Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 30

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

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

Survey and discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And please keep in mind

WP:BLP which says, "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported".Anythingyouwant (talk

) 02:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

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

• Comment - I think too many words; mostly that this and a lot of other presidential campaign stuff seems misplaced to be here in BLP at all instead of it being at
  WP:LIBEL. Just saying BLP has to look at BLP rules and that this is more a topic for campaign than for BLP. Markbassett (talk
  ) 03:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

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

• Yes, because counterallegations.

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

"During October 2016, several women accused Trump of having made inappropriate advances on them at some point over the past thirty years. Trump alleged that Mexican billionaire

Clinton campaign to generate the reports.^[1]

"

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Well I adamantly oppose that. You still manage to avoid the denial which

  WP:BLP strongly suggests we need. And no way is a GOP division more significant than that Trump is participating in the most-watched debates in human history, or that his opponent is Hillary Clinton. And "sexual misconduct" is so vague as to include sexual penetration.Anythingyouwant (talk

  ) 23:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

I merely said that "unwanted sexual touching" would be better than "sexual misconduct" because the former would not potentially include penetrative sex. That's all I said about it. As far as the comment from MrX acknowledging this observation of mine, the vast majority of press coverage has been about allegations of unwanted sexual touching. Other allegations have received vastly less coverage, and I abhor the notion that we would smuggle much more damaging allegations into the lead under cover of the unwanted touching allegations. And, it is extremely obvious that when

WP:BLP says to include denials, that does not mean to include them separately from the allegations in some other section or sub-article.Anythingyouwant (talk

) 00:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

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

@

WP:NPOV. ―Mandruss ☎

00:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Please review

WP:BLP there must be some basis for any mention of so heinous an allegation even against a figure with Trump's statements and history. SPECIFICO talk

01:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The fact remains—if we can address these allegations in articles, and it's clear that we can should per

WP:PUBLICFIGURE, part of WP:BLP, we have to be able to discuss them on article talk pages. That's what article talk pages are for if I'm not mistaken. ―Mandruss ☎

01:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not interested in generalized comments directing me to look at various unspecified comments. What I see is no consensus on this matter at all. We are all over the place. Yet, several folks who favor inclusion have been pushing and pushing, without doing a whole lot of convincing.

The material should stay out of the lead until we have consensus to include it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk

) 21:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It definitely doesn't belong there and no section of this talk page shows there's consensus to include it.

talk

) 22:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Removed per

WP:BLP?? It is relevant, sourced, an in no way in violation of WP:BLP. - Cwobeel (talk)

17:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

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

If something more outrageous comes up, it can be replaced at that time. For now, it is highly relevant and probably one the most relevant controversies. And relevant controversies belong in the lede per

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

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

It's still a controversy, but we don't have a

WP:RECENTISM at this point to add it to the lead. And yes, BLP applies. We need to remain neutral and not assume that this is what kills his chances of being president. – Muboshgu (talk

) 18:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Specific wording in the body

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

Two days before the

live mic recording from 2005

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the other hand, I failed to consider that the main article appears to lay it out in all its graphic glory, which changes the picture somewhat for me. I have just inserted a {{

Main article}} as close as possible to the related content here. ―Mandruss ☎

04:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Because the lead is supposed to summarize the topic. If Trump loses the election, then the fact he ran for president will merit one line. If he wins, the campaign may be skipped over entirely, as no doubt his presidency will prove more interesting than his campaign.

"Recentism" provides a good explanation of how to handle current events. The article on the late Toronto mayor Rob Ford does not even mention his mayoral campaign in the lead, although it was plagued with revelations about colorful behavior. TFD (talk

) 00:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Why should the

substance abuse scandal, which was widely reported in the national and international media.[3][4][5] Following his admission, Ford refused to resign, but City Council handed over certain mayoral powers and office staff to Deputy Mayor Norm Kelly for the remainder of Ford's term."[6][7][8] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk

) 10:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think that these explanations for excluding the material make any sense. We already spend one long paragraph in the lead describing Trump's Presidential campaign, so it's not a question of whether or not to mention it. That lead paragraph is woefully off-base in terms of
  WP:LEAD, and it's not encyclopedic or "neutral" in any way. MastCell ^Talk
  15:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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