 has become protracted, unduly cumbersome and -- disturbingly -- convoluted in labyrinthine nuance variously attracting especial degrees of ongoing and exceedingly superfluous analysis; the situation is in my view potentially obstructing realization of the consensus the RfC was designed to achieve i.e. it is arguable RfC at present is self-defeating to some extent and/or, at the least, self-serving insofar as a consensus does not appear any closer to being represented in the article proper.
Good faith edits with reference to WP:NPOV are increasingly reverted on account of extant RfC processes alone. Contentious content in the lede -- arguably though not necessarily representing a somewhat extreme end of the very spectrum from which consensus (that is to say the interim results of another RfC) is or has previously been drawn -- remains in situ in the lede while circular arbitration in the guise of this RfC paradoxically "guarantees" it remain there, and this is an altogether troubling state of affairs. Artifacts of these RfCs interacting with eachother appear then to contravene neutrality-in-general, for it would be preferable (surely) to exclude from the lede material that is subject to arbitration/RfC if the latter and unresolved RfC pertains to inclusion within that section - regardless of whether or not the content itself reflects consensus(!)
Clearly a tension exists, for notwithstanding the RfC vis- the content itself reflected, at least for a time, a consensus toward including the content verbatim in the article at all, the current RfC even in its present quasi-"non exhaustive" state appears to reflect a growing consensus that aforementioned content be excluded from the lede. Whomever is responsible for producing a remedy to this circumstance ought be circumspect of this tension, for it is potentially biasing, and a fortiori an excellent reason to at the very least suspend the content's appearance in the lede until a degree of consensus is reached and endorsed by an adjudicator in the form of making a binding or partially-binding edit. For these reasons I contend analysis by a team of administrators vis- prevailing consensus be executed as a matter of priority.
If that can not be achieved because "RfC is not a vote" then it ought be put to a vote instead. (and I apologise in advance if in so making this suggestion I open a Pandora's Box, but in my defense the status quo has no inferior, not that I can see...) I concur with the sentiment the RfC process vis-a-vis the "controversies in lede" has exceeded due tenure and indeed that practical inertia and a problematic (at times invidious) editorial predicament arising thereof are both real and extant phenomena which require to be addressed as soon as practicably possible. I will attempt to escalate awareness of this "Elephant in the Room" without, I should hope, invoking an RfC of an RfC which in furtherance to causing tedium would ironically defeat such a veritable attempt to break the cycle of circularness now inherent in these proceedings. sabine antelope 05:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I do not quite understand what you are trying to say, though I did see that your (wordy) edits to what I think was well-established text were reverted. Drmies (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I have pointed out what I believe to be innocent processes that are emergent and by-product of concurrent RfC's which, to some extent and to the detriment of the editorial process, overlap. These processes are complex but also simple if one appreciates they are born of a bureaucratic process which has become complicated because the outcome of the second (and current) RfC (include content in lede?) potentially co-varies with and may become biased by the outcome of the first RfC (include content as it is currently worded?). I am additionally concerned that the latter RfC appears to be inert insofar as a "consensus" de jure has not been agreed upon i.e. the RfC is not closed, which is problematic given:
  1. The contentiously-worded (though from prior RfC, reached by consensus) content remains in situ in the lede while RfC continues (perhaps perennially),
  2. A de facto consensus does appear to have emerged in this talk page which actually leans against including the material in the lede, and
  3. Indeed a number of editors are now expressing the view that the current RfC be closed and concluded.
On the question of your final remarks whereupon you blunder into seeming [ad hominem], well, of course my reasons, and the reasons of other editors of the English Wikipedia - are at least partially editorial in nature. If editorial capacity becomes diluted in (and/or thwarted by) excessively bureaucratic process that is flawed and seemingly unchecked then that is an even broader matter, even more of a concern, a fortiori the concerns I and other editors have raised, an even better reason to urge those with due capacity and responsibility to act. What I have done is called for action, such that editors may -- in furtherance to acting with regard to consensus -- act in the first place. I can make no further attempt to appease your incomprehension, unless of course you have the ability to arbitrate or, perhaps, comment meaningfully. sabine antelope 06:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I think I made only two remarks, so I assume you think both are somehow ad hominem--that's great that you think that, but it does not matter so much to me. Let's see if your commentary here gains traction. My incomprehension, by the way, is easily appeased, I think. Drmies (talk) 13:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Closure request

FYI, I have requested an RFC close here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

At 16:53, 10 November 2016‎ User:Mlpearc removed and archived the last part of this discussion -see Link for Language in lead section about sexual misconduct. It appears that a consensus was reached concerning the language to be used in dealing with the sexual allegations in the lead section. Discussion(s) was closed by Drmies CBS527Talk 03:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Cbs527, the discussions there were apparently separate from the RFC. Those discussions (which were scattered around the talk page until refactored together by the closer) were relatively sparsely-attended, and were about such narrow topics as whether "Trump bragged about groping and forcibly kissing women..." should be changed to "Trump privately bragged about his capacity for groping and forcibly kissing women due to his fame..." (the consensus was "no"). The RFC needs to be closed, and so I am requesting that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Slavoj Žižek endorsement : 'Trump is really a centrist liberal'

That sounds like a interesting characterization by one of the leading philosophers globally. Guardian Slate Zizek Opinion piece in Die Zeit Where to mention it in the article? Polentarion Talk 21:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

That is a good find, Polentarion. Žižek is not alone in making that assessment. There are GOP politicians in the US who concur with Žižek as well as people who are more centrist. I will look for some other sources and try to insert something about Žižek's views. Thank you!--FeralOink (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Youre welcome. I added some other links, from Slate till Die Zeit. I like as well well the joke about both being interested in slowenian women with a 30 years age difference ;) I added a section in Žižek's article but I am more cautious about editing this honey pot. Polentarion Talk 23:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Interesting theory but at this point I think it qualifies as an interesting fringe theory. None of those publications are regarded as mainstream, nor do they so regard themselves, as far as I know. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but Die Zeit is a major weekly in Germany and very much mainstream, the British Grauniad might lean to the left but is mainstream overthere as well. And Žižek himself is among the top 100 global intellectuals. Polentarion Talk 22:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
@Polentarion: We're in the US, not Germany. Yes, Die Zeit is indeed "very much mainstream over there". But so is RT in Russia. That doesn't make them mainstream here. Also, your statement that "Žižek himself is among the top 100 global intellectuals" may be not be supported by quantitative global rankings (such as citation count). Thank you for trying to improve this article by citing Žižek. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@Dervorguilla: The en WP is not about America. If we includes e.g. me, we are on the globe, not in the states. And Zizek has three professorships, on at New York University, one in the University of London and one in Lubljana. I started to edit on the Zizek-Trump story in Zizek's entry and have not yet found the section to do so in the Trump article. Any idea? Polentarion Talk 22:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@Polentarion: Thank you for providing this additional, very helpful information. Žižek does accordingly qualify as a "highly reputable" source, and you can cite him in passing. I would recommend adding a one-sentence paraphrase in the article body and a pertinent quotation of up to 49 words as a ref quote in the citation (not in the body). As for where to place it, you're on your own. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@Dervorguilla: Youre very welcome. I will go along that line. Polentarion Talk 23:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


It is true. Trump has supported one-for-all healthcare for America and his positions are very moderate on many issues. Same with French Le Pens... but media love to squeal far right far right far right. they are in trouble if there actually is a far right as they will have cried wolf. KMilos (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but Mme le Pen tries to lead the far right party of her father into right wing populism. Zizek sees Trump as leading the GOP back to the center (economically and social policy wise away from Bible belters and Teabaggers) and camouflaging that shift with politically incorrect behaviour and quotes. Polentarion Talk 22:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
@Polentarion: Based on your comment, Žižek needs may want to study WP's "Theodore Roosevelt" entry before making further observations about Trump. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC) 22:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I tend to not take Wikipedia articles for serious, I know who wrote them. However I like the idea about America's republicans being able to reinvent themselves. But "speak softly and carry a big stick" doesn't fit with the Donald, right? Polentarion Talk 22:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Zizek is a contrarian polemic. He's not a political scientist or historian of US politics. He also seems to be unfamiliar with Trump's actual stated policies on issues, framing him as pro-LGBT and not pro-life, despite Trump having vowed to overturn gay-marriage through the Supreme Court and overturn Roe v Wade. Zizek's uninformed input does not belong in this article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm surprised by the claim that those sources are not mainstream. That doesn't make any sense. But many people have commented on Trump. There has to be a special reason to cite any of them here.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
First I disagree with the deletion [8], but I am not sure wether I am under sanctions if I revert once. The funny thing is that Zizek -. which is a professor in New York - would be the first scholalry source at all in section based on press clippings, and not any academic (political scientist or historian) has been quoted so far. Žižek does qualify both as a "highly reputable" and contrarian source, but he is being heard and noticed globally. I ask to reinstore the section, any improvement is welcome. Polentarion Talk 22:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Zizek as (apparently) a Marxist-Leninist is not mainstream, and his opinion that Trump is a "centrist" is potentially distorted. Every man, every woman, every child, and every pet poodle has an opinion on Mr Trump, but we can't include everyone. I haven't seen any reason to include Zizek.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2016


Please link to his mother's article Mary Anne MacLeod thanks ScotKreek (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

ScotKreek (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Thank you - MrX 12:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Abuse filter

Is there edit filter about users to not change the future president to 45th president until 2017 ?
178.42.216.250 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

No, and for various reasons it would not be entirely practical. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Then you could add code witch replaces "president elect" to "45th president" on 1/20/2017.
178.42.216.250 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Sr.?

I may be wrong here, but shouldn't "Sr." be added to his name in the lead, as he has a son with the same name (like with Barack Obama and Barack Obama Sr.)? Linguist Moi? Moi. 13:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

There is Donald Trump Jr. Donald Trump Sr. is redirect. Compare: Barack Obama Jr. is also redirect.
178.42.216.250 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Per MOS:JR, others may differ, but this isn't something I've ever seen him called. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Alright, thanks! Linguist Moi? Moi. 13:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Feminine speaking style

I found this interesting. Trump's idiolect purportedly uses vocabulary correlated more closely with female speakers than with male ones, and this might explain some of the emotional resonance in his speeches. There's a critical response here. I haven't been able to find an academic reference so far, but the same author did something similar about Hillary Clinton ([9], search for Jennifer Jones) in 2015. It includes a mention of the text analysis program and corpus used in the study. I'll leave it to others to decide whether to put any of this in the article. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

None of this will go into the article. Doc talk 09:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that is quite interesting. FWIW, voice artist Peter Serafinowicz has made dozens of videos highlighting Trump's highly camp style of delivery. Here's an example. --Hillbillyholiday talk 09:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Found the paper about the Clinton study mentioned above: doi:10.1017/S1537592716001092 (WaPo) 50.0.136.56 (talk) 10:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

:Oppose. Per WP:DUE, if you need a policy argument. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC) (Stricken after introduction of more RS and per Dervorguilla below. I don't like it, I don't think it has any place in a self-respecting encyclopedia, but I no longer have a policy argument against it. I can't support it as Dervorguilla has, but I will abstain and withdraw.) ―Mandruss ☎ 06:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there really a need to continue this thread? I mean, there's no chance this is getting in, for more than one reason. The proposer (Yes, I know who you are) should know better than to bring this crap here. Waste of time. Doc talk 11:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll collapse it per WP:BOLD, which is obviously subject to challenge. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
It's far from "crap", Doc. Trump's idiolect is fascinating, albeit hard to summarise in a few sentences, there's almost enough material out there for a standalone article. Besides Jennifer Jones' study:
"The Idiolect of Donald Trump" by Jennifer Sclafani (Prof. of Linguistics at Georgetown) which was picked up by dozens of news outlets
"A Readability Analysis of Campaign Speeches from the 2016 US Presidential Campaign" by Elliot Schumacher and Maxine Eskenazi of LTI, picked up by the Independent and many others
"We Uncovered the Hidden Patterns in Clinton and Trump's Most Common Phrases" in Atlas Obscura with contribs from Dr. Viviana Cortes (Prof. of Applied Linguistics at Georgia State), Paul Baker (Prof. of Linguistics at Lancaster) and others
"95,000 Words, Many of Them Ominous, From Donald Trump’s Tongue" with contribs from Matt Motyl (Prof. Political Psychology at Illinois), Dr Jennifer Mercieca (Prof of lots of stuff inc. Presidential Rhetoric) and others
"Understanding Trump’s Use Of Language" by George Lakoff (UC Berkeley Prof. of Linguistics)
"Why Elites Lose at Trump’s Language Game" Foreign Policy
"The Way Trump Talks in Debates Is Contagious" in WIRED by Chelsea Coe
etc, etc, etc... --Hillbillyholiday talk 12:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree the information is interesting, maybe even fascinating, but I don't see any place for it in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Agree, with Doc, et al. I'm not into gender denial, but 'opinions' about Trump's speaking manner are highly subjective, even those of 'linguists' who perhaps can't think outside of their particular academic box, and don't belong in an objective biography. There is little to nothing about Trump's speech that jumps out and says he speaks like a women, but that's my opinion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not convinced the thing should be in the article either (maybe it should be in some other article) but I don't think Wikipedia articles are supposed to be "objective". They're supposed to be neutral, which is different. A neutral article summarizes sourced viewpoints about the subject, including subjective viewpoints, according to due weight (which is itself somewhat subjective). 50.0.136.56(talk) 18:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Add per WP:DUE. @Hillbillyholiday: I'm going to presume that you've checked those articles' discussion sections and that they don't cite many reputable sources that contradict this claim. For now, at least, you can treat it as a majority view. Relevant and important data. Many thanks! --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I stand by my assertion. Whether it's truly "crap" crap or not, it has no place in this article. And this discussion thread is a waste of time. But please! Continue! Doc talk 07:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
@Hillbillyholiday: Lunsford teaches that "a writer who attempts to persuade by asserting or assuming that a particular position is the only one conceivably acceptable within a community is trying to enforce dogmatism... People who speak or write dogmatically imply that there are no arguments to be made: the truth is self-evident to those who know better".
Nonetheless, WP:DUE requires that you add no more than (let's say) two sentences; and WP:CON requires that you ultimately accept a compromise of, most likely, one. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Enforce dogmatism? I'm not sure I even recommended introducing any of this material into the article, just said it was interesting. --Hillbillyholiday talk 13:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
In that case your comment was a (minor) WP:NOTFORUM violation, not being about improvement of the article, and it was seen by at least one editor (me) as support for the content. You might have explicitly identified it as an admitted FORUM digression. Just sayin', no huge harm done. At this point, then, I don't see enough consensus for inclusion of anything. I see the OP strongly in favor, Doc strongly opposed, Gwillhickers opposed, Melanie somewhat opposed, and Dervorguilla somewhat tepidly supporting a little bit of content. Regardless of the WP:DUE argument, that is not a consensus to include. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Self-correct. The OP is NOT strongly in favor, per I'll leave it to others to decide whether to put any of this in the article. - At this point, then, we have virtually nothing here. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
You can tally me as more than "somewhat" opposed. IMO we should not include it. It isn't enough for information to be referenced; it also has to have received enough significant coverage to be worthy of inclusion. And for a BLP I think we should avoid all long-distance evaluations of a person by some professional who has never met them. (We could fill up the whole article with would-be psychoanalysis of Trump.) BTW did you read the article in question? It lists key indicators of "feminine speech" as using short words and talking about yourself a lot. I don't know what kind of "research" that is based on, but many people would find it very offensive. (I guess I should say: "I am a girl and this is not the way I talk so I don't want it in my Wiki." Almost managed to keep it to words of one syllable, but "Wikipedia" defeated me.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
LOL. The article actually said that? And somebody brings that here and presents it as RS? This is becoming comical. Hell I find that offensive and I'm not exactly a white-knight feminist. Are we ready to pull the plug on this discussion? I tried to do that yesterday with Doc's support, and that was reverted. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
"Don't close it down yet. I want folks to see what I said." (There, nailed it!) --MelanieN (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Good work, that is an "average grade level" of 1.0 according to Readability Score. Sounds about right. See Spot run. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Hemingway wrote like that too, Mandruss! I try to, too. That's the way most of us speak; we should write like we speak. :) OK to close now. --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Your 10:12 comment scores grade level 15.5. Ok, much of that was a Lunsford quote. Your 03:40 comment scores grade level 9.7. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2016

Change his birth place to Queens, New York City, U.S., be more specific. 219.79.97.97 (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - Under discussion at #His birthplace. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Signature change

Hello. I recently updated Trump's signature to File:Donald J. Trump signature.svg do to the signature listed at his website and the pledge h sogned.Should the current one be used that is outdated or the newer, updated one? Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 14:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Existing and proposed, in that order:

―Mandruss ☎ 15:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - I'm open to reading opposing arguments, but I don't see any reason not to use the most recent. I like the seismograph effect of the proposed signature, as Trump is nothing if not earth-shaking. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The previous image is more readable and less "in-your-face" bold (notwithstanding the signer's boldness). Full disclosure: I reverted the OP's use of the new file in various places earlier today. — JFG talk 17:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
    A guy's signature is his signature, readable or not. And it appears that the one currently used is his former signature, at least as far as any evidence presented so far. Your reverts are routine BRD and are not a problem. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Looks to me that there is no "old" and "new" signature, just two separate executions of it by Trump's hand, the former one being clearer, hence preferred. — JFG talk 04:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I see a distinct difference beyond the difference in pen/width of lines. My dad's signature was a work of art that was almost identical every time for some 50 years; mine seems to change from day to day depending on my mood and mental state. No doubt some signatures are stable in the shorter term but do evolve over time. We have no idea which group Mr. Trump is in, so we have no way to really make decisions like this without a larger sample size with known dates for each. I still prefer the new one, but in the end I think this is a strong candidate for editor overthink so I'm easy. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
A signature does not need to be readable for someone to use it. Have you ever seen a doctor's signature or even Bobby Jindal's? You can't read them a majority of the time. Bobby's isn't readable, but yet we still use it... Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 19:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't president elect be the first thing about Donald Trump in the wikipedia article?

At this point of time, he is the president elect. Other qualities of him such as American businessman, reality television personality, real estate mogul are secondary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.171.47.184 (talk) 11:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I think this makes some sense. I did not change the lede sentence, but I positioned the information about his election and pending assumption of office as the second paragraph of the lede, leaving his business activities as the third paragraph. --MelanieN (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. "President-elect" should come first. It -- pardon the pun -- trumps everything else. Maybe it can be worded as follows? "Donald John Trump is the president-elect of the United States. He is a businessman, real estate mogul, and former reality television personality." Scaleshombre (talk) 05:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The opening sentence almost writes itself, if you look at the four model openings given in MOS:OPENPARA,

François Maurice Adrien Marie Mitterrand ... was a French statesman, who served as President of France from 1981 until 1995.
Cleopatra VII Philopator ... was a queen of ancient Egypt.
Cesar Estrada Chavez ... was an American labor leader and civil rights activist who ... co-founded the National Farm Workers Association, which later became the United Farm Workers.
Francesco Petrarca ... was an Italian scholar, poet, and humanist, who is credited with having given the Renaissance its name and inventing the concept of the Dark Ages.

the opening sentence in the article most directly comparable to Trump's,

Michael Richard Pence ... is an American politician and the Vice President-elect of the United States.

and Trump's own biography pages,

Donald J. Trump … is the archetypal businessman...
Donald J. Trump is ... continually setting the standards of excellence for real estate, sports and entertainment... The Trump signature is synonymous with the most prestigious addresses in the world.

You're probably going to end up with something like,

Donald John Trump ... is an American businessman and the 36th President-elect of the United States.

The second sentence is where you have to get a bit creative. One idea: As the chairman and president of The Trump Organization, he built a global brand in luxury real estate and mass entertainment (or the like). --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The current lead reads "Donald John Trump is an American businessman and politician who is the President-elect of the United States." How does "politician" add any useful information to that sentence? Since Trump's the president-elect, that makes it clear that he's involved with America's electoral system -- hence, a politician. If he'd held prior elective office, it would make more sense to put politician in the lead. As it stands now, it's like calling Jamie Dimon "a banker and the CEO of JPMorgan Chase." Banker is implied by the JPMorgan affiliation. Scaleshombre (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 Done – Removed "politician" and unsightly "is … who is" construction. — JFG talk 17:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

State of the article

This is not about Trump, but a famous 1831 caricature of Louis Philippe turning into a pear. (Honoré Daumier, after Charles Philipon, who was jailed for the original.) The same approach has been used on Helmut Kohl. I assume the underlying principles and body politics research could and should be used for the public view of Trump

Some points which should be dealt with:

  • A search for donald+trump%22+politics+doi on scholar provides about 2000 entries of actual studies. None of them went into the article.
  • The current references (about 600) are mostly online press commentaries stuck together ad libitum.
  • None of them has a doi.
  • An attempt to introduce Slavoj Žižek's comment on Trump got deleted quickly.
  • There is nothing about Trump's books
  • There is nothing on books about Trump.
  • The article lacks a something like a must read literature list.
  • The article mentions the Bibliography_of_Donald_Trump respectively the authorities control entries but doesn't cite anything out of it. OK, one of Gwenda Brail's biographical books has been quoted once.
  • That said, this article has been stuck together at random with online press clippings. It has no backing at all in scholarly sources.

It seems that non of the authors has ever read a book, from or about Trump. Will say, the most-read WP entry is being put together on lowest level possible, and doesn't even use one of several thousand serious studies, not even one. And bookwise its nearly as worse.

You couldn't write a freshman's essay based on that level.

I ask to tag the article on quality till the problems have been solved and ticked. Polentarion Talk 11:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The article (like all WP articles) is a work in progress and it's had a few GA nominations that were unsuccessful, so I think everyone understands that it needs further development, which is under way. So I don't see a need to put in any tags. I agree that your points listed above would be good things to address, except maybe the one about Slavoj Žižek (who I'd never heard of and who doesn't seem that important). It's an excellent list and I appreciate your having researched and posted it. Trump of course became a drastically more important public figure after the election than he was before, so there will probably be more spin-out articles as more sources appear, and those can hold stuff that don't rate packing into the main article. Heck, there's probably enough sources already to write a dedicated article entirely about Trump's hair. ;-) 50.0.136.56 (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
@50.0.136.56: You wrote, "The article (like all WP articles) is a work in progress...". Given the article's impact on Trump's life, that idea doesn't apply here. "The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives..." WP:BLPSTYLE.
You wrote, "Slavoj Žižek (... doesn't seem that important)". Search RT. 18 search results from December 7, 2015 to November 16, 2016. Latest: "Prominent Slovenian philosopher Slavoi Zizek explains why he thinks Donald Trump's presidency 'will trigger...'." --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
dear IP, I have been a little bit sardonic ;) But already before the election, one could have written an article about Trump based on books and studies, instead of press clippings. That hasn't happened ever since. The whole series of Haircomb conflicts on this talk page could have been solved by confining any hair content to be based on university studies about the topic. Which do exist! Žižek is a turbo prof in London, New York and Lubljana university, the sort of guy the Concorde had been built for. That said, a) the article has a large leeway for improvement and b) I get sorta sarcastic if guys fight other authors instead of looking for real sources.Polentarion Talk 22:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Books and studies in the arena of a living person tend to be problematic in the arena of WP:NPOV. The books 'written by him' were not written by him, and are clearly not NPOV. The books not written by him are generally not NPOV. This isn't a history or science article. WP looks to reliable sources. The Žižek source you keep bringing up may very well be accurate, but is highly opinionated. The concept that we should look at "scholarly" articles on a recent subject doesn't seem to be encyclopedic. You look for such articles in areas of science and history, not recent events. When Kissinger asked Mao, what are the lessons of the French Revolution, the supposed answer was: “it was far too early to tell”. Let's stick to what reliable sources report. Objective3000 (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
@Objective3000: You don't appear to understand the policy you're citing. See NPOV § Bias in sources. "A common argument is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference. This bias-in-sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute it as biased. Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone."
In other words, the editor who excludes a source for being "highly opinionated" could be trying to make his own POV seem neutral.
See also WP:BIASED. "Reliable sources are not required to be neutral or unbiased... Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."
@Polentarion: It looks like you may be good to go. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
@Dervorguilla: - I said nothing along those lines. The reason we use, what is being called, "press clippings," is that the respected press is the most reliable source of information on recent events. As interesting as they may be, I see problems with inclusion of the opinions of a psychoanalytic philosopher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective3000 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
@Objective3000: I would like to start with the first academic author commenting on Trump being involved here. Please explain the policy that makes Huffingtonpost interns more noteable than Žižek. Polentarion Talk 17:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't think a "Huffingtonpost intern" should be used as a source. Do you know that an "intern" was used as a source here? I don't think the opinions of psychoanalysts belong in articles about living office holders in general. Objective3000 (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
That sounds like a sort of discrimination due to professional background. Sorry but Zizek is famous, influential and his statements on Trump are being quoted globally. He is just a cultural critic with three professorships, one of them at the university of New York. Polentarion Talk 18:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
@Objective3000:: And my point is that "WP ignores reliable sources" - we look for easy going press clippings and we do not care for the overall picture. That said, science nowadays is sorta quicker - we have more than 2000 studies with a doi about Trump, so no excuse to ignore them. One example: The biggest part of this talk page is about Trumpian body politics (Semiotic and symbolic importance of physical details of a politician, leader or royality, including e.g. hair style). Books and studies covering aspects of similar cases in the past could be very useful to solve talk page conflicts in a BLP case. I already referred to the German "we shall overcomb" piece on the Trump hair memes. I assume that those studies would help to put our conflicts in an overall scholalrly perspective and help to reduce or solve them. Polentarion Talk 09:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


The idea that this article (much less the presence or absence of Slavoj Žižek's endorsement in it) has any effect on Trump's life makes me smile. I think Trump is safe from us no matter what we do. I only skimmed the article but it looks ok to me. I do agree that most of your sugestions would improve it, and by all means you should feel free to FIXIT. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 05:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

and @Dervorguilla: To boldly go where none went before? I cannot do that on my own. We as wikipedians need to change the way we work on such pieces. I wrote a short note on my userpage, maybe that could be converted into an essay of general interest. But I don't care about Trump,. I care about the readers. Polentarion Talk 09:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you really believe every article on Wikipedia is created by people who've read books on it? That's never how Wikipedia has functioned in reality. User1937 (talk) 10:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
For the record, - No. But I doubt a project trying to collect global knowledge on a certain subject will succeed if it describes it based on mere press clippings. We currently ignore several hundred books and thousands of recent scientific studies dealing with different aspects of Trump. Polentarion Talk 11:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


Discussion of the tags

As I was being deemed "free to go", I added tags to the article. General cleanup is needed and real sources should be added. List of items see above. Polentarion Talk 10:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump's Religion

I saw a previous conversation on this, but I think someone should add a section for Trump's religion in the info box. He is a member, albeit inactive, of the Reformed Church in America and his membership is in Marble Collegiate Church on Fifth Avenue in New York.[1]

References

  1. ^ Barron, James. "Overlooked Influences on Donald Trump: A Famous Minister and His Church". nytimes.com. New York Times. Retrieved November 10, 2016.
I truly don't understand how not putting Trump's religion is justified. The "inactive members" thing would appear to not be relevant as he is roughly as active as recent prior presidents have been (sure, George Bush was a born-again, but others are very similar to Trump), he said numerous times on the campaign trail that "[he is] a Presbyterian," etc. etc. "Generally considered inappropriate" yet in basically every American politician's infobox. Just because of bunch of Wikipedia editors think that to contempt Western religion makes them intellectual doesn't mean it should inexplicably be phased out of infoboxes, starting with Trump. --OettingerCroat (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I would agree with including his religious affiliation, it is one of the things I look for in an infobox, and is to be found in the info boxes of other presidents and vice presidents, it seems rather odd not to have it. It is certainly more relevant than the man's signature. Cyndane5 (talk) 05:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Cyndane5
I hope you all are not going to try to drag up this extremely contentious debate again. At the very least, read the numerous, lengthy discussions before dragging up old arguments again. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

How about any kind of indication as to where the discussion on this issue might be found. Rather than snidely dismissing their suggestions. ColeHeideman (talk) 02:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

It should be made clear that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote nationwide rather than the popular vote. Election in the US is decided by popular vote in the 50 states + DC rather than by popular vote nationwide as in for example Russia, Syria, Ukraine. In the case of the 2016 US presidential election, Donald Trump won the popular vote in most of the 50 states + DC while Hillary Clinton won the popular vote nationwide. It is incorrect to state that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote just because she won the popular vote nationwide when in fact Donald Trump won the popular vote in most of the 50 states + DC. In fact, even in Russia and Ukraine which do use the popular vote nationwide system, a candidate must win a majority AKA more than 50% of the votes nationwide in order to win on the first ballot without a run-off, a threshold Hillary Clinton failed to reach in the 2016 US presidential election. 38.121.82.105 (talk) 04:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

US presidential elections are decided by number of electoral college votes, not by "popular vote in the 50 states + DC." Scaleshombre (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Who wins in each of the 50 states + DC is determined by who wins the plurality of popular votes. 38.121.82.105 (talk) 04:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Image way too large and given too much weight

In the General election section, the image of the protestors is considerably larger than all other images in the article, save one, even those of Trump. Do we really need the image at all? There seems to be an WP:UNDUE issue here, and quite possibly a POV issue. The image needs to be either removed or made the same size as most of the other images. As it is, this image is about twice the size as the image of Trump making his victory speech. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. I moved both of those pictures to the side and thumb sized them. It would be nice to crop the Obama-Trump picture, so we could see more of the central personages; anybody up for that? --MelanieN (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for managing the image sizes. To avoid that stacking appearance I rearranged them a bit. -- I checked the source for the photo of Obama and Trump and it's not the best quality. Yes, the image does need cropping, but when I tried to crop the image it came out rather small. When I tried to enlarge the cropped image it came out looking sort of fuzzy, so I enhanced the focus. Hope the upgraded image is acceptable. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Does anybody know when the official White House portrait of Trump will be done so we can replace this garbage.

Who ever you are, you can voice your opinion about the current photo here.

Note: The talk page/TOC is very long -- seems like it's time to archive some of the sections that haven't been commented in in 30 days if there are any. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

A bot is already archiving threads on a daily basis, after a week of inactivity. See it at work. — JFG talk 05:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Trimming political positions

The section on political positions is now the longest in this biography, and much of the information is redundant with the main article Political positions of Donald Trump. Globally, the article is still a bit heavy at 79 KB / 13,000 words of readable prose. As the campaign season is over, I would suggest heavily trimming that section, summarizing contents and sending readers to other pages for details. — JFG talk 05:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The section in this article is tiny in comparison to the main article. It provides a good a summary of his positions and contains less content than the Business career section (as it should). Actually, I think the section carries even more weight now as he will soon have the capacity to try and implement some of these ideas. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Splitting article

The article is pretty long (79 kB readable prose size); maybe we should split it? —MartinZ02 (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

It's a little too early for that as the article is still in its formative stage. The idea of page length is a guideline, not a rigid and unyielding policy. As it says at Wikipedia:Article size at the top of the page, guidelines are ...best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Articles about Presidents, among others, often present us with such exceptions and whose length often far exceeds this guideline. For future reference this guideline also says that Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length. Just a note: There are many GA and FA articles that exceed guidelines, and with good reason -- they are well written, offer depth of knowledge and give the readers more than enough, rather than not enough information. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump university

Any legitimate reason, other than WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT why any mention of Trump University keeps getting removed from the lede? Especially right now, because Trump settled the lawsuits (after promising to never settle), it's all over the news and there is a ton of sources. [10] [11] [12] and ton more.

Obviously that a president-elect ran an organization which was sued for fraud and settled the case is notable. I believe this is a first time that something like this has happened. There's no justification from omitting Trump Univ from the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Not really. He licensed his name to dubious guys running this venture, and that was a liability in his presidential campaign. Now he closed the case. How big is this story compared to Trump's whole life? I say not big enough for the lead of his bio. — JFG talk 18:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Agree with JFG. I also note none of Hillary's scandals appear in the lede of the her article (cattle futures, whitewater,benghazi, etc...). Athenean (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Maybe because there was no legal cases involved and it was just media/Republican created "controversy"? Did Hillary settle any fraud cases? No? Then that's probably why it's not in the lede there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
If Hillary Clinton had had to settle fraud cases, the US "republicans" would go berserk and it would totally dominate the lead section of her biography and the article. --Tataral (talk) 04:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
It is notable that Trump is a scamster, but unfortunately RSs have not given this story the coverage it deserves. For instance, here is the NYTimes front page from yesterday http://www.nytimes.com/indexes/2016/11/19/todayspaper/index.html As you can see, they didn't even give it top headline billing on the story's biggest day. The section on TrumpU in the article body is of roughly the same size as the one on his golf courses. So, per WP:GREATWRONGS, it shouldn't be in the lead without more coverage. NPalgan2 (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with the others here that it should not be in the lede. He has had a very active and sometimes controversial business life, and this isn't the first (or the second, or the third) time that he has paid a fine or settled a claim for serious allegations. They are referenced in the article text, and detailed in full elsewhere (Trump University, Donald J. Trump Foundation, etc.). And there's a bunch of other important stuff that isn't in the lede, for example being the first candidate in decades to not release his tax returns, or the number of times he has declared bankruptcy. Basically the Reliable Sources which determine our coverage have given him a pass on many matters that would normally have been lede-worthy. --MelanieN (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
The lede is supposed to summarize the main topics in the entire article. Any topic that is given its own section should at least get a brief mention in the lede. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Its in the sub-section of Business career so not really its own top section. Also there are about 54 sections including subs on this article, that would be a lot to put in the lead. Finally going to agree with MelanieN and basically everything they said. PackMecEng (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Mentioning '54' items in the lede is nothing fantastic. Anything that has its own section, or subsection, should get at least a few words in the lede. Sometimes it's possible to mention several things in the course of one sentence. Not going to press this one, but a review of the sections in terms of representation in the lede wouldn't hurt. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The lead should certainly be revised. It doesn't have enough information about his business ventures. And there is a lot of unnecessary material which could be removed to make way for new information. For example, the lead describes him winning the primaries. Well, of course, if he is President he won the primaries. Also, the description of his early life and education seems unnecessarily detailed.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_35&oldid=1136669146"