Talk:Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Unfinished business
Beware. Severalhole guards this page from "disruptions". Wikipedia is a disruption... Per WP:SPINOFF, this article is a proper spin off subarticle of Stormy Daniels. As such, the section there should be left with a short summary of this article. A simple way to do this is to use the lede here as the content in the section there. Before doing that, make sure the lede here is a fully proper lede. It may not sum up all significant points in the body. Take a look at each section, sum it up in a few sentences, and make sure that becomes part of the lede. Then use that lede as the content in the main article. See my essay for more details: WP:How to create and manage a good lead section.
Right now we just have a huge duplication, and that isn't proper. Otherwise, this is a great move. Thanks for doing it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- I was thinking the same thing about the text in the original article: It should be digested down to the important parts, since the details are now in this article instead. Also, I agree that the current lede seems more like was supposed to be a paragraph in the timeline, not the intro summary. Was the January 12, 2018 Wall Street Journal report the first time this hit the news in public, or were there earlier reports that just didn't get much attention? --Closeapple (talk) 03:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
These sections should be included here
Z75SG61Ilunqpdb (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
POV title much?
Where is the scandal? Clinton Foundation–State Department controversy anyone? Clinton email controversy? Suggest name change to "controversy" until wrongdoing by anyone other than Stormy Daniels (violating terms of non-disclosure agreement) has been determined. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe it's hiding somewhere in the Whataboutism article? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- Traditionally differences of opinion can be called a controversy, especially when guilt is never proven, as in your examples about Clinton, which were largely manufactured "scandals" that didn't pan out. You could have mentioned another bogus attack on Clinton, the Investigation into the 2012 Benghazi attack, which is another example in that class where no guilt was found.
- Sexual scandals are normally called scandals (in America), especially since there is no longer any "controversy" about the sexual part, and just a legal matter to settle about the NDA. (That may never end up in court because Trump fears the discovery process.) Controversy would only apply to that latter part. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- It's not a "sexual scandal" at the core if it was an encounter between two adults out of free will, that means without a relationship of dependency or a lack of maturity. IMO marital infidelty is a matter for the spouses only and it seems that the old affair didn't cause a break-up. To drag non-illegal marital infidelity into the public limelight to create a case of "high crimes and misdemeanour" would be - in my opinion - a gross missapplication of the articles of impeachment. But others might disagree and think that a president's marital infidelity is a valid reason for impeachment. But that's controversial, isn't it? --Findacrime (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC) — Findacrime (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The issue isn't Trump's marital infidelity. The issue is Trump directing Cohen to pay off Stormy to avoid the story coming out, which could have hurt his 2016 campaign. That's a serious crime. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- It's not a "sexual scandal" at the core if it was an encounter between two adults out of free will, that means without a relationship of dependency or a lack of maturity. IMO marital infidelty is a matter for the spouses only and it seems that the old affair didn't cause a break-up. To drag non-illegal marital infidelity into the public limelight to create a case of "high crimes and misdemeanour" would be - in my opinion - a gross missapplication of the articles of impeachment. But others might disagree and think that a president's marital infidelity is a valid reason for impeachment. But that's controversial, isn't it? --Findacrime (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC) — Findacrime (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Two questions Comment
1. Is there any particular reason why the word "affair" is used in this article? Even if it is used in sources, the incident in question was a one-time casual sexual encounter, not a "relationship," and therefore not an affair. (See Affair.)
2. Is there any particular reason why there is no description of the actual incident, as related by Stormy Daniels? Not every word of the description she included in her book and in interviews, but just something about his behavior, which I think provides some perspective on the payments he made later. Neutron (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Do not have a clue on how to write up Creapy Porn Lawyer, Michael Avenatti.
Stormy Daniels had a lawyer in this case, Michael Avenatti, who gave her perhaps gave her bad guidance around suing to get out an unenforced NDA resulting in her being ordered to pay Donald Trumps legal fees. He also allegedly(?) stole from this client. Good luck at including that hot mess into this article. Honestly every lawyer mentioned has a long story of poor choices around this affair. Link to legal malpractice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loopbackdude (talk • contribs) 02:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- Is "Creapy" (or "Creepy") a proper term to use to describe somebody in Wikipedia? Is this not a slur word and a violation of BLP even for Michael Cohen? (PeacePeace (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC))
Vandalism!
User Disstroyy vandalised this page by inserting silly insertion below to prove Wikipedia is unreliable. He thinks the fact its posted means its approved by the wikipedia community! I have reverted page to initial state but do not know how to report him.
- This is from Disstroy or Disstroyy . Budaatum challenged and this is one more proof that he's as intelligent as a carrot stick. Here's his challenge to me: "Yes, I want to bet on that! How about for $100? Go edit that article and insert any silly [s]Leftist[/s] comment from this thread and see how quickly your silly edit gets deleted. Just post us a link here so we know you done it. Budaatum, you owe me $100, an apology and deactivating. September 10, 2020. buda atum 20:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buda atum (talk • contribs)
No Scandal Occurred. This article is mostly a violation of BLP
This article should be deleted in toto, rewritten, and renamed in some way to remove the blatant violation of BLP which it is. Reliable sources state that Daniels denied that the affair occurred. Is not the tortuous reciting of the details of a slander a violation of BLP? (PeacePeace (talk) 04:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC))
- You clearly misunderstand what the scandal the article refers to was about, though it's contained in the lede:
- "A news article involving U.S. President Donald Trump surfaced in January 2018 when The Wall Street Journal revealed that adult film actress Stormy Daniels received $130,000 for signing a non-disclosure agreement just before the 2016 United States presidential election..." JohndanR (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
WAPO "affair" denial ?
The WAPO article from 1/30/2018 indicates that Ms. Daniels issued a denial. If this article is true, it should be mentioned. If not, did WAPO issue a correction? Here's the link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/porn-star-stormy-daniels-says-affair-with-trump-never-happened/2018/01/30/d8d5fcea-0633-11e8-b48c-b07fea957bd5_story.html Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Tondelleo Schwarzkopf, she was restricted by a non-disclosure agreement at that time. Cullen328 (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Restricted? There's no reliable source that I know of which states Ms. Daniels was compelled by any such NDA to release a statement denying sex/affair. And at this point, the NDA is no longer binding (as a result of court case ruling). That means either Ms. Daniels repudiates this denial and/or WAPO issues a correction, or else from our perspective, this denial is still true, is very material and should be mentioned. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Since it has been 5 years since that article, she has shown WITH evidence that an NDA existed, and this story has had more current, accurate information come to light, I'd say this WAPO article is nit-picky at best and has no reason to be in the page. Also, a news organization has no requirement to constantly update previous stories after they become invalid CreativeNightPainter (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Restricted? There's no reliable source that I know of which states Ms. Daniels was compelled by any such NDA to release a statement denying sex/affair. And at this point, the NDA is no longer binding (as a result of court case ruling). That means either Ms. Daniels repudiates this denial and/or WAPO issues a correction, or else from our perspective, this denial is still true, is very material and should be mentioned. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Timeline
We start the timeline in 2018, but seems the payment was in 2016. Can we move the timeline back to the true start? Maybe even date of affair between parties. I am not an expert in this article subject, just curious. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)