Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 76

WP:Weight of Russia
Looking over the article, I think that Russia/Mueller need more WP:Weight. There is nothing in his presidency that has received more continued coverage throughout his term by WP:RSes. Yet the limited information in the article is hidden under a forth level header, which is under a third level header, named "Investigations." Moreover, the detail provided in the lede is too short, based on coverage by WP:RS coverage. I propose the following. -- Casprings (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1. We bring all the information about Russia/Mueller under a second level header.
 * 2. We expand the information currently in the article.
 * 3. We expand the information currently in the lede and remove some of the information that is less important based on coverage by WP:RS.


 * I'm going to oppose most of this. 2 paragraphs on "Russian interference", 3 on the special counsel investigation, and a paragraph in "Foreign policy" is enough.  The information in the lede probably could be re-written and improved. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 16:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm more in less in agreement with ; however, I feel like this is something that can be looked at as Mueller concludes his investigation and we know its outcome. The situation is very much in flux, and I think now is not the time to make such wholesale changes. One thing I very much disagree with is the notion that things are "hidden" under lower level headers. Headings are there to give titles to sections, and sections are used to logically contain content. We should not attempt to use headers as a way of altering the "weight" of content. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:WEIGHT appears to disagree. "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." (emphasis added). If one can give undue weight by prominence of placement, they can also give due weight by prominence of placement. I think we can agree that a Level 2 section is more prominent than a Level 3 section, and 3 more prominent than 4. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that, but I think it's more about how early it appears in an article, than the heading level. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The lead currently says "After Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey in 2017, the Justice Department appointed a special counsel to continue investigating links or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian government in connection with Russian interference in the 2016 elections and related matters.". Are you suggesting an expansion to this part, or attempting to reorganize the whole article just so that stuff about Russia and Mueller is earlier? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would suggest both. I think it should be a level 2 heading. It isn't a good fit where it is given that it predates his Presidency.Casprings (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We bring all the information about Russia/Mueller under a second level header. Given that the first level headings are called Level 2 headings (Level 1 is the article title), perhaps you could clarify this part of the proposal. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it should be a level 2 heading. In my view, given the amount of coverage, that is justified. Also, it is isn't a really good fit where it is given that is connections to Russia go back way before he became POTUS.Casprings (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Casprings, I suggest you try an experiment. I have done this several times, with good success. Actually edit the article in one big edit to make it the way you'd like to see it. Then save it and immediately self-revert. Leave good edit summaries which explain exactly what you are doing at each step. Then post that diff here and everyone can see what this actually looks like. "A picture is worth a thousand words." Such a test can be very convincing, and can also create a much better basis for further discussion. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Disagree, the article should not be used for sandboxing. If you want to sandbox, use your sandbox. Remember to remove categories from the sandbox version. Advantages: No risk of disruption to the article, even for a few seconds. All the time you need to get it the way you want it, in as many separate edits as you need. If you don't have a sandbox (I don't remember whether that's an optional thing), User:Mandruss/sandbox3 is available. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with Mandruss. No need to disrupt this article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would agree with the above. Perhaps the first step is to come to consensus about rather this needs more Weight. Yes or no. If the consensus is yes, we can move on to the how. If no, then this can die.Casprings (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If you really want to explore a one-section approach to the Russia/Mueller stuff, consider creating one in your own user space. If it works, you can bring it to the attention of the editors here. I personally think it is too early to attempt such a thing, but perhaps it will scratch an itch you might have. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * No. IMO a level 2 heading would be way, way UNDUE for this biography - which is supposed to cover his entire life. I think the current weight is enough, and the fact that it is scattered among several different main sections just reflects reality. If this issue becomes a major factor affecting his life - causing criminal charges or impeachment, for example - then it would assume a much more prominent place in his biography. But it would be CRYSTAL if not a BLP violation to expand it now on the chance that it might become more important later. --MelanieN (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that we don't over focus on one thing I suggested.Casprings (talk) 10:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Not right now - I think the Russia/Mueller thing is multifaceted. It has so many angles and goes off on so many tangents, it would be impossible to tie them all together in one coherent section. It is possible this will change in the future (if, for example, it all led to the downfall of his presidency) but I think we have the correct approach at the moment. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We do have to be careful to not engage in WP:Synth. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't suggest any form of synthesis. In fact, I said "it would be impossible to tie them all together in one coherent section." -- Scjessey (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * No - not unless there's new evidence and not more speculation, editorializing and unsupported allegations which are..., well...meh. Most of what's in the article now about Russia belongs in the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, not in his bio. A new article that focuses on Russian interference in US elections may be warranted if we don't have one already. Now that we know they were tampering as far back as the Obama election those articles can be updated. Atsme 📞📧 02:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You misread the source. It does not say there was tampering as far back as Obama's election (which was in 2012). It is about Obama's actions with regard to the tampering in the 2016 election. --MelanieN (talk) 04:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Seriously? The allegations against Trump are "meh" and by the way, it's Obama's fault? C'mon, dude! At least try appear interested in neutrality. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I've posted links about it before, just added a new one, but here's one that goes back in time to support the others I've included and also showing it wasn't just about Trump. Lots of speculation as to Russia trying to influence elections - the candidates are what influence elections and the only influence is what the candidates do/have done to themselves, so it really does seem a bit of a stretch...unless they actually hacked the voting machines & changed votes but we've been assured that didn't happen. Anyway, here's a better link to show it's not just about Trump, and you were right about UNDUE. Enough already with Trump-Russia...it's much broader than this one campaign, or poor Hillary...she just made hacking easier with her unsecured servers, blackberries, iPads, etc. Atsme 📞📧 15:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * poor Hillary...she just made hacking easier with her unsecured servers, blackberries, iPads, etc Wrong again. None of the reported hacking or leaks involved Hillary’s own emails, or her own servers and phones. In spite of all the howling about her unsecured server, there’s never been any evidence that it was breached, and nothing has ever been leaked that came directly from her systems. This article notes that many individuals and organizations, both Republican and Democratic, were hacked and in some cases information was leaked. "The targets over the past two years have included a Who's Who of Hillary Clinton associates from her State Department tenure, the Clinton Foundation and her presidential campaign, as well as top Republicans and staffers for Republican candidates for president." "The hack has especially targeted individuals around Democratic nominee Clinton" (such as Podesta’s emails), also "individuals associated with the Clinton Foundation." This article describes hacking of associates, people around her. What the article DOESN’T say is that Hillary herself was ever hacked. No evidence of a breach of her own systems has ever been found, in spite of years of intensive investigating by Congressional committees and the FBI. Not the Clinton Foundation either - just the emails of individuals associated with it. I know this is off topic, but we need to keep the record straight and not let wrong information go unchallenged. After you have a chance to see this and respond, I will hat this part of the discussion as off topic. --MelanieN (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * MelanieN - Elsewhere are minor reports - e.g. The Guardian, Forbes - that Hillary's private server was hacked, but it has little coverage since nothing much happened.  If nothing else, the logic runs that if Russians were going to major efforts in the years before the election, why would they not take such an easy target?  And yes, Hillary seems OFFTOPIC for a Trump BLP -- but I think for his BLP Russians in general are not due much.  Markbassett (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec) MelanieN is right. Clinton's server was not hacked, and I'm not so sure we can assume that her server was "an easy target". The hackers seemed to target official servers, which were apparently the really "easy targets". We don't know if they knew about her private server (which Colin Powell helped her set up, in the same manner members of the Bush administration did it), or if they knew, but failed to penetrate it. We do know that they hacked both DNC and RNC targets, but only released DNC material. That's all consistent with what is alleged in the Trump–Russia dossier: that the Trump campaign conspired with the hackers, "with the full knowledge and support of TRUMP and senior members of his campaign team"; planned for them to get the emails to WikiLeaks for "plausible deniability"; planned the exact timing for the leak of the emails during the DNC national convention (allegedly Carter Page's idea); and later paid those hackers and took measures to cover up the whole operation. Yes, those are the allegations, all of which are taken seriously by intelligence and are being investigated, and which can explain what actually happened. (Further evidence that it might be true is that Trump has denied it. ) Hopefully the Mueller investigation will bring more light on that situation, because we know he's investigating every allegation in the dossier, which has proved so reliable that it is used as the "road map" for the investigation. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The hackers seemed to target official servers, Actually no. The hackers mostly did not target servers directly. They targeted email, through the much simpler device of phishing. They send out a phishing email, and if the sucker clicks on it or responds, they've got him or her - and everyone he or she sends email to. --MelanieN (talk) 03:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In a sense that's true, but that is the avenue used to get into the servers, which are the ultimate targets, or have a missed something? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * BullRangifer - so many errors there.  First, at least the couple RS named did report her server hacked and mentioned the logic that it was an 'easy target' plus that she herself admitted to being spearphished like Podesta was.  No, we do not "know" which if any things were done by Russians, we only know the reports.  And yes, one migh speculate it consistent with the dossier and think Putin takes orders from Trump -- or equally well speculate that the dossier confirmed Clinton colluding with Russians and that the RNC emails were not leaked because they did not have the interesting wrongdoing that the DNC had.  Just flip between cable channels to see either bubble reality.  And no, Mueller has not said he's taking direction from Steele to control or limit his investigations, or see anything about the actual criminal charges and subpeonas in the dossier.  But I think all of this is WP:OFFTOPIC for a biography article on Trump, and suggest it go see if the Russian interference article or the Presidency article suits.  Please Melanie hat this section soon.  Markbassett (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * , I'm pleased that editors are giving more consideration to UNDUE regarding the Russia info. But no, I'm not wrong about Hillary. There are multiple RS that have published articles about the widespread hacking, and yes, Hillary's emails were targeted the same way the DNC was targeted, & other presidential candidates were targeted. WaPo and Forbes reported it in 2016. A NYTimes title reads "Hillary Clinton email was probably hacked experts say", and summarized "Nothing from Mrs. Clinton has surfaced. But that does not mean they were not stolen, only that they have not been made public." There's also the BBC, USNews, and CNBC, NBC News reporting that all candidates were targeted, Time, CBS News, HufPo, re: Podesta and Hillary emails. Don't hat this discussion - it's important for editors to see that it wasn't just about Trump-Russia. It was widespread hacking. Atsme 📞📧 02:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing from Mrs. Clinton has surfaced. But that does not mean they were not stolen, only that they have not been made public ... a line of argument that was once wonderfully parodied by C.S. Lewis: "The absence of smoke can be taken as evidence that the fire has been very carefully hidden." --MelanieN (talk) 03:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Shows the dichotomy between the way Clinton allegations were treated vs Trump allegations, particularly when choosing RS and the material used in WP. Atsme 📞📧 04:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Huh? The difference between the way they were treated is because of EVIDENCE. The Republicans in Congress spent literally years trying to find any evidence of Clinton colluding or of her email server getting hacked or of classified information slipping out of her hands. They came up with nothing. That is why the difference. And that is the analogy in my quote, which you apparently didn't get: the NYT says there is no evidence her server was hacked, but then speculates it might have been anyhow. Where there's no smoke, there still must be fire? --MelanieN (talk) 05:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no dichotomy. You see it that way because you've got it backwards. RS and Wikipedia have got it right, and you don't like that. There are just the differences in POV between those who use RS and those tendentious editors who use fringe sources (including Fox News). It's that simple. That's what my message for fringe political editors is about. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You do realize that once an email has been sent, it can be captured without the original server being hacked? Emails are vulnerable, once they are sent. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


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


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

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)


 * 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)
 * 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:
 * Trump probably had an affair with porn star Stormy Daniels (Stephanie Clifford).
 * Fearing the news would come out at a critical time of the election, he had his lawyer pay hush money to keep Clifford quiet.
 * 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.
 * 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).
 * Trump orders his Press Secretary to lie to the White House Press Corps (what else is new?) about a ridiculous "win" in arbitration.
 * Clifford's lawyer is on cable TV almost continuously.
 * As usual, it's no longer about the affair, but rather it is about the lying.
 * We can no longer pretend this isn't getting significant play in the mainstream media, so it absolutely belongs in this BLP in some form or another. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should refrain from reporting recentist gossip, especially in high-profile articles on living persons. — JFG talk 18:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The ship sailed on "recentist gossip" years ago, it is verifiable (that's not to say the affair is true, per se, just that sources are covering it) and is a prominent section of Ms. Daniels' article, Stormy_Daniels. 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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Still recentism, and yes still sensationalist gossip, no matter who prints it. And I said nothing about conspiracy theories. I would definitely support inclusion if/when something more tangible appears. WP:There is no deadline. — JFG talk 22:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we'd all be interested in a credible argument to keep this kind of stuff out of the article, JFG, but that ain't it.  SPECIFICO talk 18:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I have zero interest in getting involved in this article or talkpage, but I will make a general comment about site policy. WP:BLP specifically addresses this situation, in its section on "Public figures". The policy states: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." It goes on to say, by way of example: (emphasis mine). So this sort of material is described as appropriate for inclusion&mdash;in fact, it's a canonical example of appropriate material&mdash;in the WP:BLP policy. It's arguably a BLP violation to remove this material, since fundamental site policy so clearly supports inclusion. I'm concerned by the lack of policy awareness in some of the arguments here; among other basic matters, essays on recentism and deadlines don't supplant WP:BLP, which is a fundamental and non-negotiable site policy. MastCell Talk 22:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You are right that the BLP policy does not prevent us from mentioning these allegations, but it also does not obligate us to mention them. We still have to consider due weight in Trump's overall life story, and that can't be established as of yet. — JFG talk 22:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please respond to the points MastCell made above. You've just repeated your POV.  SPECIFICO talk 22:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) the policy is hardly agnostic on the subject. It literally says that such material "belongs in the biography". (Where, and how broadly, to cover it are questions of WP:WEIGHT). You're contravening a clear statement of fundamental site policy, and it's not a good look. MastCell Talk 22:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A large number of sexual or "groping" affairs have been considered for inclusion in this bio and a consensus of editors has agreed to just briefly summarize them, while pointing to the main article Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. Some more serious allegations such as a rape case have been fully rejected from this article after extensive debate. So there is not hard and fast obligation for the biography to include an allegation just because it exists, nor to immediately reflect the latest scandal à la mode. That's why we are all here to discuss the case and make a collective determination, and I will most certainly respect any consensus that emerges. — JFG talk 23:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So... you're saying we should include the Stormy Daniels stuff in the "sexual misconduct allegations" article? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That would make sense. Strange it's not in there yet. — JFG talk 15:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get sucked in any further here, but I'm concerned that moving the material to the "sexual misconduct allegations" article is inappropriate, and potentially a BLP issue. After all, there is no allegation of actual misconduct in this case&mdash;right? (I can't say I've followed the sources or editing here closely, so correct me if I'm wrong). I don't think anyone has suggested that anything non-consensual occurred, and the non-disclosure agreement was apparently legally dubious but not a form of "sexual misconduct". MastCell Talk 15:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there was no sexual misconduct, just alleged adultery. starship.paint ~  KO   09:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Adultery is considered misconduct by a rather large proportion of society. The alleged misdeeds are not misconduct by Trump against the porn actress, but misconduct by both of them against Melania. — JFG talk 11:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * - I agree with you. Adultery is misconduct, against Melania. But there was no sexual misconduct against Melania. University of Iowa: "Sexual misconduct is a broad term encompassing any unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature that is committed without consent or by force, intimidation, coercion, or manipulation." It's maritial misconduct so it can't go in the sexual misconduct article. Unless you name that article to "sexual + marital" or "all misconduct". starship.paint ~   KO   13:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a valid reason not to include it there, ok. So where to put it? That story is currently in both articles Stormy Daniels and Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen (lawyer), plus briefly at Daniels' lawyer Michael Avenatti, looks good enough in the current state of reporting. Might also deserve a mention in Legal affairs of Donald Trump, given the recently opened suit and counter-suit. — JFG talk 13:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The whole detailed story can go to Legal affairs of Donald Trump. The allegation of the affair should go into Donald Trump, that's one sentence. Maybe another sentence of the $130,000 payment and non-disclosure agreement, that would make it two sentences in the main article. starship.paint ~  KO   03:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The significant factor is that POTUS and his counsel apparently believed that Trump was compromised by some aspect of this incident. The significance is that a candidate and now elected official apparently was vulnerable to blackmail.  SPECIFICO talk 15:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with others that this material should be included in the article, but not the lead (not yet; possibly later). This is well-publicised matter that is directly relevant to Trump's bio. In fact, to leave this material out would tend to tilt the article's neutral stance. Casually dismissing it as "sensationalist gossip" is not much different that declaring IDONTLIKEIT.- 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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I would be more likely to Oppose in this article if there were another article where this would fit. It has already been established by clear consensus that it doesn't belong in an article titled "sexual misconduct allegations" because no sexual misconduct is alleged. I'll also comment that I find the phrase "pornographic actress" linguistically offensive, as it says she is an actress who is pornographic. The better phrase would be "pornography actress", but I guess we're stuck with the bad one since it's all over Wikipedia content and even some reliable sources. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC) But pornography actress would be an improvement over pornographic actressit's the films that are pornographic, not the actors in them. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion per 's clear analysis. I too am reluctant to delve deeply into the 24/7/365 Trump world on Wikipedia, but the policy based reasons for including this content are so strong at this point that I must comment in favor. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion. There are no BLP problems nor would it being a BLP mean we reduce or remove that coverage, as pointed out above, because of how public a figure Trump is. This is has been coverage extensively, far more than say the rape case. NPOV doesn't have a thou can ignore WEIGHT in highly reliable sources if what they print is "gossip". I think there is consensus to at-least restore this, though I'll wait. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment In this case, where we have a single editor denying WP site policy and deflecting any attempts to engage in discussion, there is clearly consensus to include. So if any text is reverted, it can immediately be reinstated per current consensus. I don't believe the DS are intended to prevent reinserting evident consensus that a single editor chooses to deny.  SPECIFICO talk 13:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't edit war though. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Galobtter and others, but I don't see any reason to push something this controversial to the article after only 36 hours of discussion. One or two editors need to chill and stop picking fights.
 * - how about "porn actress" starship.paint ~  KO   09:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Too slangy for Wikipedia, imo. Actually my first choice would be adult film actress, as it avoids some stigma without violating MOS:EUPHEMISM in my view. Readers who are unfamiliar with the term "adult film" would have to remain uninformed about the nature of her films (which is of secondary importance) or be enlightened by the wikilink, and I could live with either.
 * Does the label matter really? What about "nude model" or just "actress"? The issue is blackmail -- not her profession.  SPECIFICO</b> 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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  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. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  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.) <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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 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)
 * 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)
 * Don't bother, we've seen this before. To a few editors, anything Trump-negative short of a court conviction is gossip and partisan character-assassination. It matters not to these editors that that is clearly inconsistent with Wikipedia content policy, so you're wasting your "breath". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ping didn't work, if something is clearly inconsistent with Wikipedia content policy, it should be easily refuted though. starship.paint ~  KO   09:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose-ish - not really a RFC here, but until debate turns from what was "apparently believed" or "apparently blackmail" to actual article text proposals based on cites, I'll suggest restraint is in order. BLP lead says it "must" be written conservatively and  WP:PUBLICFIGURE says avoid inflammatory labels, so caution or restraint on sexy sensationalism seems in order rather than a stampede to insert something instantly.  Asking for carte blanche to insert unknown text seems likely to lead to a revert and coming back for a RFC.  Markbassett (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * - 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. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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. – Davey 2010 Talk 00:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - per MastCell and others. Place in Legal issues section and call her an adult film actress.  Gandydancer (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - per MastCall. There are now allegations of physical threats. I don’t think that should be included, at least as yet. O3000 (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * - 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)


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


 * * - 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:

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)


 * 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)


 * FTR, there has been no RfC on this question. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  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)
 * There has been no RfC about inclusion of any Stormy Daniels content in this article (or any other article). See WP:RFC for explanation of what an RfC is. It's important to use Wikipedia terms correctly. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  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". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  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. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  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.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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 toneand more correct use of language than to say that an actress is pornographic. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI text has been, and  over the last few hours. Although there seems to be emerging consensus to insert something, it looks like the long version that was placed in the article would not be supported by most editors. I agree with you that text should be inserted next week if agreement can be found on exact content. Please evaluate whether anybody violated any sanction with those recent edits, I'm not touching this with a 10-foot pole... — JFG talk 17:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And I have removed it again. I hate it when people jump the gun like this; the discussion about wording has been open for barely 24 hours; at least allow a few days for people to chime in, so there is time for improvement and development of consensus. Also, the version added to the article was Option 1, while most discussion here has seemed to prefer Option 2. --MelanieN (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose any inclusion of this until it is proven to be true.--MONGO 17:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Your argument is contradicted by policy. WP:PUBLICFIGURE, #2. ValarianB (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What we are putting into the article IS proven to be true, namely the legal situation: there is an allegation, there was a payoff, there is ongoing litigation. We aren't saying anything about whether there was or was not an affair, only what is known about the current situation. --MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Stand by my comment without deviation.--MONGO 18:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That is your privilege. --MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course, it's a deviation from WP policy, just not from your earlier denial of it. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support! Wink.png -- Scjessey (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Obliviously! Wink.png &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do we need to mention that the alleged affair occurred just after Barron's birth? Sounds like an extra scoop of tabloid-level shaming, which doesn't change anything to the legal dispute. Just drop this part. — JFG talk 04:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My answer to your question. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You say it would be unclear whether the affair was extramarital wrt Trump or Daniels. That's unpersuasive as a reason to mention Barron's birth. When an affair with a porn actress is described as "extramarital", readers will certainly assume that the man was married, not the porn star. It is wholly unnecessary and unencyclopedic to drag Barron or Melania into this just for the kicks of implying "look, Trump banged a porn star while his wife was nursing". Again, we are not a tabloid. — JFG talk 07:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * readers will certainly assume that the man was married, not the porn star. Like you, I can only speak for myself, but not this reader. Porn stars are about as likely to be married as anybody. Daniels has been married twice according to her BLP, and the alleged affair occurred during the 1- to 2-year gap between her first and her second. It's tabloidish only if gratuitous, and I say it is not gratuitous but rather unambiguous writing. If you can think of a better way to clarify that he was married at the time, I'm all ears. I think saying "Trump was married at the time" would be a worse way. If we can't clarify what "extramarital" means in this context, it should be removed. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course the starlet can be married as well. Still, this is Trump's bio, it strikes me as rather obvious that the "extramarital" qualifier applies to him. To make things crystal-clear without mentioning the baby, we could replace "an extramarital affair" with "an affair while Trump was married", but that looks like pretty sloppy prose to me. I'd be fine with your alternate suggestion of removing "extramarital" entirely, because "affair" says enough. — JFG talk 08:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Seeing that the text was re-inserted with an encouragement to "improve it the wiki way", I have removed the "youngest son" mention, as UNDUE. Revert me if you think that has any material influence on the case. — JFG talk 04:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Everybody needs to just leave the article alone until there is a consensus here. No, I'm not going to add to the problem by reverting you, but thanks for the offer. If there is a fairly clear status quo ante, I wouldn't object if somebody restored it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree that the article should have been left alone during the discussion, but some editors decided that was somehow an urgent matter to address. The statu quo ante has nothing on Stormy, there is emerging consensus to insert something, although content is very much still under discussion. Not in the mood of dragging people to AE, though. — JFG talk 07:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * With DS, you don't need AE. All you need is an uninvolved admin who takes ArbCom remedies seriously, and there are several I can think of without much effort. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  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. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * With, you inadvertently restored the text "whose real name is Stephanie Clifford", which I had removed earlier as unnecessary detail. If this was indeed unwitting, please remove it again (I can't due to DS restrictions). If you think it's due, please explain. — JFG talk 08:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * JFG, that was not inadvertent. Nothing was ever discussed here about removing her real name; every source reporting on this matter includes it; you removed it suddenly and unilaterally, without ever even suggesting it anywhere that I am aware of, much less giving any reason or argument for doing it, and I disagree with that removal. --MelanieN (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, 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. 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
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. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 18:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Armed forces service is not a unique qualifier for running the VA, it is not a military posting. ValarianB (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This edit by 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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 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? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  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? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 21:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What change are you proposing to this article? I can't see that in your comment. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  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! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 22:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If there is a snowball's chance that any content about Jackson's appointment might be added to this single-page biography of Donald Trump, I apologize for my error in moving that part of this thread. I don't think there is. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  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. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 17:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC: "useful fool"
Should Trump's main biography include the phrase:

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

Survey on useful fool

 * 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 talk 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 Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support This is not being said in Wikipedia'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, 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. -- 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. 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 , . 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 Wikipedia (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? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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)
 * hit the nail on the head. Undue weight indeed 16 months later. — JFG talk 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. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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 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 talk 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. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 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." <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 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 Wikipedia 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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  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 <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  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! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 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)
 * why on earth you would consider RECENTISM ridiculous, ? 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? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 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! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 21:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - These are established figures, going on the record to express opinion about another established figure. Wikipedia 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 ( talk ) 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)
 * Oppose - Whilst I appreciate it may of been reported everywhere and all that IMHO allowing this sort of statement could set the precedent of "X called Y a fool [or worse], lets include that in the article" .... As much as I think Trump is a fool I can't support allow that sort of statement in any encyclopedic article. – Davey 2010 Talk 03:50, 8 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. 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. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  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. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk

No, Hillary is not "original birther"
This reversion by was self-reverted in violation of the restrictions; but hopefully, it shouldn't be too difficult to get a consensus for the plain fact that, no, Hillary Clinton didn't start the birther rumors, and add that, as the article says, Trump "claimed, falsely" that was the case. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support including "claimed, falsely". This right wing smear has been put to bed. It's our duty to mention that it is a false claim. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup, every source I see mentions very prominently that it is false or is specifically debunking it, ergo per NPOV it should be included. More sources: "four pinnochios" by wapo, latimes: "Donald Trump is sticking by his fictional story that Hillary Clinton", Associated press - FACT CHECK: Trump’s bogus birth claim about Clinton etc Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree. This claim has been widely debunked. --MelanieN (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: I clarified how that all came to be in my comment above. Hillary and her 2008 campaign deny that they took the advice provided to then-Senator Clinton, by her aide, Mark Penn, who sent her the 2007 strategy memo advising the campaign to point out of Obama’s "lack of American roots". There is no evidence that Clinton or the 2008 campaign took Penn's advice. There was also a chain of emails by Clinton supporters that was circulating, but they were not "technically" connected to the Clinton campaign; however, they don't identify the "supporters". It may be a play on words as to the origins or the allegations but I think it's best to stick with the Politifact article regarding their view on how it all came to be, (The Politifact article links to The Atlantic article, and to the actual memo so it's corroborated in that circle). I still haven't figured out how the 2007 strategy memo got into the hands of the Trump campaign. Anyone know? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 19:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I can only guess. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually that seems to be wrong. Somehow, The Atlantic acquired the memo in 2008. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And, as I keep pointing out to Atsme, the strategy memo from Mark Penn said NOTHING WHATSOEVER about Obama's birthplace, and advised that while emphasizing Hillary's American-ness they should say NOTHING AT ALL about Obama's background. And the Politifact article that is cited in support specifically says that this is NOT the origin of the birther stories. How this memo keeps being brought up as if it somehow connected Clinton to the birther stories is a mystery to me, and if it happens again I will say something stronger than that.. --MelanieN (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There's also The Telegraph article - and you're right Muboshgu...we should be questioning the sources. There's quite a bit of missing information, so good luck with your findings. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 19:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Plain fact? Gimme a break! This topic is controversial and any assertion that imply whether Hillary Clinton is the original birther or not is a blatant violation of NPOV. Even Morning Joe from MSNBC (blatantly pro-Democrat network) admits that Hillary is the original birther and Politico article from 2011 stated the same . I can find you a  million other sources that back this up and any attempt to whitewash this is blatant revisionist history. Frankly, there is no reason for Wikipedia to take a side on this issue. If those with blatantly partisan agenda insist on going out of their way to gang-patrol this (and rhetoric of some above are clearly partisan. "Right wing smear"? Are you kidding me? Politico and MSNBC are right-wing now?), don't expect me to back down.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Certified Gangsta, thanks for providing a link to that Morning Joe discussion. I suggest you listen again to it, carefully. You hear them (starting with Joe) saying “the Clinton people started it” “they spread it around as a rumor in the primaries in 2008” - but listen for what they mean when say say “it”. They eventually clarify that they are talking about the rumor that Obama is not a Christian. Not about his birthplace. --MelanieN (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Well that's charming. So one side presents a bunch of academic articles and books, besides newspaper articles and opinions from editorial boards, and here's what you got: "Hillary started it", as if a. that is somehow relevant here (it's not) and b. as if that is somehow "proven" by the banter of some talking heads on a TV show. It's useful that you link to the Politico article, which says that Andy Martin started it, and the only, the ONLY thing that comes anywhere close to your conspiratorial comment is "Clinton supporters circulated an anonymous email questioning Obama’s citizenship". "Clinton supporters"--not Clinton. (That's like saying Trump is a KKK man because the Klan likes Trump.) So opinions and stuff are fine: what you are doing is falsely representing that a reliable source says something when it doesn't (Christians call that "bearing false witness"). In the gun control arbitration case editors were topic-banned for that. And all of that is just irrelevant anyway: we're here on this talk page to figure out what role the birther thing should play in Trump's article. Clearly Trump was a birther--there's no way to deny that. So stick to the point. Drmies (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, it was you who changed that. That's real charming. "Even Morning Joe said it". You know what, my neighbor voted Clinton in that primary because he said "Obama is going to give everything to the blacks". Let me add that to Obama's article real quick: "Obama gave everything to the blacks". As it happens, my neighbor is also called Joe, so there you have it. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Also, anyone that still believes this false claim shouldn't be editing this, or any related article. I see some trying to push the Penn memo as proof, even those any rational person looking at that memo can see there's nothing there about where Obama was born. It defies credulity to believe anyone would see it otherwise.
 * Politifact -- Donald Trump's claim Hillary Clinton started Obama birther movement is FALSE
 * Snopes -- FALSE
 * Politico -- FALSE
 * ABCNews -- FALSE
 * So any other efforts to push this false narrative should be met with some kind of sanctions. This has been debunked for a long time by many trusted fact checkers. Dave Dial (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support as with the pizzagates and Seth Rich and a host of others, when a right-wing talking point is so thoroughly and completely debunked, it is not a violation of neutrality to use a modifier as as "falsely" when discussing the subject matter. This is a done deal, and has been for a decade now. TheValeyard (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - This far-right fringe lunacy needs to be stopped dead in its tracks.- MrX 🖋 21:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * MrX - evidence points to it being a product of the far-left fringe lunacy, or whatever you call it. The Telegraph presents a bit more detail about the Hillary supporters' chain emails - I just haven't figured out who exactly are considered Hillary supporters. There's no denying that the far-right lunatics did not disappoint the far-left lunatics. I say, chalk it up to politics as usual - don't take sides - use sound editorial judgement to weed-out the worst of it. SMirC-stoned.svg <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 22:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, evidence most certainly does NOT point to that. It does point to it being a far right conspiracy theory, however. I've seen you post this lie a over and over all around. Several editors have shown you the facts, given you links, but you still keep pushing this damn lie. Holding onto the stupid Telegraph article and taking Morning Joe out of context(as if his show was some end all source anyway). Now if you have really read the Politifact, Snopes and other articles that have been shown to you, and still don't understand that the conspiracy theory was started at the Free Republic conservative message board. As for the "clinton supporters" emailing the conspiracy theory. Some of the same people claiming to be Clinton supporters in the 2008 primary that pushed that type of bull in the general election were McCain supporters in the general election, and Trump supporters now. See Phil Berg, TexasDarlin, the PUMAs. They weren't really Clinton supporters, as much of not wanting to have a Black president. I would say much the same as some "Bernie Bros" weren't really that much into Bernie, as they were against having a woman president. So "supporters", Clinton or otherwise, isn't an excuse to deny this was pushed by Trump for freakin years. Dave Dial (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Pile on support - "just because" is sufficient rationale, FFS. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a clear consensus. I reinserted those two words. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree that there is no consensus that Hillary was involved. I pause momentarily as it relates to Hillary supporters (not knowing what that means exactly), or how the latter connects to the campaign. None of it matters at this point in time. Obama won fair and square, America celebrated, and history was made...and that's the way it should stand. Thank you!! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 23:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:FALSEBALANCE. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Who's Hillary - How do you close a non-RFC? O3000 (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, not within 6 hours of opening it, which it now is! Although the disputed material has already been re-added to the article, IMO in courtesy we should wait an absolute minimum of 24 hours before closing the discussion, so that everyone interested can chime in. Yes, even when the outcome appears obvious. --MelanieN (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No prob. Just can’t figure out why folks keep bringing up someone that climbed Mt. Everest 65 years back. O3000 (talk) 00:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that Hillary's portrait now adorns the $5 bill. — JFG talk 05:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hillary Clinton on the conservative media: 'It appears they don't know I'm not president'. --MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)