This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Looking over the article, I think that Russia/Mueller need more WP:Weight. There is nothing in his presidency that has received more continued coverage throughout his term by WP:RSes. Yet the limited information in the article is hidden under a forth level header, which is under a third level header, named "Investigations." Moreover, the detail provided in the lede is too short, based on coverage by WP:RS coverage. I propose the following.

• 1. We bring all the information about Russia/Mueller under a second level header.
• 2. We expand the information currently in the article.
• 3. We expand the information currently in the lede and remove some of the information that is less important based on coverage by WP:RS.

-- Casprings ( talk) 16:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to oppose most of this. 2 paragraphs on "Russian interference", 3 on the special counsel investigation, and a paragraph in "Foreign policy" is enough. The information in the lede probably could be re-written and improved. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 16:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm more in less in agreement with Casprings; however, I feel like this is something that can be looked at as Mueller concludes his investigation and we know its outcome. The situation is very much in flux, and I think now is not the time to make such wholesale changes. One thing I very much disagree with is the notion that things are "hidden" under lower level headers. Headings are there to give titles to sections, and sections are used to logically contain content. We should not attempt to use headers as a way of altering the "weight" of content. -- Scjessey ( talk) 19:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT appears to disagree. "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." (emphasis added). If one can give undue weight by prominence of placement, they can also give due weight by prominence of placement. I think we can agree that a Level 2 section is more prominent than a Level 3 section, and 3 more prominent than 4. ― Mandruss  ☎ 19:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, but I think it's more about how early it appears in an article, than the heading level. -- Scjessey ( talk) 20:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The lead currently says "After Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey in 2017, the Justice Department appointed a special counsel to continue investigating links or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian government in connection with Russian interference in the 2016 elections and related matters.". Are you suggesting an expansion to this part, or attempting to reorganize the whole article just so that stuff about Russia and Mueller is earlier? Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 21:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest both. I think it should be a level 2 heading. It isn't a good fit where it is given that it predates his Presidency. Casprings ( talk) 21:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@ Casprings: We bring all the information about Russia/Mueller under a second level header. Given that the first level headings are called Level 2 headings (Level 1 is the article title), perhaps you could clarify this part of the proposal. ― Mandruss  ☎ 19:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should be a level 2 heading. In my view, given the amount of coverage, that is justified. Also, it is isn't a really good fit where it is given that is connections to Russia go back way before he became POTUS. Casprings ( talk) 21:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Casprings, I suggest you try an experiment. I have done this several times, with good success. Actually edit the article in one big edit to make it the way you'd like to see it. Then save it and immediately self-revert. Leave good edit summaries which explain exactly what you are doing at each step. Then post that diff here and everyone can see what this actually looks like. "A picture is worth a thousand words." Such a test can be very convincing, and can also create a much better basis for further discussion. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 21:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Disagree, the article should not be used for sandboxing. If you want to sandbox, use your sandbox. Remember to remove categories from the sandbox version. Advantages: No risk of disruption to the article, even for a few seconds. All the time you need to get it the way you want it, in as many separate edits as you need. If you don't have a sandbox (I don't remember whether that's an optional thing), User:Mandruss/sandbox3 is available. ― Mandruss  ☎ 21:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Mandruss. No need to disrupt this article. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 21:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with the above. Perhaps the first step is to come to consensus about rather this needs more Weight. Yes or no. If the consensus is yes, we can move on to the how. If no, then this can die. Casprings ( talk) 22:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@ Casprings: If you really want to explore a one-section approach to the Russia/Mueller stuff, consider creating one in your own user space. If it works, you can bring it to the attention of the editors here. I personally think it is too early to attempt such a thing, but perhaps it will scratch an itch you might have. -- Scjessey ( talk) 11:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• No. IMO a level 2 heading would be way, way UNDUE for this biography - which is supposed to cover his entire life. I think the current weight is enough, and the fact that it is scattered among several different main sections just reflects reality. If this issue becomes a major factor affecting his life - causing criminal charges or impeachment, for example - then it would assume a much more prominent place in his biography. But it would be CRYSTAL if not a BLP violation to expand it now on the chance that it might become more important later. -- MelanieN ( talk) 05:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• I would suggest that we don't over focus on one thing I suggested. Casprings ( talk) 10:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Not right now - I think the Russia/Mueller thing is multifaceted. It has so many angles and goes off on so many tangents, it would be impossible to tie them all together in one coherent section. It is possible this will change in the future (if, for example, it all led to the downfall of his presidency) but I think we have the correct approach at the moment. -- Scjessey ( talk) 11:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

We do have to be careful to not engage in WP:Synth. -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 19:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@ Emir of Wikipedia: I didn't suggest any form of synthesis. In fact, I said "it would be impossible to tie them all together in one coherent section." -- Scjessey ( talk) 14:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• No - not unless there's new evidence and not more speculation, editorializing and unsupported allegations which are..., well...meh. Most of what's in the article now about Russia belongs in the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, not in his bio. A new article that focuses on Russian interference in US elections may be warranted if we don't have one already. Now that we know they were tampering as far back as the Obama election those articles can be updated. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 02:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

You misread the source. It does not say there was tampering as far back as Obama's election (which was in 2012). It is about Obama's actions with regard to the tampering in the 2016 election. -- MelanieN ( talk) 04:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@ Atsme: Seriously? The allegations against Trump are "meh" and by the way, it's Obama's fault? C'mon, dude! At least try appear interested in neutrality. -- Scjessey ( talk) 14:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN I've posted links about it before, just added a new one, but here's one that goes back in time to support the others I've included and also showing it wasn't just about Trump. Lots of speculation as to Russia trying to influence elections - the candidates are what influence elections and the only influence is what the candidates do/have done to themselves, so it really does seem a bit of a stretch...unless they actually hacked the voting machines & changed votes but we've been assured that didn't happen. Anyway, here's a better link to show it's not just about Trump, and you were right about UNDUE. Enough already with Trump-Russia...it's much broader than this one campaign, or poor Hillary...she just made hacking easier with her unsecured servers, blackberries, iPads, etc. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 15:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

poor Hillary...she just made hacking easier with her unsecured servers, blackberries, iPads, etc Wrong again. None of the reported hacking or leaks involved Hillary’s own emails, or her own servers and phones. In spite of all the howling about her unsecured server, there’s never been any evidence that it was breached, and nothing has ever been leaked that came directly from her systems. This article notes that many individuals and organizations, both Republican and Democratic, were hacked and in some cases information was leaked. "The targets over the past two years have included a Who's Who of Hillary Clinton associates from her State Department tenure, the Clinton Foundation and her presidential campaign, as well as top Republicans and staffers for Republican candidates for president." "The hack has especially targeted individuals around Democratic nominee Clinton" (such as Podesta’s emails), also "individuals associated with the Clinton Foundation." This article describes hacking of associates, people around her. What the article DOESN’T say is that Hillary herself was ever hacked. No evidence of a breach of her own systems has ever been found, in spite of years of intensive investigating by Congressional committees and the FBI. Not the Clinton Foundation either - just the emails of individuals associated with it. I know this is off topic, but we need to keep the record straight and not let wrong information go unchallenged. After you have a chance to see this and respond, I will hat this part of the discussion as off topic. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• No - Casprings said "in his presidency" so it belongs there and not here. Or maybe in the articles specific to it. Unless it is an action by Trump or major effect on his life, it is a bit WP:OFFTOPIC for this WP:BLP. Also, repeating it over and over in N articles seems to be exceeding the due [[WP:WEIGHT]. Markbassett ( talk) 00:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• No I count many paragraphs with a total of 28 instances of “Russia” or “Russian.” It seems sufficient. Greg L ( talk) 01:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that as of right now the info does not belong in the lede. It surely belongs in the article however. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It`s spelled lead 2602:306:BD95:45F0:1CC1:706A:52E3:7C6E ( talk) 01:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

JFG clearly disagrees with what I added on Daniels - if it's not due here, where is it due then? starship .paint ~ KO 08:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@ Starship.paint: They use this little tactic, where if you put it into one article (say Donald Trump) they claim that it doesn't belong in that article but some other article. Then when you try to put it into another related article (say Donald Trump sexual allegations) they say it doesn't belong in that article but another, unspecified, article. It's like a little shell game. Anything controversial to do with Trump, we have to go through this inane process to get some actual info in. It's a way obstruct inclusion of reliably sourced text. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 04:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Since the last discussion though, the White House via press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders has admitted that there was an arbitration case won "in the President's favor" - which points to certainly something going on between Daniels and Trump, otherwise there would be nothing to arbitrate. Also a new development, Daniels is suing over the non-disclosure agreement, if there wasn't one, there would be nothing to sue about. Finally, remember the first smoking gun, Trump's lawyer admitted he paid $130,000 to Daniels but refused to say why. starship .paint ~ KO 08:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

"The Stormy Daniels Affair" has been receiving significant and continuous coverage in the mainstream media (both old and new media) for quite a while now. The internet is littered with cast iron reliable sources discussing the matter. All are basically saying the same thing:

1. Trump probably had an affair with porn star Stormy Daniels (Stephanie Clifford).
2. Fearing the news would come out at a critical time of the election, he had his lawyer pay hush money to keep Clifford quiet.
3. Seeing an opportunity to raise her profile and make a bit of extra cabbage, Clifford drizzled a spoonful of detail over some eager media outlets.
4. Mainstream media got wind of Cohen's payment, forcing Cohen to contort himself into a ludicrous shape in order to try to protect his client (Trump).
5. Trump orders his Press Secretary to lie to the White House Press Corps (what else is new?) about a ridiculous "win" in arbitration.
6. Clifford's lawyer is on cable TV almost continuously.
7. As usual, it's no longer about the affair, but rather it is about the lying.

We can no longer pretend this isn't getting significant play in the mainstream media, so it absolutely belongs in this BLP in some form or another. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia should refrain from reporting recentist gossip, especially in high-profile articles on living persons. — JFG ^talk 18:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The ship sailed on "recentist gossip" years ago, it is verifiable (that's not to say the affair is true, per se, just that sources are covering it) and is a prominent section of Ms. Daniels' article, Stormy_Daniels#Alleged_affair_with_Donald_Trump. Dismissing it as a base conspiracy theory is beyond the pale. ValarianB ( talk) 18:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Noting coverage on the current home page of that notorious gossip rag, The New York Times. ― Mandruss  ☎ 18:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Still recentism, and yes still sensationalist gossip, no matter who prints it. And I said nothing about conspiracy theories. I would definitely support inclusion if/when something more tangible appears. WP:There is no deadline. — JFG ^talk 22:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I think we'd all be interested in a credible argument to keep this kind of stuff out of the article, JFG, but that ain't it. SPECIFICO talk 18:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• I have zero interest in getting involved in this article or talkpage, but I will make a general comment about site policy. WP:BLP specifically addresses this situation, in its section on "Public figures". The policy states: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." It goes on to say, by way of example: "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred." (emphasis mine).

  So this sort of material is described as appropriate for inclusion—in fact, it's a canonical example of appropriate material—in the WP:BLP policy. It's arguably a BLP violation to remove this material, since fundamental site policy so clearly supports inclusion. I'm concerned by the lack of policy awareness in some of the arguments here; among other basic matters, essays on recentism and deadlines don't supplant WP:BLP, which is a fundamental and non-negotiable site policy. MastCell  ^Talk 22:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

You are right that the BLP policy does not prevent us from mentioning these allegations, but it also does not obligate us to mention them. We still have to consider due weight in Trump's overall life story, and that can't be established as of yet. — JFG ^talk 22:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Please respond to the points MastCell made above. You've just repeated your POV. SPECIFICO talk 22:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

( edit conflict) @ JFG: the policy is hardly agnostic on the subject. It literally says that such material "belongs in the biography". (Where, and how broadly, to cover it are questions of WP:WEIGHT). You're contravening a clear statement of fundamental site policy, and it's not a good look. MastCell  ^Talk 22:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

A large number of sexual or "groping" affairs have been considered for inclusion in this bio and a consensus of editors has agreed to just briefly summarize them, while pointing to the main article Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. Some more serious allegations such as a rape case have been fully rejected from this article after extensive debate. So there is not hard and fast obligation for the biography to include an allegation just because it exists, nor to immediately reflect the latest scandal à la mode. That's why we are all here to discuss the case and make a collective determination, and I will most certainly respect any consensus that emerges. — JFG ^talk 23:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

So... you're saying we should include the Stormy Daniels stuff in the "sexual misconduct allegations" article? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 04:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

That would make sense. Strange it's not in there yet. — JFG ^talk 15:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to get sucked in any further here, but I'm concerned that moving the material to the "sexual misconduct allegations" article is inappropriate, and potentially a BLP issue. After all, there is no allegation of actual misconduct in this case—right? (I can't say I've followed the sources or editing here closely, so correct me if I'm wrong). I don't think anyone has suggested that anything non-consensual occurred, and the non-disclosure agreement was apparently legally dubious but not a form of "sexual misconduct". MastCell  ^Talk 15:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, there was no sexual misconduct, just alleged adultery. starship .paint ~ KO 09:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Adultery is considered misconduct by a rather large proportion of society. The alleged misdeeds are not misconduct by Trump against the porn actress, but misconduct by both of them against Melania. — JFG ^talk 11:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• @ JFG: - I agree with you. Adultery is misconduct, against Melania. But there was no sexual misconduct against Melania. University of Iowa: "Sexual misconduct is a broad term encompassing any unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature that is committed without consent or by force, intimidation, coercion, or manipulation." It's maritial misconduct so it can't go in the sexual misconduct article. Unless you name that article to "sexual + marital" or "all misconduct". starship .paint ~ KO 13:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

That's a valid reason not to include it there, ok. So where to put it? That story is currently in both articles Stormy Daniels and Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen (lawyer), plus briefly at Daniels' lawyer Michael Avenatti, looks good enough in the current state of reporting. Might also deserve a mention in Legal affairs of Donald Trump, given the recently opened suit and counter-suit. — JFG ^talk 13:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The whole detailed story can go to Legal affairs of Donald Trump. The allegation of the affair should go into Donald Trump, that's one sentence. Maybe another sentence of the $130,000 payment and non-disclosure agreement, that would make it two sentences in the main article. starship .paint ~ KO 03:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The significant factor is that POTUS and his counsel apparently believed that Trump was compromised by some aspect of this incident. The significance is that a candidate and now elected official apparently was vulnerable to blackmail. SPECIFICO talk 15:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with others that this material should be included in the article, but not the lead (not yet; possibly later). This is well-publicised matter that is directly relevant to Trump's bio. In fact, to leave this material out would tend to tilt the article's neutral stance. Casually dismissing it as "sensationalist gossip" is not much different that declaring IDONTLIKEIT.- Mr X 🖋 23:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think it belongs in the lede unless it actually sinks his Presidency (just don't see that happening). He's had an affair with Marples before and none of his family are in the lede. starship .paint ~ KO 09:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• At this point, one just ignores the editor who's entry into the discussion is directly contradicted by policy, as shown above. We should work out a paragraph here before inclusion. TheValeyard ( talk) 00:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Somebody should just go ahead and be WP:BOLD. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 04:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

For a controversial issue at an article under the ArbCom remedies, there is little point. After the one inevitable revert, we're back here seeking consensus. ― Mandruss  ☎ 04:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The point is, we already had it, two more supports below to pile on as well. If the holdout reverts, you send them to the enforcement page. TheValeyard ( talk) 13:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I was reading too precisely. An edit with consensus is not a BOLD, by definition of BOLD. ― Mandruss  ☎ 16:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support inclusion per MastCell's clear analysis. I too am reluctant to delve deeply into the 24/7/365 Trump world on Wikipedia, but the policy based reasons for including this content are so strong at this point that I must comment in favor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. There are no BLP problems nor would it being a BLP mean we reduce or remove that coverage, as pointed out above, because of how public a figure Trump is. This is has been coverage extensively, far more than say the rape case. NPOV doesn't have a thou can ignore WEIGHT in highly reliable sources if what they print is "gossip". I think there is consensus to at-least restore this, though I'll wait. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 06:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment In this case, where we have a single editor denying WP site policy and deflecting any attempts to engage in discussion, there is clearly consensus to include. So if any text is reverted, it can immediately be reinstated per current consensus. I don't believe the DS are intended to prevent reinserting evident consensus that a single editor chooses to deny. SPECIFICO talk 13:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

  Don't edit war though. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support per Galobtter and others, but I don't see any reason to push something this controversial to the article after only 36 hours of discussion. One or two editors need to chill and stop picking fights.
  I would be more likely to Oppose in this article if there were another article where this would fit. It has already been established by clear consensus that it doesn't belong in an article titled "sexual misconduct allegations" because no sexual misconduct is alleged.
  I'll also comment that I find the phrase "pornographic actress" linguistically offensive, as it says she is an actress who is pornographic. The better phrase would be "pornography actress", but I guess we're stuck with the bad one since it's all over Wikipedia content and even some reliable sources. ― Mandruss  ☎ 16:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

  @ Mandruss: - how about "porn actress" starship .paint ~ KO 09:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

  Too slangy for Wikipedia, imo. Actually my first choice would be adult film actress, as it avoids some stigma without violating MOS:EUPHEMISM in my view. Readers who are unfamiliar with the term "adult film" would have to remain uninformed about the nature of her films (which is of secondary importance) or be enlightened by the wikilink, and I could live with either.
  But pornography actress would be an improvement over pornographic actress—it's the films that are pornographic, not the actors in them. ― Mandruss  ☎ 17:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

  Does the label matter really? What about "nude model" or just "actress"? The issue is blackmail -- not her profession. SPECIFICO talk 17:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

  RS say it matters. Find me one source that doesn't mention that she's a porn star. "Nude model" is more often code for prostitute than for porn star, and we should avoid codes anyway. ― Mandruss  ☎ 17:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

  Code? OMG how do you know all these twists and turns of phrase? I guess we'll have to take your word for it. SPECIFICO talk 17:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

  Obviously a fine upstanding gentleman such as myself doesn't have any firsthand experience in these areas. I read a lot. ― Mandruss  ☎ 18:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

This is just more of the depraved Hollywood media culture. The Americans get what they deserve, both the good and the bad, but mercy on their souls in the hereafter. (Just thinking of Rex and Hope Hicks today.) SPECIFICO talk 18:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• Include, briefly. The suggestion to put it in the "Legal issues" section is a good one - even though that is a subsection of Business activities. As pointed out, it doesn't belong under "Sexual misconduct"; there is no sexual misconduct on his part alleged here, since she says the affair was consensual. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

  Especially on his part, according to her. SPECIFICO talk 20:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support per WP:WEIGHT. It should be included, briefly, in the "Legal issues" section. As far as terminology goes, pornographic film actress (article) or adult film actress (redirect to the same article) would work. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

  "adult film actress" is okay with me, that's what Mandruss proposed also. starship .paint ~ KO 03:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Gossip and partisan character-assassination has 0 place in the lede. Zigzig20s ( talk) 03:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

  @ Zigzig20s: Not in the lede, but in the body. Presence of a lawsuit rules out gossip, Trump's lawyer admitting he paid $130,000 rules out partisan character assassination, also there was an arbitration case supposedly resolved "in the President’s favor", so there is definitely something going on. Read Stormy Daniels for the details. starship .paint ~ KO 03:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

  @ Starship.paint: Don't bother, we've seen this before. To a few editors, anything Trump-negative short of a court conviction is gossip and partisan character-assassination. It matters not to these editors that that is clearly inconsistent with Wikipedia content policy, so you're wasting your "breath". ― Mandruss  ☎ 03:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Ping didn't work, if something is clearly inconsistent with Wikipedia content policy, it should be easily refuted though. starship .paint ~ KO 09:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose-ish - not really a RFC here, but until debate turns from what was "apparently believed" or "apparently blackmail" to actual article text proposals based on cites, I'll suggest restraint is in order. BLP lead says it "must" be written conservatively and WP:PUBLICFIGURE says avoid inflammatory labels, so caution or restraint on sexy sensationalism seems in order rather than a stampede to insert something instantly. Asking for carte blanche to insert unknown text seems likely to lead to a revert and coming back for a RFC. Markbassett ( talk) 03:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• @ Markbassett: - this is the most basic detail. It is conservative. Would you agree with this? starship .paint ~ KO 03:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• User:Starship.paint Thanks, glad to discuss actual proposal. The line "Trump is alleged to have had a extramarital affair with pornographic actress Stormy Daniels in 2006, months after Barron was born." with cites to BBC and CBB seems close textually, though the Family section seems not the right place and it still faces the JFG objection of Undue in his BLP. (I take that to mean he sees it as it happened 12 years ago and made no noticeable effect on his life. This compares to the Marla Maples affair got less text although it led to a divorce, marriage, and daughter -- and that the Access Hollywood tapes got a couple mentions for the role that played in the debate and the sexual misconduct allegations.) Markbassett ( talk) 04:21, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Does it need a divorce, marriage or daughter to be relevant? Under WP:BLP there is WP:PUBLICFIGURE, with a clear example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. There is a public scandal, multiple major newspapers publish the allegations. This man is the most public figure in the world. starship .paint ~ KO 06:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

That does not actually establish weight though. Though at this point I think coverage has gone far enough that it might be warranted, just not with the current phrasing or location as cited above. PackMecEng ( talk) 13:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Starship.paint Any of those life events would make it biographically significant -- something this story lacks. As to the example you state, note the guidance is actually the line above -- first it has to get past "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented". And whether this is actually what JFG mean by UNDUE is just my speculation. He may instead have meant that it's not accumulated a lot of weight as compared to items such as the tapes during the campaign or the Russian bits ... it's a 2011 story about 2006 that resurfaced in 2018 and is getting coverage this month but "covfefe' got more than that ... a month in the news is not a lot for this individual. Or JFG may have meant that it's got it's own article and is involved in two others and so it is already covered in those breakouts from his bio, or that this really isn't the bin for it. If it is to go here, does that mean a merge and delete there ? Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 00:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you are arguing. It's relevant because it's a sex scandal [2] [3] [4] and he is the most prominent politician on the planet. I don't know where you really are advocating for this to be put, and I don't know if this has its own article. starship .paint ~ KO 14:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Paeans to JFG belong in his bio article, at such time it's written. Meanwhile, we have the POTUS subject to blackmail, suspected of a campaign finance violation, frivolous and vexatious litigation, and other matters relating to him personally, to his business, and to his campaign. And we're supposed to conclude this stuff doesn't belong in his bio article while we enshrine Dr. Jackson's media song and dance about POTUS recognized a hippo on the elephant-hippo spectrum? Oh. SPECIFICO talk 14:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• We have consensus among both talk page regulars, article newcomers, and two respected uninvolved WP veterans. Now, let's put the "JFG objection" in the thankyouverymuch file and go ahead with the article text on this. Not in the lead yet, but clearly in the BLP. SPECIFICO talk 13:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO Bad count, bad idea - your accuracy misses four editors saying against or maybe later, and shouting 'I am right' 'onlyone' 'nownownow' seems unlikely to be helpful. So I think we can ignore that last and hopefully focus more on what words and where and maybe somebody will actually discuss with JFG et al the objections and ways to address them instead of shouting them down ? Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 00:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

[5] [6]. Half a dozen folks have tried to discuss with JFG, but from all indications, he just repeats no. Surely you don't think citing policy to him on a talk page is shouting him down. It would be his choice whether to engage. Otherwise, we move on. SPECIFICO talk 01:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support, per User:MastCell and others. Our BLP policy requires inclusion: "The allegation belongs in the biography." As the most WP:PUBLICFIGURE, he gets the least protection, not just in real life, but also according to our BLP policy. There are abundant very RS which cover this. The allegation doesn't have to be true. It exists and is documented. We are obligated to include it. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 06:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment: User:Mandruss is a prophet -- "After the one inevitable revert, we're back here" -- someone ran and made an edit (not the previously shown language) into the Legal affairs section and... I just reverted it as a topic with TALK in progress and not a clear consensus on what to do as yet. We're back here, for the moment, will see if the text is brought in for discussion. Markbassett ( talk) 00:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

11 in favor with 2 opposing looks like a pretty clear consensus to me. It seems to me that your revert was against consensus, but let see what others have to say.- Mr X 🖋 00:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

user:MrX Thank you for a vote count that at least was not voicing "just one", and I note your count is of editors other than the original Starship and JFG. I'll also note four were reluctant or for going slow/brief (Cullen, Mandruss, Melanie, KE) and one was for single line (Galob) so note this was indicating more discussion. Also see the text put in discussion was a single line -- which was not what appeared. Feels like there is approval for at least one line, text TBD, not yet out of discussion and now into next section. (Which would be great except its already OBE edits in the article ...) Markbassett ( talk) 04:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support per everyone above ...... the whole thing has been well documented not only by well respected news sources but also well respected tv stations around the globe, Regardless of what one thinks about it all as I said it's well documented and as such should be in the article. – Davey2010 ^Talk 00:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - per MastCell and others. Place in Legal issues section and call her an adult film actress. Gandydancer ( talk) 15:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - per MastCall. There are now allegations of physical threats. I don’t think that should be included, at least as yet. O3000 ( talk) 16:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• @ MONGO, JFG, Zigzig20s, and Markbassett: - Trump (through his lawyer) just made this whole story far more notable. Trump is suing Daniels for $20 million for breaking the non-disclosure agreement 20 times. If there was ever any doubt that this is relevant, it's gone. This is important enough for $20 million, as determined by Trump and his associates. This confirms the NDA between Trump and Daniels and indirectly confirms that something happened involving both of them. starship .paint ~ KO 09:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Starship.paint - No, that's not what makes something BLP relevant. Again, biographical relevance is the impact to his life -- so what impact does one more lawsuit make to HIM ? He's been in hundreds of lawsuits, including multiples for the sexual allegations down to the Jane Doe story and none of those are detailed here. Previously this article had mentions of the Jane Doe etc lawsuits were inserted and later removed -- and this one seems more credible than Jane Doe, but lacks the threat of a felony charge so seems also a 'do not include'. The lawsuit over 1973 racial discrimination and another for Trump University are the only lawsuits mentioned. He's got about 100 times that much money already. It's effect is not going to stop the story that is already out. The prospective effect seems to for Stormy Daniels by blocking her making a few million profit in interviews/book deals so belongs in her BLP. Also ... compare the lawsuit to Melania did a few lawsuits not long ago over The Daily Mail story -- sued them for $150 million and a New York Times reporter for public verbal remarks, and sued a blogger. Only the Daily Mail suit is in her article, partly because it sounded like she was going to make money from being First Lady and partly as that was such a large amount in relation to the profit of Daily Mail. Nope, the lawsuit is another grain of sand but it's just not a significant event or money to him. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 18:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• @ Markbassett: - the relevance is that the President is embroiled in a sex scandal and is employing a lawsuit giving further credence to the scandal itself. In the sexual allegations I believe it was the women filing a suit and not him. You argue regarding Melania that "that was such a large amount in relation to the profit of Daily Mail" - and that perfectly applies in this case. The President is suing not a big corporation, not the government, not a wealthy business partner, but a private citizen. [Reportedly https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/actors/stormy-daniels-net-worth/] Daniels has a net worth of $2 million. Each breach of the NDA is worth $1 million. Trump's lawyers are arguing she broke it over 20 times. You can calculate that for yourself. If the NDA is enforced, Daniels will incur extreme costs to tell her story, which is relevant to the President because he's willing to sue her that much to stop it. starship .paint ~ KO 02:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

*@ Starship.paint: - hardly 'embroiled' ... he's off golfing and generally doing political tweets re FBI, while she doesn't even rate a twitter from him, lead press notice, and internet coverage is going to Jim Carrey's paintings. The dollar amount is not notable because it is in line to counter what she'd be getting from estimated 20 articles/interviews/book deals etcetera as compared to the Daily Mail amount being outrageously higher for a single article. It doesn't seem to 'add credibility' either -- it seems merely to reflect the monetary incentive of suing someone making possibly millions off this pays for the lawyers and maybe a couple million profit. This just seems a routine legal nothing to his life -- I suggest you look at the Legal affairs of Donald Trump and check a $20 million suit against the couple of Billion dollar lawsuits and ones in the 100 million dollar plus region. This one just isn't very notable among the many lawsuits he's brought or had brought against him. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 21:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Bold, but beautiful

Welp, I made an edit in accord with what I thought was consensus and I was reverted. I propose this wording which briefly covers the key points:

Trump allegedly had an extramarital affair with pornographic actress Stormy Daniels in 2006, months after Barron was born. ^{[1] [2]} Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, was paid $130,000 by Trump's attorney Michael Cohen just before the 2016 presidential election. Jill Martin, a Trump Organization lawyer, is counsel in an arbitration demand involving Essential Consultants LLC, a company formed by Cohen to pay Daniels the $130,000 as part of a confidentiality agreement. Daniels is suing Trump to be released from the agreement so that she can speak about the affair. ^{[3] [4]}

Please indicate support or opposition below.- Mr X 🖋 00:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

May I offer an alternate version - maybe with clearer timeline? Call it Option 2. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S. On checking the sources I cited, "Adult film star" is used twice, "porn star" once, so I'm going with "adult film". I'm not going to say "star" because, hey, puffery. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Pornographic actress Adult film actress Stormy Daniels has alleged that she and Trump had an extramarital affair in 2006, shortly after Barron was born. ^[1] Just before the 2016 presidential election Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, was paid $130,000 by Trump's attorney Michael Cohen as part of a confidentiality agreement. The money was paid through an LLC set up by Cohen; he says he used his own personal money for the payment. ^[2] In February 2018 Daniels filed suit against the LLC asking to be released from the agreement so that she can tell her story. Cohen reportedly filed a private arbitration proceeding and obtained a restraining order to keep her from discussing the case. ^[3] Jill Martin, a Trump Organization lawyer, is counsel in the arbitration case. ^{[4] [5]}

• Original text To add the text that was in the RFC question above was/is (lthough it is reverted again in the article) -- what people in the RFC may have thought was under discussion. Markbassett ( talk) 03:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

"Trump is alleged to have had a extramarital affair with pornographic actress Stormy Daniels in 2006, months after Barron was born. ^{[1] [2]}

FTR, there has been no RfC on this question. ― Mandruss  ☎ 04:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Mandruss - agreed this is not the RFC question, which is why I reverted the edit in the article which claimed consensus for a paragraph that was not the text in the RFC -- and MrX got things back here for th BRD discussion apparently in the same 14 minutes while Davey2010 was undoing my revert. I did add the original text to the list above, FWIW. I think that RFC could be closed as moot / OBE / tangled because the proposal was not done or conclusion stated before things moved to different material. Meanwhile, I'll try and add in as able and note it is technically in the space of the RFC if not on topic -- considering it a subsection for more detailed side exploration of text mentions in the above. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 04:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@ Markbassett: There has been no RfC about inclusion of any Stormy Daniels content in this article (or any other article). See WP:RFC for explanation of what an RfC is. It's important to use Wikipedia terms correctly. ― Mandruss  ☎ 04:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Mandruss -- oops, you are correct, it is not a formal RFC, it was just an informal call for voting that looked like RFC -- I will strike/correct my saying RFC in the post of original text above. Markbassett ( talk) 05:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

*Oppose as written, support in principle. 1. Change "pornographic actress" to "adult film actress", per discussion, as actresses are never pornographic. 2. Trim excessive detail from the Jill Martin sentence, just conveying the confidentiality agreement. 3. Change "Daniel's" to "Daniels". ― Mandruss  ☎ 01:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The Trump Organization lawyer involvement is important because Trump's lawyer has claimed that Trump never paid off Stormy. I'm indifferent to how we describe Ms. Daniels' profession. (Removed apostrophe)- Mr X 🖋 01:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

That's fairly useless to a reader if you don't explain why the details are important. Add the necessary detail and you're UNDUE for his biography (in my opinion). Names of lawyers (except Cohen) and companies are already UNDUE for his biography. ― Mandruss  ☎ 01:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Right. That's the dilemma.- Mr X 🖋 01:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see it as a dilemma if you start with the assumption that it's not our purpose in this particular article to fully explain the issue. He's accused of having an affair. He denies it. They paid her 130K. She wants out of the agreement so she can talk. End. ― Mandruss  ☎ 01:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support Option 2 not perfect but it reads better than option 1. Once the lawsuits are settled and the details are public it will have to be re-written anyhow. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• No pride of authorship here. I would support option 2 as well, but two highly-reputable sources have seen the arbitration document, so I'm not sure we need the word "reportedly". - Mr X 🖋 01:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Needs to state what was agreed not to disclose. SPECIFICO talk 01:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Umm, seems pretty obvious. It's no secret that she alleges there was an affair. Obviously that's what she isn't supposed to talk about - or at least any details beyond that. (Although details are getting out; she talked to 60 Minutes and reportedly the interview was so hot CBS was considering not airing it. But now they say they will. [7] ) -- MelanieN ( talk) 04:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN - that seems an assumption about the terms of the agreement. Although it seems plausible, it's not actual info re the item and the terms may be about more than that or less or somehow different in nature -- we don't know what we don't have from RS. Her 2011 interview talking about affair events had already occurred, which would be outside the NDA, but again we're just generally guessing about something specific. Markbassett ( talk) 19:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree, we don't know what it covered. And we don't pretend to know. What we do know is the existence of a non-disclosure agreement, and that is what we report.-- MelanieN ( talk) 19:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support 2 as acceptable compromise. ― Mandruss  ☎ 03:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support 2 as well-written and more complete. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 04:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Changes -- Umm ... User:MelanieN -- should mention denial by Trump, and seems iffy to be dragging Barron into it in line 1 ? To a lesser extent, the Jill Martin line at the end does not seem very relevant by the text stated, so it could go. Markbassett ( talk) 04:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

1) I actually agree about Barron but most sources mention that for time context. I would be OK with removing it. 2) We could leave out her name, but the fact that she's a Trump Organization lawyer could be highly significant, since Cohen keeps insisting that the Trump Organization is and always has been totally arms-length from this situation. 3) Trump's denials are always kind of half hearted, and are kind of irrelevant anyhow since this is going to be put in the "legal affairs" section, not the "sex allegations" section. This item isn't about "did they or didn't they?" It's about the legal stuff. -- MelanieN ( talk) 05:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Without the Barron mention, it's unclear whether it was "extramarital" with respect to Trump or Daniels. If it's deemed significant that it was extramarital with respect to Trump, we shouldn't ask readers to go research his dates of marriage and divorce, even if that could be easily done on the same page. ― Mandruss  ☎ 05:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN - Umm, this insert is premised on WP:PUBLICFIGURE which includes If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported. As to the significance of Jill Marin... none of that (speculated?) relevance is shown in article text, so the point is not visible. Whether Cohen was not involving her in February and now is seems kind of a detail rather than part of a BLP summary pointing to the other article -- text that could / should be left to the other article. Markbassett ( talk) 19:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and I proposed below a denial sentence to add. I will shortly produce a Version 2.1 to account for all the changes people have suggested. About the Trump Organization attorney, you make a good point that it does not directly relate do the subject of this biography - just to his business - and maybe should be left out. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support 2 - You have to include the birth of Barron because it speaks to the notability of the event. I'd rather it said "after the birth of his child with Melania" to avoid mentioning Barron by name, but it's a bit more wordy. Other than that, I'm happy with MelanieN's suggested text. -- Scjessey ( talk) 14:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment about timing: IMO we should discuss the wording for at least a few more days; it’s only 24 hours at this point and many people yet to be heard from. But I think we may want to get an item into the article sometime next week, before CBS airs its 60 Minutes interview (currently scheduled for March 25), since that is likely to bring readers to the page looking for background information. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  Without it, I think it reads like a non sequitur. I see that it's in version B now. I think the applicable term is "nondisclosure agreement". Also I still think "adult film actress" calls attention to the awkwardness of the euphemism. I'm sure WP has a bunch of avid editors of such topics, so we could check best practices or MOS for these critters. SPECIFICO talk 18:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  Well, our article Stormy Daniels says “pornographic actress”. So does our article Michael Cohen (lawyer). Maybe we should go with the flow then. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC) Also, both articles say "nondisclosure agreement" rather than "confidentiality agreement". I'm thinking we should change that as well. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  Much better. Also, for the avoidance of doubt in your second sentence, I'm assuming Cohen is not a porn actor. SPECIFICO talk 18:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  Who can say? PackMecEng ( talk) 19:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose going with bad flows. There is no evidence this choice has been examined closely in those other places. Going with flows hinders improvements. I stand by my opinion that "adult film actress" is not euphemistic but rather encyclopedic tone—and more correct use of language than to say that an actress is pornographic. ― Mandruss  ☎ 19:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@ MelanieN: FYI text has been inserted, removed and inserted again over the last few hours. Although there seems to be emerging consensus to insert something, it looks like the long version that was placed in the article would not be supported by most editors. I agree with you that text should be inserted next week if agreement can be found on exact content. Please evaluate whether anybody violated any sanction with those recent edits, I'm not touching this with a 10-foot pole... — JFG ^talk 17:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

And I have removed it again. I hate it when people jump the gun like this; the discussion about wording has been open for barely 24 hours; at least allow a few days for people to chime in, so there is time for improvement and development of consensus. Also, the version added to the article was Option 1, while most discussion here has seemed to prefer Option 2. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose any inclusion of this until it is proven to be true.-- MONGO 17:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Your argument is contradicted by policy. WP:PUBLICFIGURE, #2. ValarianB ( talk) 17:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

What we are putting into the article IS proven to be true, namely the legal situation: there is an allegation, there was a payoff, there is ongoing litigation. We aren't saying anything about whether there was or was not an affair, only what is known about the current situation. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Stand by my comment without deviation.-- MONGO 18:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

That is your privilege. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course, it's a deviation from WP policy, just not from your earlier denial of it. SPECIFICO talk 19:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support either version. As I corrected the user above, this is literally the situation used as an example in BLP policy on how to write about an alleged affair. ValarianB ( talk) 17:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Addition of denial The following was added to the entry while it was on the article page:According to White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders, Trump has denied the allegations. ^[1] I think that is good - especially the attribution, because I don't think Trump himself has ever said publicly that it didn't happen - and should be added to whichever version we ultimately use. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Mention of Barron Trump

• About Barron: Several people, including me, don't like naming him in this item. Most references do name him, as our two proposals here do. But the Politico reference I used above [8] says "months after the birth of Trump's youngest son." I like that better. OK with people if I make that change? -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  I would support removing Barron's name. There's no point dragging an innocent child into this ugliness.- Mr X 🖋 18:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  Addresses my concern and is fine with me. But the pronoun "his" works there and I hate surname overload. ― Mandruss  ☎ 19:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

(reinsert prior post below - sorry, some glitch happened amid edit collisions that somehow messed up Markbassett ( talk) 19:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC))

The papers may have done emotive drumbeating we would not need for simple statement of event w. redirect to detailed article. To address the mention it is to clarify the 'extramarital', I suggest the better way to clarify extramarital is to name the spouse. Barron is not directly relevant to the affair itself - he's not the cause or present -- nor is he prominently repeated in the mentions as a significant part of what is being summarized. How about changing the line: "she and Trump had an extramarital affair in 2006, shortly after Barron was born. after he was married to Melania Knauss" ? Markbassett ( talk) 19:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

While, not after. With that change, I could go either way. ― Mandruss  ☎ 19:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

We should explicitly state it was after the birth of Trump and Melania's child. Given Trump's apparent proclivities, for all we know Barron may not be his youngest son. -- Scjessey ( talk) 19:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh come on. You might as well say we should add "possibly more" to the Children field of the infobox. ― Mandruss  ☎ 19:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Support! -- Scjessey ( talk) 19:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Obliviously! ― Mandruss  ☎ 19:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Seriously though, if we are not going to say "Barron" (which I am uncomfortable with), I think "shortly after the birth of Trump's child with Melania" (or something like that) is better. -- Scjessey ( talk) 19:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, many have speculated the curious $130K hush money amount may have been related to a possible pregnancy/abortion situation, speculation that was augmented by the use of "paternity" in the NDA (although that was probably just boilerplate language). -- Scjessey ( talk) 19:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

There's been all kinds of speculation. Some of which is enough to make a person slightly nauseous. Let's keep it out of these pages, please. As for "child with Melania", I don't want to drag her name into this sordid mess either. I like "Trump's youngest son", or better yet, "Trump's youngest child" (youngest son suggests he has an even younger daughter). -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Ahem. "His", unless somebody disputes my comment about surname overload. ― Mandruss  ☎ 20:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Why do we need to mention that the alleged affair occurred just after Barron's birth? Sounds like an extra scoop of tabloid-level shaming, which doesn't change anything to the legal dispute. Just drop this part. — JFG ^talk 04:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

My answer to your question. ― Mandruss  ☎ 04:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

You say it would be unclear whether the affair was extramarital wrt Trump or Daniels. That's unpersuasive as a reason to mention Barron's birth. When an affair with a porn actress is described as "extramarital", readers will certainly assume that the man was married, not the porn star. It is wholly unnecessary and unencyclopedic to drag Barron or Melania into this just for the kicks of implying "look, Trump banged a porn star while his wife was nursing". Again, we are not a tabloid. — JFG ^talk 07:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

readers will certainly assume that the man was married, not the porn star. Like you, I can only speak for myself, but not this reader. Porn stars are about as likely to be married as anybody. Daniels has been married twice according to her BLP, and the alleged affair occurred during the 1- to 2-year gap between her first and her second. It's tabloidish only if gratuitous, and I say it is not gratuitous but rather unambiguous writing. If you can think of a better way to clarify that he was married at the time, I'm all ears. I think saying "Trump was married at the time" would be a worse way. If we can't clarify what "extramarital" means in this context, it should be removed. ― Mandruss  ☎ 07:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course the starlet can be married as well. Still, this is Trump's bio, it strikes me as rather obvious that the "extramarital" qualifier applies to him. To make things crystal-clear without mentioning the baby, we could replace "an extramarital affair" with "an affair while Trump was married", but that looks like pretty sloppy prose to me. I'd be fine with your alternate suggestion of removing "extramarital" entirely, because "affair" says enough. — JFG ^talk 08:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Seeing that the text was re-inserted with an encouragement to "improve it the wiki way", I have removed the "youngest son" mention, as UNDUE. Revert me if you think that has any material influence on the case. — JFG ^talk 04:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Everybody needs to just leave the article alone until there is a consensus here. No, I'm not going to add to the problem by reverting you, but thanks for the offer. If there is a fairly clear status quo ante, I wouldn't object if somebody restored it. ― Mandruss  ☎ 04:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that the article should have been left alone during the discussion, but some editors decided that was somehow an urgent matter to address. The statu quo ante has nothing on Stormy, there is emerging consensus to insert something, although content is very much still under discussion. Not in the mood of dragging people to AE, though. — JFG ^talk 07:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

With DS, you don't need AE. All you need is an uninvolved admin who takes ArbCom remedies seriously, and there are several I can think of without much effort. ― Mandruss  ☎ 07:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's not use the strict DS restrictions as a tool to stifle editing. JFG's edit was reasonable (although I don't fully agree with the substance of it) and exactly what I meant in my edit summary. If anyone believes that the timing of the alleged affair and the timing of Barron's birth is important, we can have a discussion about restoring that material. - Mr X 🖋 12:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

The timing of the alleged affair is important, because it clarifies what Trump was doing in his life (which this article is about) at the time. The claim that it is "tabloidy" is absurd, because the source we use in the article is BBC News (one of the most respected news outlets on the planet), and it specifically refers to it: If Ms Daniels' account is true, this would all have happened just four months after the birth of Mr Trump's youngest child, Barron. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, calling something from a reliable source "tabloidy" is not a valid argument. What matters is if the material is necessary to a reader's understanding and if it is appropriately weighted. I think it's important (but not quite as important as the Trump Organization lawyer involvement). I have not yet checked to see if it meets due weight.- Mr X 🖋 14:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

If I haven't said this lately: I oppose using Barron's name, but I think it could be significant to the readers' understanding to place the alleged affair in that time frame. -- MelanieN ( talk) 14:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Has the reference to Trump's youngest son been restored yet? We can and have discussed omitting the lad's name but there was clearly no consensus to remove the reference to the fact that Trump's wife had just borne him a child at the time of the affair. The removal should be undone and the disingenuous edit summary(ies) for these POV-type edits should be noted with prejudice. SPECIFICO talk 14:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

OK now I see that JFG has walked it back and stated that it's OK to undo the edit that removed the reference to Trump's unnamed little son. Can we get that restored now? That would then roughly reflect the current consensus. SPECIFICO talk 14:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I have restored it. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Eggcellent. 🥚🥚🥚. Thanks. In the future, I hope editors would handle this by a self-revert once they've acknowledged error or overreach. SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN - The better way to clarify 'extramarital' (if that seems necessary) is simply to name the spouse. "she and Trump had an extramarital affair in 2006, shortly after Barron was born. after he was married to Melania Knauss" ? Seems like should be naming adults rather than any children. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 19:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any need to clarify "extramarital" (although I would keep it in). She says they had an affair, he is paying her to keep quiet about it, that's the story. The question of who was or was not married at the time seems completely extraneous to me as long as it was consensual, which it apparently was. We have already agreed not to name Barron; I also oppose naming Melania. I would say, for time context, that it was shortly (most sources say "a few months") after "his youngest son" or "his youngest child" was born. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Sigh.

Well, it appears that some people (namely MrX) simply cannot wait even a few hours for wording to be worked out here. So I guess I will just go ahead and make, in the article, the changes I was going to propose for "Option 2.1". Since I still believe in discussion, even though that doesn't seem to be what is happening here, I will say that those changes include: removing the sentence about the Trump Organization lawyer (this is a biography, not an article about the Trump Organization) and adding Trump's (reported) denial. -- MelanieN ( talk) 07:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

So I guess I will just go ahead - That's how these things snowball. At an article under the ArbCom remedies, the correct action is (1) restore status quo ante, and (2) if anybody edits without consensus, find an uninvolved admin who is prepared to use the discretionary sanction power precisely intended for that purpose. Coffee would know what to do here. ― Mandruss  ☎ 07:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@ MelanieN: With your edit, you inadvertently restored the text "whose real name is Stephanie Clifford", which I had removed earlier as unnecessary detail. If this was indeed unwitting, please remove it again (I can't due to DS restrictions). If you think it's due, please explain. — JFG ^talk 08:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

JFG, that was not inadvertent. Nothing was ever discussed here about removing her real name; every source reporting on this matter includes it; you removed it suddenly and unilaterally, without ever even suggesting it anywhere that I am aware of, much less giving any reason or argument for doing it, and I disagree with that removal. -- MelanieN ( talk) 14:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry MelanieN, but you should not have removed the material in its entirely at a time when media coverage of this has increased and readers will be looking for this material. [9] As an aside, I'm opposed to removing the Trump Organization lawyer piece, because it is one of the few fully verifiable facts in all of this, but I defer to consensus on that matter. @ Mandruss: My edit respected a very clear consensus and is in accord with WP:EDITING and WP:ARBAPDS. You are welcome to take it to WP:AE is you disagree, but please don't try to throw Coffee in my face.- Mr X 🖋 12:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

MrX, what material are you talking about - that I "removed in its entirety"? -- MelanieN ( talk) 14:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

This. - Mr X 🖋 14:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

That's kind of old news, since you promptly restored it (or restored another version of it). I gave my reasons for removing it: It was still under active discussion and I had been hoping we might reach some kind of agreement here on the wording - but you overruled that idea. OK, so now it's in the article and we will work in the wording there. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Ronny Jackson

 – ― Mandruss  ☎ 19:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Except the later part relevant to this article. ― Mandruss  ☎ 19:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Do we really need to explicitly state Jackson is a rear admiral? It doesn't seem relevant to the appointment, and the information can be found on Jackson's article. -- Scjessey ( talk) 14:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

We need it because there are unfair attempts to diminish Jackson´s credibility. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 14:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

No, there aren't. Why are you so interested in puffing up Jackson's curriculum vitae? -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's see, Jackson served as WH physician for the past 3 administrations - Bush, Obama & now Trump - but because he passed Trump as having good health, some think he's not qualified to lead? Hmmm...in a director's capacity, he led the WH Medical Unit, has overseen health care for the president’s cabinet and senior staff, was physician supervisor for Camp David. He was WH physician for 3 administrations, was appointed as president's physician for Obama. Did Trump not check with his FB-Twitter-WP followers to see if his choice was acceptable? ^FBDB The USA Today report seems balanced, and Business Insider does, too and by golly, so does the BBC - so what is the problem, exactly? The Vet Administration has failed miserably under what some may refer to as "qualified" individuals regarding past picks, but I see no need for WP to distinguish between who is or isn't qualified. NPOV it and all is well. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 18:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Armed forces service is not a unique qualifier for running the VA, it is not a military posting. ValarianB ( talk) 18:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

This edit by Zbrnajsem ( talk · contribs) reverts challenged content, and so appears to violate the restrictions placed by Arbcom. I suggest the edit is self-reverted quickly in an attempt to avoid sanction. -- Scjessey ( talk) 19:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reverted. ― Mandruss  ☎ 19:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@ Atsme: Jackson has no executive experience at all. The VA employs tens of thousands of people and serves millions, so Jackson lacks the necessary qualification. But hey, anything to support the decisions of the Dear Leader, right? -- Scjessey ( talk) 19:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see the connection between Atsme's comment and improvement of this article. Should I move that too? AFAICT the only discussion that belongs here is Do we really need to explicitly state Jackson is a rear admiral? ― Mandruss  ☎ 20:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking the same about the preceding comments. How ironic. My comments represent support to SAY WHAT RS SAY...which is what I consider improvement of the article vs OR, cherrypicking, or citing a single source that supports one's POV? ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 21:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

What change are you proposing to this article? I can't see that in your comment. ― Mandruss  ☎ 21:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Originally, the discussion related to this, but now I see it has been moved. Wow, the changes are faster than breaking news! ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 22:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

If there is a snowball's chance that any content about Jackson's appointment might be added to this single-page biography of Donald Trump, I apologize for my error in moving that part of this thread. I don't think there is. ― Mandruss  ☎ 23:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

We should explicitly state that Dr. Ronny Jackson is a rear admiral. Why? Because that fact is a notable bit of information that rounds out one's understanding of the individual. More importantly, we follow the RS's, like The Washington Post, here who prominently mention the fact in several places in the article, including in the caption under one of the pictures. As mere wikipedians, it is beyond our purview to sit with furrowed brow and debate issues like puffing up Jackson's curriculum vitae. Departing from the RSs amounts to POV pushing. Restored. Greg L ( talk) 03:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Reverted and warned. ― Mandruss  ☎ 03:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

(drive-by comment) If we're discussing his appointment as the VA secretary, it makes sense to include that he's a rear admiral. In the current mention of him acting as a physician, it's unnecessary. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm ok with just focusing on his current position. There's a wikilink to his full bio that tells readers who he is/what he's accomplished without going into detail in Trump's bio. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 17:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)