Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:29, 5 April 2018

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Want to add new information about Donald Trump? Most often, it should not go here. Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example: Presidency of Donald Trump Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2018 Q1 List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections Donald Trump on social media …or dozens of other places, as listed in {{Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187Auto-archiving period: 7 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187Auto-archiving period: 7 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Business Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Donald Trump Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York City High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Television / Presidential elections / Presidents / Government Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance). Template:WP1.0

Other talk page banners

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Pstein92. This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LittleRobbinBird (article contribs).

	Donald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 2, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed February 12, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed September 18, 2016 Good article nominee Not listed May 25, 2017 Good article nominee Not listed Current status: Former good article nominee

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Cuozzo, Steve (November 16, 2013). "Don't Trust Anything on Misplaced Pages". New York Post. Popper, Ben (July 22, 2015). "Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Misplaced Pages page". The Verge. Merrill, Jeremy (February 1, 2016). "On Misplaced Pages, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate". New York Times. Germ, Erik (May 28, 2016). "5 Secretly Bizarre Sections Of Websites You Use Every Day". Cracked.com. Guo, Jeff (October 25, 2016). "Misplaced Pages is fixing one of the Internet's biggest flaws". The Washington Post. Alcantara, Chris (October 27, 2016). "The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates' Misplaced Pages pages". The Washington Post. Staff Writer (December 21, 2016). "Most-edited Misplaced Pages pages of 2016 revealed". BBC News. Gartenberg, Chaim (January 20, 2017). "Misplaced Pages editors can't decide if Trump is the president yet". The Verge. Wyrich, Andrew (June 5, 2017). "Someone is trying to get Trump's official portrait deleted from Misplaced Pages". The Daily Dot.

This was the most viewed article on Misplaced Pages for the week of December 6–12, 2015; January 31–February 6, February 21–27, February 28–March 5, March 6–12, March 13–19, October 9–15, October 16–22, November 6–12, and November 13–19, 2016; January 15–21 and January 22–28, 2017, according to the Top 25 Report.

Open RfCs and surveys

• #RfC: "useful fool"

• v
• e

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
] item
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

01. Use the official White House portrait as the infobox image. (Dec 2016, Jan 2017, Oct 2017, March 2020) (temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait, enforced when an official public-domain portrait was released on 31 October 2017)

02. Show birthplace as "Queens, New York City, U.S." in the infobox. (Nov 2016, Oct 2018, Feb 2021) "New York City" de-linked. (September 2020)

03. Omit reference to county-level election statistics. (Dec 2016)

05. Use Trump's annual net worth evaluation and matching ranking, from the Forbes list of billionaires, not from monthly or "live" estimates. (Oct 2016) In the lead section, just write: Forbes estimates his net worth to be billion. (July 2018, July 2018) Removed from the lead per #47.

06. Do not include allegations of sexual misconduct in the lead section. (June 2016, Feb 2018)

09. Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2017) Include a link to an archive of Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2021)

12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (RM Jan 2017, RM June 2019)

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no comments for 7 days. Manual archival is allowed for (1) closed discussions, 24 hours after the closure, provided the closure has not been challenged, and (2) "answered" edit requests, 24 hours after the "answer", provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the "answer". (Jan 2017) (amended with respect to manual archiving, to better reflect common practice at this article) (Nov 2019)

14. Omit mention of Trump's alleged bathmophobia/fear of slopes. (Feb 2017)

22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Misplaced Pages's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. (RfC Aug 2017, upheld by RfC July 2024)

25. In citations, do not code the archive-related parameters for sources that are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)

26. Do not include opinions by Michael Hayden and Michael Morell that Trump is a "useful fool manipulated by Moscow" or an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation". (RfC April 2018)

27. State that Trump falsely claimed that Hillary Clinton started the Barack Obama birther rumors. (April 2018, June 2018)

28. Include, in the Wealth section, a sentence on Jonathan Greenberg's allegation that Trump deceived him in order to get on the Forbes 400 list. (June 2018, June 2018)

29. Include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the article. (June 2018)

30. Supersedes #24. The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist." (RfC Sep 2018, Oct 2018, RfC May 2019)

31. Do not mention Trump's office space donation to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/Push Coalition in 1999. (Nov 2018)

32. Omit from the lead the fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. (RfC July 2018, Nov 2018)

33. Do not mention "birtherism" in the lead section. (RfC Nov 2018)

34. Refer to Ivana Zelníčková as a Czech model, with a link to Czechs (people), not Czechoslovakia (country). (Jan 2019)

37. Resolved: Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (June 2019)

38. Do not state in the lead that Trump is the wealthiest U.S. president ever. (RfC June 2019)

39. Supersedes #21 and #36. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not preclude bringing up for discussion whether to include media coverage relating to Trump's mental health and fitness. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. (RfC Aug 2019, July 2021)

40. Include, when discussing Trump's exercise or the lack thereof: He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise. (RfC Aug 2019)

41. Omit book authorship (or lack thereof) from the lead section. (RfC Nov 2019)

42. House and Senate outcomes of the impeachment process are separated by a full stop. For example: He was impeached by the House on December 18, 2019, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was acquitted of both charges by the Senate on February 5, 2020. (Feb 2020)

43. The rules for edits to the lead are no different from those for edits below the lead. For edits that do not conflict with existing consensus: Prior consensus is NOT required. BOLD edits are allowed, subject to normal BRD process. The mere fact that an edit has not been discussed is not a valid reason to revert it. (March 2020)

44. The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim and some degree of clarification that they haven't produced clear results. (RfC May 2020)

46. Use the caption "Official portrait, 2017" for the infobox image. (Aug 2020, Jan 2021)

47. Do not mention Trump's net worth or Forbes ranking (or equivalents from other publications) in the lead, nor in the infobox. (Sep 2020)

48. Supersedes #45. Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic should be mentioned in the lead section. There is no consensus on specific wording, but the status quo is Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. (Oct 2020, RfC Aug 2020)

49. Supersedes #35. Include in lead: Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. (Dec 2020)

50. Supersedes #17. The lead sentence is: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. (March 2021), amended (July 2021), inclusion of politician (RfC September 2021)

51. Include in the lead that many of Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as misogynistic. (Aug 2021 and Sep 2021)

52. Supersedes #23. The lead should contain a summary of Trump's actions on immigration, including the Muslim travel ban (cf. item 23), the wall, and the family separation policy. (September 2021)

53. The lead should mention that Trump promotes conspiracy theories. (RfC October 2021)

54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (RfC October 2021) Amended after re-election: After his first term, scholars and historians ranked Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history. (November 2024)

55. Regarding Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, do not wiki-link "Trump's comments" in this manner. (RfC December 2021)

56. Retain the content that Trump never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan but add context. Current wording can be altered or contextualized; no consensus was achieved on alternate wordings. (RfC November 2021) Trump's expressions of doubt regarding the Russian Bounties Program should be included in some capacity, though there there is no consensus on a specific way to characterize these expressed doubts. (RfC March 2022)

57. Do not mention in the lead Gallup polling that states Trump's the only president to never reach 50% approval rating. (RfC January 2022)

58. Use inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations. (RfC May 2022, discussion on what to cite May 2022)

59. Do not label or categorize Trump as a far-right politician. (RfC August 2022)

60. Insert the links described in the RfC January 2023.

61. When a thread is started with a general assertion that the article is biased for or against Trump (i.e., without a specific, policy-based suggestion for a change to the article), it is to be handled as follows:

1. Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias, optionally using its shortcut, WP:TRUMPRCB.
2. Close the thread using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, referring to this consensus item.
3. Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
4. Manually archive the thread.

This does not apply to posts that are clearly in bad faith, which are to be removed on sight. (May 2023)

62. The article's description of the five people who died during and subsequent to the January 6 Capitol attack should avoid a) mentioning the causes of death and b) an explicit mention of the Capitol Police Officer who died. (RfC July 2023)

63. Supersedes #18. The alma mater field of the infobox reads: "University of Pennsylvania (BS)". (September 2023)

64. Omit the {{Very long}} tag. (January 2024)

65. Mention the Abraham Accords in the article; no consensus was achieved on specific wordings. (RfC February 2024)

66. Omit {{infobox criminal}}. (RfC June 2024)

67. The "Health" section includes: "Trump says he has never drunk alcohol, smoked cigarettes, or used drugs. He sleeps about four or five hours a night." (February 2021)

68. Do not expand the brief mention of Trumpism in the lead. (RfC January 2025)

RfC: "useful fool"

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should Trump's main biography include the phrase:

Both Michael Hayden and Michael Morell have expressed their belief that Trump is a "useful fool...manipulated by Moscow" and an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation".

References

1. Hayden, Michael (3 November 2016). "Former CIA chief: Trump is Russia's useful fool". The Washington Post. Retrieved 19 July 2017.

For context, please see the above discussion, whereby this phrase was recently added, removed and inserted again. — JFG 10:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose – Calling the President of the United States a "useful fool" and an "unwitting agent of Russia" is a BLP smear. The sentence reports opinions by two former intelligence officers, expressed in November 2016, shortly after before Trump's election. There is no particular notability for those opinions today. They are appropriate to cite, in context, in the article on Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (they are in the section about reactions of the intelligence community), but they have WP:UNDUE WEIGHT in the subject's main biography. — JFG 10:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• It's not name calling, but an intelligence-based "benign" description of the factual state of affairs. See the full quote. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:BLP, WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:SPECIFICO – Op-ed pieces are not subject to normal fact-checking or editorial oversight. If it is uncontested that Trump is an "unwitting agent", it should be easy to find multiple reliable, secondary sources to support the claim. In the material, it is not clear from the context that Hayden is citing Morell and it is not even verifiable that Hayden and Morell have used both expressions. Politrukki (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for all the same reasons; you've said it best. This content runs contrary to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support This is not being said in Misplaced Pages's voice, it is an opinion properly attributed to respected intelligence veterans, a former director of the NSA and a former deputy director of the CIA, respectively. This was discussed above at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 75#Removal_of_RS_content, where consensus was found to restore the material reverted by JFG. TheValeyard (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support. They are highly significant opinions by two men who know more about this than anyone, and their veracity is borne out by recent events: Trump refuses to criticize Putin or Russia, admit that Russia interfered in the election, refuses to take action to protect the American election system from ongoing Russian hacking and meddling, even not using the money assigned by Congress for the State Dept. to use for that purpose, and does not enforce the sanctions against Russian (the sanctions he is allegedly promised $11 billion for lifting). (As noted on the news, we now have two people whom Trump will not criticize: Putin and Stormy Daniels.) Suspicions regarding the veracity of allegations that he is being blackmailed by Russia are strengthened by all these events. For full context and an improved version, see this section above: Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 75#Removal of RS content. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Largely undue for main BLP. Two former Obama officials opinion on an opposition candidate days before the election does not help it's weight either. Also since all the cool kids are doing it, Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 75#Removal of RS content. Good luck finding anything useful in that mess of a thread. PackMecEng (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:BLP. Both Hayden and Morell have a dubious reputation. Hayden lied under oath to Congress about torture , Morell lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq , . @BullRangifer: Trump's anti-Russian remarks – , , , , , , , , , , , . -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose As per all the above reasons given. Sad that we had to resort to an RfC for this when I thought it should be pretty obvious. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as the opinion of a few people; not sufficiently mainstream or widely held enough to include in this BLP. I notice that these two people are quoted with their opinion at the article Useful idiot which may be a better place for it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Just two old guys sittin' on a park bench? Who could have a more informed and considered and stonefaced an evaluation of the situation? SPECIFICO talk 21:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• It's not name calling, but an intelligence-based "benign" description of the factual state of affairs. See the full quote. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• We could fill many books with analyses and descriptions, by various experts, of the factual state of affairs about Donald Trump. In this biography we need to focus on the ones that have gotten heavy, longstanding, significant coverage from multiple sources. There is such coverage about his relationship with Russia, and that issue is included in this biography. The particular analysis being discussed here - this particular name for his relationship to Russia - has not gotten that kind of coverage and should be excluded per WP:WEIGHT. --MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

But isn't this comment by intelligence experts (and there have also been others more recently) who have deep professional understanding of the nature Russian tactics to compromise "useful idiot" actors, a noteworthy indicator of the very widespread public discussion of the likelihood that Trump has been compromised by the Russians? It may turn out that there are more specific explanations of his behavior, but this is one that has been consistent and widespread for the past 20+ months. SPECIFICO talk 17:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

If this particular "useful fool" tag actually was "very widespread" I would support including it. But it isn't. Once in a while someone brings it up, that's all. That specific "useful fool" tag, proposed for inclusion here, is a different matter from the more widespread speculation about why he is so deferential to the Russians - although I wouldn't support including that either, because speculation is just what it is. Nobody really knows why he acts as he does toward Russia: as an innocent dupe, or out of fear of something they "have on him", or as a conscious agent of their policies. The intelligence officers quoted here are part of that speculation, and their view has not become widely accepted. Maybe someday Robert Mueller will explain his motives to us with evidence; until then, educated guesses have no place here. --MelanieN (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN hit the nail on the head. Undue weight indeed 16 months later. — JFG 22:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. Everyone seems to forget:

• BLP WP:PUBLICFIGURE: They don't get much protection: "Allegation...belongs in the article."

Use attribution.

• NPOV: Biased sources and opinions can be used. Failure to do so is censorship, also not allowed.

Personal opinions of editors has no bearing on this. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Just because they have an opinion does not make that opinion notable. PackMecEng (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Content does not have to be notable, but since who said it are very notable, that counts FOR inclusion. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The notability, or not, of the people who said it is irrelevant. What matters is the WP:WEIGHT of coverage given to their comments by sources. That WEIGHT is lacking; they said it and pretty much nobody responded or commented. If this had become a widespread opinion, a "meme", a commonly expressed opinion, I would favor including it. That hasn't happened; they said it and that was pretty much the end of it. That's why I favor leaving it out. --MelanieN (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support with additional context and addition of recent opinions of other national security professionals of both political parties who say the same thing. It is unprecedented for national security chiefs of any free country to make such a statement about a candidate or sitting head of state. These comments come from two men whose level of knowledge -- of Russian methods and of surrounding recent history -- is matched only by a handful of current officials who, as such, cannot publicly comment. There is no BLP policy concern and it's laughable to suggest that these comments are dishonest or politically motivated. All editors who !vote here should review the previous thread that overwhelmingly favored this text. Both the text and the references should be expanded after we wrap up this RfC next month. SPECIFICO talk 19:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons that should be obvious, but apparently aren't. It's not entirely clear that it's illegal for Trump to be a "useful fool", but the BLPCRIME guidelines regarding alleged crimes should still apply; accusations, even if the accusation is made by a notable person, generally shouldn't be included. Also there's never any shortage of people making allegations against high-profile political figures, these are generally excluded. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• On the contrary. Per BLP WP:PUBLICFIGURE we are supposed to include such allegations. They don't get much protection: "Allegation...belongs in the article." Just attribute them and label them as allegations. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• If an allegation or incident is noteworthy - "the Russia thing" is noteworthy as a whole, but why are these noteworthy? We don't include Mitt Romney calling Donald Trump "a fraud" . These are people acting as pundits (read: people who say outrageous things for publicity), not as representatives of the intelligence community. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• That's absurd. They are highly informed and "benign" (see full quote) descriptions of real danger. They aren't name calling either. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• WP:BLPCRIME is about a person who is involuntarily preyed upon and becomes known for a crime that had nothing to do with their own actions. That simply doesn't apply here. Could you explain the details as to how Trump's accomodating stance wrt Russia comports with the details of BLPCRIME? SPECIFICO talk 20:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• You're right that BLPCRIME isn't relevant. I definitely recall some guideline regarding including accusations of this general type in biographies, I'll try to find it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• The policy is BLP's WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which says such allegations "should" be included. Public persons are not spared, and rarely a president. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• In general, most of these pages are about "notability", which isn't really relevant; the high-level topic of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is obviously not going to be deleted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose — election period Opinion piece that is mis-paraphrased. Not noted then, Opinion piece is not acceptable RS, and the cite simply does not contain Morell saying anything about fool, so lacks WP:V. Markbassett (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Both these men are career officials whose voices carry a lot of weight. They're both politically independent, they've served in various capacities under presidents of both main parties, and their resumes indicate they are supremely qualified to make this kind of determination. "Useful fool" (or "useful idiot"), while somewhat derogatory, is a well-used term in the security services for people who are unwittingly manipulated. In the context of the section it is contained in, it makes perfect sense to include this properly attributed content. That said, if it turns out that Trump has knowingly collaborated with the Russians (rather than being unwittingly manipulated), "useful fool" would be inaccurate and we could revisit this again. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment – Until the outcome of this RfC, I have edited the text to mention that Hayden and Morell are former intelligence officials. Doesn't mean I condone the inclusion of their dated opinion, but at least it informs the reader. — JFG 17:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support - NPOV applies here. This Russia thing is a major topic in the current administration. The sources are informed and reliable. The phrase itself refers to a specific character in an intelligence situation. It was not coined specifically for the current president, apt though it is. There is a long history of such characters being used in statecraft. --Pete (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - it goes hand-in-hand with all the other contentious labels supported by logical fallacies. 19:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  Puzzlement We're not dealing in logic, we're citing fact. They made the statement. Fact. Widely reported. Due weight. You could find a denial, if you'd like to add it. We could check Nixon's article and see "I am not a crook" -- and then we could check Tillerson who said "moron" and Gary Cohn who said I forget which synonym. Also Lara Trump, who called him a "retard." SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  Oh, now I get it - you're conflating facts with "belief", and apparently believe that everything a biased journalist writes is factual. Uhm, nope. They "expressed their belief", and the only fact in that statement is the fact they expressed a belief. Their belief is far from factual - it's opinion based on speculation because there are no facts to support their belief. 20:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  (abstainer comment) - They are not the words of a biased journalist. That Hayden and Morell said these things is not in dispute and is as factual as anything gets in Misplaced Pages editing. There is no NPOV case against this attributed content, except possibly the WEIGHT and/or BALASP parts of NPOV. You don't appear to be making a WEIGHT or BALASP argument. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  That is your opinion...and let me be clear, what they said is not factual; rather it is their belief. Maybe the following will help: User_talk:Atsme/Archive_21#Opinions_vs_Facts 20:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  There is no proposal on the table to say that what Hayden and Morell said is factual. The proposal is to say that they said it. You clearly don't understand the all-important difference between wiki voice and attribution, and if you remain unconvinced I suggest you go to WP:VPP and ask editors there to explain this point to you. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  Not everything that is published is worthy of inclusion in WP, and I consider the unsupported views of an opinionated op-ed contributor expressing their unsupported beliefs as one example of non-encyclopedic. I see it as noncompliant with WP:LABEL, WP:RECENTISM and WP:GOSSIP. We can agree to disagree as to what is factual information worthy of inclusion vs what gossip and unsupported speculation and partisan opinions should be included/excluded. Have a great day! 21:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  None of those things apply. RECENTISM is ridiculous. This Russia thing has been going since his candidacy and is pretty much the defining factor of his tenure. It's relevant and so too is input from reliable sources. --Pete (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

  Just curious... why on earth you would consider RECENTISM ridiculous, Pete? For comparison purposes, let's look at the first year of Obama's tenure - did you predict the birther claims would pretty much be the "defining factor" of his tenure? What about the first year of Bush - 9-11? What about Clinton - were Lewinsky and impeachment the defining factors for his tenure? RECENTISM isn't all that ridiculous, now is it? 15:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

This Russia thing has been going on since 2016, and it has been a major media story on a daily basis since Day One of this administration. It is hardly a nine day wonder. Nor is it trivial. --Pete (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Nope, much longer than that...the Russian thing dates back at least to 2014, possibly even earlier. Russian hackers (believed to be connected to Kremlin intelligence) hacked into the DNC network back in 2015...and yes, the administration at the time knew there was a problem...so you're right in that it wasn't a 9-day wonder; however, 9-day wonders are not what Recentism is all about. No more from my end - happy editing! 21:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support - These are established figures, going on the record to express opinion about another established figure. Misplaced Pages is not here to make a judgement on the veracity, nor does the text do this. The statement as written is factually correct and there is no reasonable justification for removing it. ῤerspeκὖlὖm_(talk)(spy) 12:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support. It is a relevant piece of information. It is also correctly sourced and gives additional background to the topic since it directly links to the people behind these claims. Arcillaroja (talk) 08:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This sentence, while sourced (and undoubtedly well founded) sounds like part of an in depth and opinionated debate and is a part of an idea about trump as he is discussed by others. Its a speculation, which which may have come from an expert, but is not part of a summary of what the subject is and what he does As such this information would look out of place either in the lede or in his main biography, which should give a less detailed summary. At best this info might find a place in a section on foreign policies and specifically in a sub section about Russia. Edaham (talk) 06:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This is reliably sourced and attributed to established figures but equally harsh comments are made by equally established people every day in the press and cable news. I fail to see how these comments are special in any way. Such comments should be included in BLP only if the commentary had a direct effect on his life or, as MelanieN says, their comments reflect mainstream belief.LM2000 (talk) 05:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I think there must be a more specialized article where this can be added, but I think it is WP:UNDUE for this article - this article has a lot of ground to cover and the standard for due weight needs to be a little higher.Seraphim System 15:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Useful idiot is the more specialized article for this. Lorstaking (talk) 04:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose mostly for being unclear. It is well sourced but this opinion is always up for debate. Lorstaking (talk) 04:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous arguments about UNDUE and the sources being opinion pieces. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Note, for the editors coming to this discussion the 1st time, see the previous discussion where consensus supported the restoration, Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 75#Removal_of_RS_content. TheValeyard (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible to support this material with more than one source? Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the section referenced immediately above by TheValeyard contains a better version using two sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Not really. They list Washinton Post opinion section as the primary and NY Times opinion section as the only sources listed in the section discussing Michael Hayden or Michael Morell. With the pieces in question written by those two rather than reported on by others. PackMecEng (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Perfectly good sources for opinions by notable persons. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Pack, this is beyond noteworthy. It was historic. There has never been such a statement of concern by such senior national security or intelligence officials. This isn't Fox&Friends or Rachel Maddow speaking. SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

But it is two people that worked in the Obama administration that just so happened to make these wild claims days before the election. Makes it hard to take their comments as anything past partisan. PackMecEng (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

They also worked for previous GOP administrations. There is no evidence they were politically motivated. Context counts. They were receiving multiple intelligence reports from allied (even east bloc) nations warning that Trump's people were plotting with Russians to steal the election. There was also the active election interference, which Trump refused to acknowledge. So nothing political. They were patriotically warning of an unprecedented danger. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Pack, that's highly personal conclusion. But we can certainly add more recent statements by the many national security pro's -- including in sworn congressional testimony -- who express the same and related concerns. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Specifico. “Historic” claims call for support. Put up a couple cites SAYING that is historic to support that argument. How many said that word is how historic it is. Or accept that few or none in RS felt that it was historic. Markbassett (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Google "useful fool trump". I didn't say to put historic in the article text. SPECIFICO talk 04:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I was calling overblown the arguing of it as “historic”. Googling useful fool +historic see ... Zero RS say this opinion piece was historic, and without +historic seems not seen as very noteworthy either. Markbassett (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah but we could google "bunion historic" and it wouldn't come up either but we still have an article about bunions. SPECIFICO talk 15:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I got my first bunion last year. It was unprecedented, but that didn't make it historic. Hey, you started with the bunions. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment I think it should be temporarily removed while we discuss it. I was about to boldly do that, but I can't just yet, per the DS. As per discussion above I do intend to move the "Russia" section (where these quotes are cited) from the "Campaign" section to the "Presidency" section, because it cites some of his actions during his presidency, and I will do that now. --MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

If Russia plays a big enough part in the life of Trump to have a paragraph in the lead, then I think Russia ought to be in the TOC. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

All that is really under #investigations section Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

More on senior intelligence professionals expressing alarm and derogation of Trump. SPECIFICO talk

Stormy Daniels

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 lead2602:306: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)

Misplaced Pages should refrain from reporting recentist gossip, especially in high-profile articles on living persons. — JFG 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 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  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 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  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 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 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  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 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 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.- MrX 🖋 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 Misplaced Pages, but the policy based reasons for including this content are so strong at this point that I must comment in favor. Cullen 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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)

. 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.- MrX 🖋 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 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. 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. 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.

Please indicate support or opposition below.- MrX 🖋 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. 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. 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. Jill Martin, a Trump Organization lawyer, is counsel in the arbitration case.

• 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.

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 Misplaced Pages 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)- MrX 🖋 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.- MrX 🖋 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". - MrX 🖋 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. ) --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 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. 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 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.- MrX 🖋 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 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 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 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 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 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. - MrX 🖋 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.- MrX 🖋 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 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. 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.- MrX 🖋 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. - MrX 🖋 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)

Dr. Ronny Jackson

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? 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. 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? 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! 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. 17:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Trump's health

Any non-neutral or even slanderous change on the passus concerning the examination of the President´s health by rear admiral Ronny Jackson (as of 30 March 2018, 11:00 a.m. GMT) will be seen as a serious offence against the Civility restriction mentioned above (see WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES). The same applies to any further reverts of Ronny Jackson´s military rank as United States Navy rear admiral. There was no consensus on this so far, however it must be allowed to state this fact at the first mentioning of his name in the article. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 10:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

It is very sad that User Objective3000 has not seen this warning, or he even disregarded it. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I think his rank should be left out of this bio. Anyone interested in Jackson's rank can click the Wikilink and read his bio.- MrX 🖋 11:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, belongs in his bio -- probably not here. Medical doctors are often given ranks that don’t fit normal definitions to increase their pay. I don’t think he led a squadron of warships. O3000 (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Zbrnajsem:, you need an explanation for how this works. You made an edit yesterday, I reverted it. Per the notice on the talk page ("All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)"), that is where the matte ends until you gain consensus on this talk page for your edit. You have now violated both that and the 1 revert per 24h. ValarianB (talk) 12:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

What matters more is the fact that the present wording ″physician Ronny Jackson praised Trump's health effusively at a press briefing″ violates the neutrality of Misplaced Pages and the above given WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES. Please consider the fact that Ronny Jackson is an officer of the United States Navy. It is not allowed to make remarks about him and his fulfilment of duties like those in the article. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

If you have an argument for a change, you are welcome to present it. But, claiming that we are not allowed to say something because it is about a Naval officer is not going to work. Look for reasons at WP:NPOV. O3000 (talk) 13:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, well, see WP:CRYBLP. Just saying "it's a violation!" doesn't actually make it so grant you immunity to edit-warring. Your claim that it violates NPOV to leave off his rank, or to note his effusive praise of a 74 71 year-old man's health was perfect and due to "incredible genes", borders on the farcical. ValarianB (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

No, what you say is not valid. The whole matter concerns the examination of the health of the President of the United States. This matter is then about the ability of the President to fulfil his executive duties. So this is a highly political affair. You should understand it. In this sense, the above WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES comes into action. I fear you and some other editors misinterpret this completely. Besides this, the real age of Donald Trump is 71, and his age is of no importance for this discussion. Don´t come with such arguments. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Doc Ronny Jackson was functioning in his capacity as a physician when he examined and when he continues to care for POTUS. His rank within the military is UNDUE and we link to his bio article where this and other personal details can be found. This little paragraph is well-sourced and reflects mainstream RS description of POTUS health exam. SPECIFICO talk 14:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I, and several others here it seems, find your argument to be unconvincing. The characterization of Jackson's praise is cited, and could be cited further, e.g. Trump's physician offers glowing praise. The man's military rank has no bearing or relevance to Donald Trump's biography. ValarianB (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@ValarianB and SPECIFICO: As I said, you and others completely misinterpret the impact of your undue edits. Rear admiral Ronny Jackson is ″director of the White House Medical Unit, a unit of the White House Military Office responsible for the medical needs of the President of the United States, Vice President, White House staff, and visitors″. This implies a) his military rank is of great importance, b) any undue wordings concerning the results of his examination of the health of the President fall under the restrictions for this (and other) articles on the political affairs of the US. I am sorry, but you and other users continuously trespass against these restrictions. This must have consequences. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The White House Medical Unit has a staff of about two dozen people. It’s an important job. But, the fact that he is/was the Physician to the President is the more important aspect. As for your continuing threats of consequences, that’s not going to convince (or scare) anyone here and is not conducive to collaboration. O3000 (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Zbrnajsem has made yet another reversion of challenged material. Multiple violations of Arbcom restrictions by this user need to be addressed, I feel. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

It is not me who really violates Arbcom restrictions. There are several other users who continuously violate them, including SPECIFICO, ValarianB and you, Scjessey. You have used your one possibility to make a revert of valid informations, exactly knowing that I am now only alone. But my arguments are superior to yours. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: As I have seen the text now, I can live with the last edit by SPECIFICO. So we leave this particular part of the article as it is, OK? --Zbrnajsem (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I've restored the consensus version. Please leave it alone and move on to some other matter of concern to you. SPECIFICO talk 17:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, you forgot to add that he's "a very stable genius". 😂  17:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Four reversions in a 24-hour period by Zbrnajsem now: diff1 (possibly debatable reversion), diff2, diff3, diff4. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Per the stuff above, I've filed a request for enforcement. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Does this editor need to be tucked into that as well? It seems that that reversion restored some of the edits that this Zbrnajsem character was edit-warring over. All of his additions should be rolled back until discussion concludes here. I am hesitant to revert myself, I'll leave it to an admin to decide. TheValeyard (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you'll get admin attention unless you go ask for it. The AE complaint was closed with the temp block. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that looks like it may be a separate revert? I believe that language was first added 2018-03-29T12:41:18 by SPECIFICO, and this is a first revert of that change. I might be missing some intermediate edits that would change that though. I'd suggest discussing here to see if there is a consensus one way or another. Prodego 00:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

That is correct. SPECIFICO's claim of "restoring the consensus version" is wrong, as she only reverted to her recently-modified version. James J. Lambden did revert to the longstanding stable text. Time for a real debate, if people really want to argue the merits of recent edits to the health section. In my opinion, none of those were necessary or due; the recent appointment of Jackson can and should be dealt with on his own article. — JFG 11:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

And the new version, which I crafted from more balanced sources (in order to overcome the recentism of the initial sourcing and article text) was hailed as the new consensus and was not challenged except by the POV blocked edit-warrior. I like to think of it not as "my" version, but as the baby Jesus version. Perfect and complete. The bit about undue mention of the recent appointment is rather bizarre, since nobody put any such text in the article. Straw man. SPECIFICO talk 13:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• Looks good now - the additions on both sides to the diff have been removed looks much better -- put back wikilink to his article, dropped the editorializing 'effusively' on 'praised health', took out the cite to a March article about VA nomination and took out the "Rear Admiral". Grammatically the short form Dr. or RADM could be used, but in the embedded clause the preference would be to use just his name. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Markbassett. That was a fine job of editing. Greg L (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Greg L: Markbassett didn't actually edit anything in the article, so... er... ? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It's worse w/o the recent RS summaries of the Doc's press event. The "effusively praised" and the other one are not "editorializing" by WP, they are the description of the Washington Post and other RS citation. SPECIFICO talk 01:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

"Effusively praised" is a characterization by one writer at one newspaper. WaPo does not speak for RS. A comprehensive survey of RS would be asking too much, but I'd be satisfied with four more of that phrase or a fair equivalent from high quality sources; otherwise it's editorial cherry-picking. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It was clearly effusive. But, perhaps we can find more commonly used wording. O3000 (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not cherrypicking, it's just a more recent perspective after the recentism wore off. There have been many other RS (yes WaPo is RS) that convey the same meaning, that the tone of the briefing was over-the-top and unduly enthusiastic, beyond the tone needed to convey the results of this routine medical exam of a normal adult. SPECIFICO talk 02:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say WaPo was not RS, I said they don't speak for RS. Please read as carefully as I write. There have been many other RS...that convey the same meaning Awesome. So pretend I'm from Missouri and show me four equivalents from high quality sources. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

[edit conflict) It was arguably effusive, or unequivocal. But I should imagine that plenty of speeches could be characterized shortly afterwards by reporters using all manner of adjectives like “forceful,” "impassioned," "brooding,” or “dour.”

For an encyclopedia however, I would submit that such adjectives are more “vogue of the moment,” unless the effusive nature of the doctor’s delivery was truly what made his press conference notable in a historical sense. I don’t know what the answer is to that (how it would be remembered and characterized a year from now), but I would argue that’s the test: historical; after all the “recentism” (I like that word) wore off. Greg L (talk) 02:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

To: Greg and our careful colleague Mandruss -- the point is that at first we didn't know how to treat Jackson's performance. It was unprecedented and so bizarre. Yes, the effusiveness is what made the press briefing noteworthy and made it so very memorable that it immediately came up in the coverage of Jackson's recent nomination to head the VA. SPECIFICO talk 02:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Alright. Let's suppose for the moment that we’re confident that from a 37,000-foot historical perspective, the doctor’s press conference will be remembered—recognized as notable—for his unequivocal affirmation of the President’s good health. I would then propose that the remaining challenge would be to find the most encyclopedic word to describe what made his press conference notable. Greg L (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Your refusal to spend the 10–15 minutes required to find the requested four out of the asserted many does not increase my confidence in your argument. I don't think the onus belongs on me to prove the negative, and I don't think I have made an unreasonable request. If things are as you say, it would be extremely easy to convert me from an oppose to a support, but for some reason you don't want to do that. You do know how to use Google to locate sources? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree more with Mandruss. We should follow the weight of a goodly plurality of RSs on this one in choosing encyclopedic language to use to characterize the press conference. Greg L (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't really think the "effusive" stuff is necessary. The WaPo source, while perfectly legitimate (despite absurd claims otherwise), was not contemporaneous with the actual event. It was written in conjunction with Jackson's appointment to the VA, not his presser about Trump's health. If we use that source as a reference for "effusive" we are, in effect, engaging in a bit of subtle synthesis. If we are going to note in the article how ridiculously (and suspiciously) upbeat Jackson's medical presser was, it should use contemporaneous sources only. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, we do have the contemporaneous WaPo piece by Dana Milbank that made the same point. I do think that the perspective of time is helpful for an encyclopedic description. I don't think what you describe is SYNTH, because it is contained explicitly, and entirely within, the new WaPo source. One might claim it is a characterization that benefits from recent perspective on the press event, but our understanding is always broadened and refined by additional information and context. And it's not just a single recent RS. SPECIFICO talk 14:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

That the Milbank piece is an non-citeable Opinion article (and snarky) is kind of proving the point against 'effusive' -- and many other WaPo articles that are citeable did not use the word. But mostly I'd point out that where the later WaPo article is about the VA nomination of the doctor or judging his speaking style it is just not about Trump health report and is not one of the WP:BESTSOURCES. Look, all I said was I think the article is fine now -- the dispute is OBE since the article now has removed both sides of the recent adds. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Markbassett: To be clear, Jackson's presser absolutely described Trump's health in effusive/glowing/praiseworthy terms that raised many eyebrows in reliable sources. There are umpteen potential sources for characterizing the presser as "effusive" and pretending it wasn't a little bizarre (especially when he was talking about genes) isn't going to fly. I just think that the WaPo article about the Jackson's appointment to the VA is not the source we should use. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

What isn't going to fly is repeated claims about RS while ignoring repeated good-faith and reasonable requests for documentation of said claims. Sorry, but we don't just take people's word for things around here, and that is not an AGF violation.
I've now done a bit of googling and I don't see nearly enough quality RS for wiki voice "effusive". If there were umpteen, I should have seen at least five on the first page. My oppose is now a strong oppose. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anybody suggested you google for the word "effusive". SPECIFICO talk 03:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Show me the requested additional four links or drop it please. If the WaPo one you're asserting is the Milbank opinion piece, make that five; we don't use opinion pieces for wiki voice. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Scjessey - Simply put, coverage mostly used no modifier about the health report, and those that did mostly said it as "excellent" health (mixing the category and use as an adjective) or as a "glowing" assessment. The section is about Trumps health, so rewording it into a review of the Doctor is inappropriate content that smells both political and fringe at this point. One might equally argue that completing the context would require starting it "After weeks of false rumors about his health and mental state..." Look, the section was fine and the argument is OBE since the content reverted out and it looks fine again. So there is no point in continuing a debate over discarded material. We can close this section. Over & out. Markbassett (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

1. "Gushed"
2. "largely a show of the president’s vigor and fitness"
3. "glowing"
4. "praised"
5. "effusive praise"

-- Scjessey (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• I hope these links will be the end of this dispute about "effusive" -- we could use "extravagant" "exaggerated" "bizarrely inflated" or some other paraphrase that reflects the mainstream coverage, but the RS reporting is perfectly clear. Reporters who have seen past briefings on the annual presidential check-up described it the same way, "effusive" is a good English word for it. SPECIFICO talk 15:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

And why, pray tell, would it be so important to qualify Dr. Jackson's tone when delivering his presser? We are an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; we avoid WP:puffery and sensationalism. As other editors have pointed out, we could also report the widespread innuendo about Trump's mental instability, which led to his request for a cognitive test, but we have decided not to go down this road. When Dr. Bronstein delivered an even more "effusive" health report for candidate Trump, a similar debate occurred, and editors wisely decided to stick to the facts. — JFG 16:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

If you are suggesting we tell Dr. Jackson to avoid sensationalism, you can reach him at the White House holding pen for agency nominees. It's "Bornstein" btw. You could also consider starting an article on Trump sycophantry, which is a topic that's been widely discussed in RS over many years and actually would help our readers to survey the central point in a non-OR and DUE WEIGHT way that describes the pattern of otherwise competent professionals making jackasses of themselves, reportedly to avoid arousing suspicion or retaliation by Trump if they fail to do so. SPECIFICO talk 17:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

You are deflecting, but good luck writing Sycophantry of Donald Trump, which obviously will be supported by thousands of RS discussing hundreds of incidents. I for one will have a great time reading such an effort. — JFG 18:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I was assigning that task to you -- first we'll get a useful new article, second it will distract you from dogging all the other politics articles. SPECIFICO talk 18:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

As I understand it, wiki voice must fairly represent the predominance of RS. If that's wrong, please point to the policy that says otherwise. As I said previously, it would be unreasonable for me to demand that you conduct a comprehensive survey of RS. In lieu of that I said I would be swayed by five "high quality" sources. I assumed it was obvious I was referring to the notch (or two) above what we call "reliable" sources, what I call Tier 1. I went out of my way to state a number no larger than the bare minimum, so as to not place an unfair burden of proof. What you have brought is three Tier 1's—CNN, TribLive(AP), and The Atlantic—and the latter just says "praised", which hardly supports "effusively praised". Conspicuously absent are sources like WaPo, LATimes, NYTimes, BBC, and so on for the rest of the 20 or so comprising Tier 1. I think it's a fair conclusion that you are cherry-picking, rather than conducting a fair and objective evaluation of reliable sources, and my opposition stands. I fully understand that this comes down to a democratic vote in the end, but my democratic vote is nay. Sorry for not playing ball. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

This all began when somebody took it upon themselves to claim that two separate WaPo sources were not enuf. SPECIFICO talk 17:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

How dare they! ―Mandruss ☎ 17:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Idea for a related article

I've been thinking that we should consider creating the article List of senior Trump admonistartion people who quit or were fired (or a better title if anyone can think of one). There is solid coverage in reliable sources.. If we were to create such an article, I see it being organized along a timeline with a short paragraph for each person who left. What do others think about this?- MrX 🖋 23:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

What does "admonistartion people" mean? I'm thinking you meant "administration", and if that's the case...BORING. I would not oppose a list article to help our readers find the many Trump articles that have been created...at least those that haven't been deleted yet. There are so many that are based on unsupported allegations...regardless, a list may prove helpful and we can always eliminate the articles that have been deleted in the future. 23:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

LOLMG, freudian slip! Thanks for catching that Atsme. I'm going to leave it so we can all enjoy a good laugh (albeit at my expense).- MrX 🖋 00:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The fact that the Trump administration is notable for the number of members of it who have been fired by the President is hardly an unsupported allegation. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The list is getting longer. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Not nearly as long as ArbCom's list of TB/blocked users. 18:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

One of the news channels talked to this today with a list substantially longer than I’d remembered. I’m not generally into lists; but see how this could be useful for readers. There will naturally be argumentation over the text in each example. But, perhaps better having this in one place. Pity we can’t keep “admonistartion”. O3000 (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but for the sake of neutrality I would widen the scope. Consider an article that covers administration appointments, judicial appointments, ambassadorial appointments, and any associated firings, resignations, and confirmation hearings (including those that are obviously slow-walking some of Trump's appointments). The lede of such an article should focus on the unusually high staff turnover rate, which is well supported by sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that this is a good place to put a reminder that there's an article about notably short political appointments by the Trump administration, for what it's worth.--EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh. Well, I guess that would make a quitting/firing article kind of redundant.- MrX 🖋 15:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

...and I just discovered that someone already created a list of Trump administration's dismissals and resignations two days ago. Well, that was fast.--EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm losing track of it all. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

At the very least, those articles should be merged - don't you think? This is getting ridiculous. --MelanieN (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

We need List of Misplaced Pages articles related to Donald Trump. {{Donald Trump series}} is becoming bloated and I doubt it includes everything we have already. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

All this time I was blaming Happy Hour for that bloated feeling. By the end of his term, we'll have enough to create Trumpipedia. 18:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN - in addition to those two lists, there is a table at Presidency of Donald Trump for Notable departures with TALK to split off. They're not quite the same lists or data fields so would be hard to merge. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Mandruss Yes, {{Donald Trump series}} at 900+ articles probably missed some. But to try to make a "List of Misplaced Pages articles related to Donald Trump" seems a bad idea, because of size and because the boundary would be unclear. For example, would one include articles with small side remarks about Trump such as at Conflict of interest, Nepotism, Mary Matalin, or how much of the article has to be about him before it is included? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

List of articles with titles containing the words "Donald Trump" (or "Trump", referring to The Donald) would be a great start. Actually I was mostly joking but that can change if nobody's laughing. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is a worthwhile link for the page: Andy Borowitz report. (I'm kidding - that's a parody/humor site - but that particular link is very appropriate for this discussion.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Previous experience wikilink

I disagree with the consensus item 's decision to wikilink "prior military or government service" to "List of Presidents of the United States by previous experience" as that violates WP:EGG, in my opinion. The discussion that brought us consensus item was not an RFC and not very strong in this aspect, so maybe we can avoid an RFC here, which I don't know how to set-up. However, if we decide to keep a link, but not as it is currently, we probably do need an RFC to come up with a rewrite. wumbolo ^^^ 13:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Have a closer look at the article's links. It's teeming with eggs worse than that one. I'm not saying that's a reason not to improve any eggs, but it's worth noting.
I agree that that part of the consensus is very weak, and its close statement didn't even include the link. The 15 months' worth of de facto consensus is far stronger in my opinion, considering the link's high visibility in the lead.
We don't need an RfC for a wikilink, that would be process overkill.
What change do you propose? ―Mandruss ☎ 14:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: considering we are linking to a list, linking "first..." seems fine. wumbolo ^^^ 14:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow. We have very different interpretations of MOS:EGG. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that it violates WP:EGG. Trump's lack of "prior military or government service" is still considered "previous experience" that can be ranked. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: how about adding "without" to the wikilink then? wumbolo ^^^ 14:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: I don't really have a problem with doing that, but then again I don't have a problem with the way it is now. I don't want to see the lede become a wall of blue text, so I'm generally not in favor of unnecessary extensions of a blue link. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• I propose unlinking if the text remains the same. I was thinking about putting the link into the first paragraph, but there we have "entering politics" instead of "becoming POTUS". In the current sentence, the link has no place as: that article talks about POTUSes' previous occupations in general, and mentions Trump in only one sentence. wumbolo ^^^ 14:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

  That sentence is one of the worst MOS:EGG offenders in the article, with links like wealthiest and the fifth. And it's right up front in the lead, the part read by almost all readers. In violation of WP:LEAD, I think the only part of the sentence that actually summarizes article content is "the fifth to have won the election despite losing the popular vote". In my opinion that should be fixed, allowing for a separate sentence for each point below the lead, thereby making it easier to avoid eggs there, and the links should be removed from the sentence in the lead. If that's too much to consider, you can count me as an abstain in this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Note that "the wealthiest" is summarized under Donald Trump#Election to the presidency. In my opinion, "the wealthiest" and "the oldest" aren't eggs as they quite obviously link to list articles, or at least an article about old/young or wealthy/poor POTUSes. Also, I propose writing "and the fifth to have won the election despite losing the popular vote." wumbolo ^^^ 15:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that that's quite obvious. It may seem logical to a reader after they click, but that's not the same thing and it's not what is meant by MOS:EGG as I understand it.
Thanks for the correction on "wealthiest", and I see that "no prior experience" is also in that section. That simply means we're closer to implementing my suggestion than I thought.
As for extending links to try to address the egg problem, it wouldn't make any sense to do that selectively, and the result would be: "He became the oldest and wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to have won the election despite losing the popular vote." Scjessey is correct that that would be an unacceptable amount of blue. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: how about we explain the links by appending a WP:SELF to the end of the sentences in question: "(links to lists of U.S. Presidents)" or "(President list articles linked)". I don't think that would violate the WP:SELF policy, and it completely fixes egg problems and it links everything that could be linked. wumbolo ^^^ 16:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Parentheticals to explain the targets of wikilinks to avoid surprise? I've never seen that done, and it seems extreme. If I've never seen it done, neither have readers, and they would likely have no idea what it meant. If you're talking about the lead, where space is especially precious, I don't think you could justify that many words anyway. If you're not, I think you're off topic as this is primarily about that sentence in the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I have read through this discussion several times and I still don't understand what the problem is. We have a sentence that describes Trump's position or uniqueness in comparison to previous presidents. Three characteristics are named; in each case there is a wikilink to an article that can provide context and all the additional information someone might want. If they don't want the additional information or context, they won't click on the link. For the life of me I can't see why this is regarded as a problem. IMO it's a great way to summarize the information without cluttering the article, and I propose leaving it as it is. --MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

↑↑↑↑--THIS--↑↑↑↑ -- Scjessey (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Editors differ widely in their awareness of MOS:EGG, their interpretation of it, and how much they care about it. Thus you will occasionally see discussions that don't make sense or seem to make mountains out of molehills. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Surely his 5 years in the New York Military Academy carries some significance. According to some off-the-cuff rumors I heard, he wanted to serve in the military but was turned down by the US Army because of his chronic foot-in-mouth disease, the Air Force turned him down as a pilot because his hands were too small to grip the yoke and of course, the foot issue, the US Navy turned him down because his rear outweighed his qualifications for rear admiral, the latter of which led to his carear in rear-estate. Only in America. 19:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Birtherism is not racism

This should be removed from "Racial views" section. The claims of Birtherism being racist are DNC talking points and Misplaced Pages should strive to create content that is objective and not campaign rhetoric from the Democratic Party.

A new section should be created called "Obama Birth Certificate Controversy" and fairly discuss the the actual events and evidence supporting Birtherism. There is enough actual evidence to suggest that Obama's birth certificate may have been faked (layers in scanned PDF, evidence of tampering, CT based SSN, etc...) which have absolutely nothing to do with his skin color.

This may become super critical in the near future because if Trump or Arapaio did uncover evidence of birth certificate fraud, it is pretty much guaranteed that this evidence will be revealed if they try to impeach Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdotp (talk • contribs) 01:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

"There is enough actual evidence to suggest that Obama's birth certificate may have been faked..." Nonsense. Certainly not evidence of the quality required for Misplaced Pages articles. HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Have you not read the Trump-Russia dossier? Actual evidence is not required - allegations and opinions are all that's needed. Read some of the Trump-related articles if you have any doubt. 18:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Mid-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class WikiProject Business articles
• Mid-importance WikiProject Business articles
• WikiProject Business articles
• B-Class New York City articles
• High-importance New York City articles
• WikiProject New York City articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• B-Class American politics articles
• Top-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Top-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Top-importance
• B-Class American television articles
• Mid-importance American television articles
• American television task force articles
• B-Class United States presidential elections articles
• Top-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• B-Class United States Presidents articles
• High-importance United States Presidents articles
• WikiProject United States Presidents articles
• B-Class United States Government articles
• High-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• Former good article nominees
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment