Talk:Stormy Daniels/Archive 1

Archive 1

Stormy Waters redirect

I went to "Stormy Waters" expecting to read about the Sealab 2021 character played by Ellis Henican. Instead I was directed here. I'll put in a notice at the top of the page, but a disambiguation page might be better.

Seems reasonable. Stormy Waters --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

40-year old virgin appearance

Might want to note that the "fantasy scene" appeared only in the unrated DVD and not the actual movieCharlieP216

I have another request for clarification. Space Nuts: Episode 69—Unholy Union is something specifically created for the Carrell film, and not a video that existed before and independently of the production of that movie? Donnabella (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

DraftStormy campaign

Just a reminder for people to use reliable sources like newspapers when writing on the campaign recruitment instead of self-published blogs. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

interview

There is an interview with her in Marie Claire about a possible Senate run:

http://www.marieclaire.com/world-reports/news/latest/stormy-daniels-louisiana-senate

69.228.171.150 (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I've used it as a source. Dismas|^(talk) 01:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

2010 Senate Election

I just gotta ask this. Will Wikipedia keep her measurements listed, if she is elected Senator?--Subman758 (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I would presume, that if she does run and win then 1) the article would be moved to her real name, 2) the article would start with a politician infobox, 3) her newly previous career as a porn star would be moved down in the article where an abbreviated version of the current infobox would still exist.

So yes they would still be in the article, just much less prominent. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 18:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That is assuming her real name does get published by a reliable source at some point... which I think will almost certainly happen, and probably shortly after she formally confirms running for office. I mean, look at the article for Sasha Grey... until she started doing the PR for The Girlfriend Experience we did not have a reliable source for her real name... then the LA Times published it and voila. The temptation for someone to do similar for Stormy would be almost too much to pass by. Tabercil (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The page is not going to move necessarily when she's reportedly changing her name legally in preparation for a possible run. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The bit about declaring herself Republican should include the background of the situation. She may actually run as a Republican (and wouldn't the GOP love that?), but clearly she wasn't simply aligning herself with the standard, publicly-proclaimed values of the "Family Values" party. Rather, the wording of her statement was a pretty clear poke at the recent Michael Steele "Bondage-Gate" snafu. 98.229.237.2 (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Personal life

I must say, as a follower of hers on Twitter and after checking out her page here, I'm very surprised to see no mention made of her baby, long term boyfriend "Brendon Miller" (who she also got into the business, I believe after he was, or still is, a tour drummer for Hollywood Undead) and all of that stuff. Including her love of horses, currently living in Vegas, etc. Not sure of any third-party sources (they seem difficult to come by for the adult entertainment world), but with all of these details on her Twitter, they must be mentioned somewhere else? --HELLØ ŦHERE 08:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Real name

Anyone familiar with the overall consensus on when and how a performer's real name should be identified and used? As I was looking for a working copy of her website, I found that regarding her real name she wrote [1], "If I told you that, then having a stage name would be pointless? If it makes you feel any better, all of my friends and family call me “Stormy”. I only use my legal name for official reasons like banking and taxes." Given that this is a BLP, we need to be sure to follow policy and overall consensus on such items. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME focuses on individuals that are either barely notable or not notable at all. --Ronz (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't remember where but it has been generally accepted that the name has to be supported by a reliable source and widely disseminated. For example, Sasha Grey fought inclusion of her name in her article and we generally accepted her wishes until her name was published by the Los Angeles Times, a newspaper with a large circulation. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! So we should be fine. Her political aspirations resulted in many mentions of her real name. --Ronz (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Sources are poor

Just to clarify, the article has multiple poor sources, starting with first four five six nine. If those are indicative of the sources overall, then most of the sources should be replaced. --Ronz (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Checking the first 4 sources only as an incentive to tag the whole article not only strikes me as weird, but also downright disruptive and I would assume, pointy and part of some larger agenda, gathering from the 3RR report you just filed. Nymf (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC

I'm discussing the matter. If you want to look further, please do. --Ronz (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

How convenient. Use the WP:FOC card when your edits are being called into question. Either way, I looked at the first source and I don't see what's wrong with it. Can you elaborate? Nymf (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for asking about content.

Since we now have editors working on the article, let's refer to the individual references rather than their location in the article which may change.

"Charges against Stormy Daniels dropped". WBRZ: It's three sentences total, very likely from a press release. Nothing wrong with it in itself, there's just almost nothing to it. The problem is that is one of the best references we have. --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Changed to nine. --Ronz (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It goes on. At this point, it might be better just to identify ones that meet WP:BIO criteria to start (I'm not contesting that she's notable though). --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

If you believe the sources are poor, challenge them specifically and remove the contentious assertions per WP:BLP. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on the article!

Given the edit-warring going on, I'm hesitant to do much beyond trying to attract others like yourself to the article to work on it, keeping my involvement to uncontroversial edits and discussions on the talk page.

I realize that some find the tags themselves controversial, but I hope we can all simply follow policy and keep it until the dispute is resolved.

As I noted, I'm going to work the other direction instead. Where's a source that meets WP:BIO? --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  Good idea. Looking within the article itself seems to be a waste of time (though the cleanup is necessary).

  Would http://www.avn.com/porn-stars/Stormy-Daniels-238107.html be considered reliable for the majority of the info it provides? --Ronz (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  Looking closer, I there's too much puffery to be of direct use. I we use it as a reference at all, we should be very cautious as to how. However, it looks helpful as a point to research topics we might be overlooking, which would then require better references. --Ronz (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/person/9203776%7C0/Stormy-Daniels/biography.html is much briefer, but should be reliable for most of its info. --Ronz (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  I'd like to be more sure about this. TCM actively solicits additions to the entries in their database. There does appear to be strong consensus to use tcmdb as an external link for old movies. I'm afraid it may be similar to IMDB, and so not a reliable source (mentioned: [2][3]). --Ronz (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  Still, it might be helpful for finding topics we may be overlooking. --Ronz (talk) 01:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Remove first image?

Looks like amateur photography that fails MOS:IMAGES on multiple counts. If we need a more recent one, we should find something suitable instead. --Ronz (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. Someone want to look for a more recent one? --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stormy Daniels. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://avnawards.avn.com/past/winners/2004
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://calendar.boston.com/performers/show/1046329-stormy-daniels

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Stormy Daniels. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130922074211/http://www.nightmovesusa.com/awards-show/past-winner-history.html to http://www.nightmovesusa.com/awards-show/past-winner-history.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203050255/http://avnawards.avn.com/past/winners/2008 to http://avnawards.avn.com/past/winners/2008
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100109100140/http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/pressreleasesmedia/135-award.html to http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/pressreleasesmedia/135-award.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Unit conversions and italics

@Trivialist: I reverted your edit because it did not seem an improvement and it was unexplained. The infobox already converts measurements, so putting conversions in is not needed. And per our MOS, TV series titles are italicized. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I was mainly reverting because of the removal of the {{height}} and {{convert}} templates; I didn't realize that the infobox did conversions. Also I missed the addition of italics; I would have added them myself if I had seen it first. Trivialist (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Height and weight

I have reverted the removal of height and weight from the infobox. This is part of what makes her notable as a porn actress. These numbers are mentioned prominently at IMDB and at both adult film database web sites. If we were talking about Donald Trump I would agree this is useless trivia. But not here. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how those poor sources justify content of questionable accuracy (I fail to see how weight could be considered accurate over any time period) and encyclopedic value. --Ronz (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Is it just the sourcing? If so I'll look for better sources. Your edit summary also mentioned NOT, what's the concern there exactly? Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

It's the sourcing and the subject matter. As I said, I fail to see how weight could be considered accurate over any time period.

My NOT concerns are that I fail to see how it's encyclopedic in any way (WP:NOTEVERYTHING), much less related to her notability. Given her background, vital statistics are certainly going to be part of her publicity, but that's WP:SOAP. --Ronz (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Remove - Models for obvious reasons have the weight and height parameter .... porno actresses on the other hand don't - Would you put the weight and height of Gordon Brown in the infobox ? No ofcourse you wouldn't because it's irrelevent (Yep Stormy's a porno actress but it's still irrelevent because she's not actually modelling as such). –Davey2010^Talk 00:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• remove: I don't see what about her height or weight "make her notable as a porn actress": if that were so the article should mention those measurements and explain what was particularly significant about them, with of course a reliable source for the assertion. --Mirokado (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Melania Trump

Can someone add in section about reaction of Melania Trump? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you provided some proposed content, backed by RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Tweets

There are so many things wrong with this recent addition: [4]. Buzzfeed is not a WP:RS. A tweet by one of its staff is WP:UNDUE. And Pop Culture Fan is not RS. None of their stories is attributed to an author, the "About" link goes nowhere, and it's a Wordpress site, implying it's really just someone's blog. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

"Just someone's blog" is not a reason to not trust a source. Using the Wordpress platform is not a factor for identifying unreliable sources. An article about a current event that cites reliable sources should be sufficient enough to pass WP:RS. Buzzfeed News has never been deemed an unreliable source. The Buzzfeed News Deputy Director's posting of a document given to him is neutral, so that does not go against WP:UNDUE. Thus far it seems you do not want this information in the Stormy Daniels article, so the bias is all on you. Pop Culture Fan is simply reporting what happened. Zekarya 31 January 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 18:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The blog policy is here: "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs..." Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Awards

I have no strong opinion as to which awards should be included, but I will note that do not normally include web-only awards. This is in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film, but I would argue we should apply it to biographies too. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Did not notice you created this section a few minutes before I did. I'll merge my section with yours: Awards from XBIZ, AEBN, NightMoves, Exxxotica, Penthouse, and High Society each have their own Wikipedia article in addition to several of them, 11 other awards, from these same sources are already on the article and elsewhere. Therefore, my position is they are meet the significance threshold worth mentioning. I appreciate other's input. 156.194.53.205 (talk) 03:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

And we've had multi-article disputes over which awards to include in this and similar articles. If you want to add new awards, please demonstrate they are due some mention.

WP:BLP states, To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. --Ronz (talk) 05:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

That's the thing Ronz, I'm not adding new awards. The awards I added, such as XBIZ & NightMoves, are already plentiful in the article, and have been for some time, in addition to each award having their own Wikipedia article and being cited on innumerable other articles on living people. I fail to see the logic in your objection or why you dispute the material meets significance. 156.194.53.205 (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not adding new awards You added new awards to this article, correct?

I've asked for help from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, who regularly cleans up award spam. --Ronz (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The page is filled with XBIZ and NightMoves awards, 11 others total, and I added awards from this same category. The others have their own Wikipedia page and can be found in other articles. 156.194.53.205 (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Glad we're on the same page now. You'll need to go into specifics, and please note that simply having an article on a subject doesn't make it noteworthy anywhere else. --Ronz (talk) 05:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Since we're on the same page, do you still object to re-adding the XBIZ and NightMoves awards? If not, why haven't you removed the other 11 awards from that category which appear to have been on this article for years now. Let's begin with that, and then I'll attempt to address the others, AEBN, Exxxotica, Penthouse, High Society, which appear to be as significant if not more in the case of Penthouse. 156.194.53.205 (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. The past, multi-article disputes were quite complicated. I'll wait for Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. --Ronz (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Donald Trump

Should the WikiProject Donald Trump talk page banner be displayed on this talk page? I posed the question at WikiProject Donald Trump, and was asked to start a discussion here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes – Her relationship with Trump (is it even alleged at this moment? I guess we should still be cautious) is covered extensively here. If this becomes forked into something like Donald Trump's alleged affairs, then it could be moved over there. ^Falling_Gravity 02:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Cocktail named after her

It's on the basis of JD, but I cannot remember any of the other ingredients - can someone help out? 137.205.100.140 (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I assume this is what you're referring to? http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/bar-serves-trump-themed-stormy-daniels-cocktail-article-1.3755025

The cocktail appears to be their take on a Dark 'n' Stormy, with Jack Daniels' whiskey instead of rum and the usual ginger beer and lime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PvOberstein (talk • contribs) 01:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2018

64.211.51.54 (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — IVORK _Discuss 00:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

"Political figure"

Various IP accounts keep adding "political figure" to the lead. In my opinion, she's not a political figure, but a non-politician involved in a political event. I've been removing it from the lead, but it keeps getting readded. Before this becomes an edit war, does anyone else have any thoughts about this? Trivialist (talk) 05:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• I would agree with the "political figure" assessment, since she is actively involved in a political event, but also he ran for office previously, which would make her as much of a political figure as Herman Cain or Carly Fiorina.--Cssiitcic (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Seems a stretch to add to the lede. If no sources make it clear, then leave it out. --Ronz (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2018

Additional information

"Daniels was born as Stephanie Gregory Clifford[1] in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Daniels' parents divorced when she was four. She was subsequently raised by her mother.

She attended Scotlandville Magnet High School in Baton Rouge, LA and was the President of the 4H Club and editor of the school newspaper; at one point she considered becoming a journalist.[11][12] Daniels was fond of horses growing up and worked answering phones at a stable during high school.[12]"

"Daniels was born as Stephanie Gregory Clifford[1] in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Daniels' parents divorced when she was four. She was subsequently raised by her mother. She also went by the name Stormy Shuff

She attended Mayfair Elementary, Kenilworth Middle School, and Scotlandville Magnet High School in Baton Rouge, LA and was the President of the 4H Club and editor of the school newspaper; at one point she considered becoming a journalist.[11][12] Daniels was fond of horses growing up and worked answering phones at a stable during high school.[12]"

Source: Yearbook photos from both Mayfair Elementary and Kenilworth Middle school. I Lance Woolie (El Gringo w/ IHeartMedia Houston) attended the same classes, rode the same school bus as her and lived right down the street growing up as childhood friends. Elgringohp (talk) 03:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia articles summarize what published reliable sources say about the topic. Your personal childhood experiences are not appropriate as a reference, unless they are first published by a reliable source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE

The lead has three paragraphs, and two are about Trump. Does anybody else think that's overkill? Or underkill on the rest of her life/career? It's the same in the article body. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Most of the Trump details could probably be summarized and focus on the major developments. Perhaps the incident has garnered enough media attention that it deserves its own article. Or maybe it could be moved into 2017–18 United States political sexual scandals (though that article right now is pretty long as it is). ^Falling_Gravity 21:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

The quality of this article was not great before all the Trump news started to break, and now it's getting overwhelmed with Trump info. Surely there's more about her career we can write about. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the article and especially the lede have been inevitably getting 'trumped'-up with Trump details, so made a substantial lede edit with this. I added lede guide code to help focus content by paragraph, and suggest editors build a better lede using MOS:LEADELEMENTS. --Zefr (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

There is now a separate article about the Trump thing. You may be interested in this discussion: Talk:Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal#Unfinished business. --Closeapple (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Stormy Daniels

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Stormy Daniels's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Apuzzo":

• From Donald Trump: Michael D. Shear; Matt Apuzzo (May 10, 2017). "TRUMP FIRES COMEY AMID RUSSIA INQUIRY – Clinton Email Investigation Cited – Democrats Seek Special Counsel". The New York Times. p. A1. Retrieved May 10, 2017.
• From Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal: Apuzzo, Matt (April 9, 2018). "F.B.I. Raids Office of Trump's Longtime Lawyer Michael Cohen". The New York Times. Retrieved April 9, 2018.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Anomie (or rather, of course, your author). The second was the right one, now updated. --Mirokado (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Excessive images

I have removed the File:Wicked Girls at AVN Adult Entertainment Expo 2009 (7).jpg again from the article, as it doesn't add anything that the other images do. It's just yet another upper bodyshot of a porn star. What does this image add to the article that the others do not? Why is its inclusion necessary? It's not even the best image of her (which is why it was removed) in that she's off center, and the image itself is a bit dark.

I see it was re-added by Tobby72, who was in fact the user who added most of the images in the first place with this edit here - indeed they seem to be on a bit of a Stormy Daniels trip, because they added images of her to the Ron Jeremy, Pornography in the United States and Pornographic film actor articles as well.

Please provide a rationale why the image is essential to the article. Curved Space (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Individual images are rarely if ever "essential", but illustrating an article with high quality images is appropriate. The selection of which and how many images is a matter if editorial judgment. I agree with Curved Space that the image in question is weak for the reasons stated, and should stay out. The two images of Daniels are good photos. The one with the famous Ron Jeremy is a bit odd, but illustrates that she was at the center of the porn business at that time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Good profile in Vogue

Vogue recently did a good profile of Daniels. I added it as a non-primary source to part of the article, and have given it <ref name="vogue">

Article is at: https://www.vogue.com/article/stormy-daniels-interview-michael-cohen-donald-trump

PvOberstein (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Franklin County mugshot

Franklin County Sheriff's Office provided a photo of Stormy Daniels on Thursday, July 12, 2018, probably a public domain mugshot.

• https://www.10tv.com/article/charges-dismissed-after-stormy-daniels-arrest-columbus-strip-club

69.181.23.220 (talk) 09:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Works of the US government are PD, but not those of local government. So probably not. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2018

FIX reference

NOW:

<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/07/12/stormy-daniels-is-arrested-at-an-ohio-strip-club-michael-avenatti-says/ |title=Stormy Daniels was arrested and accused of touching strip-club patrons. The charges were dismissed. |last=https://www.facebook.com/lindseybever |website=Washington Post |language=en |access-date=July 14, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180713232406/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/07/12/stormy-daniels-is-arrested-at-an-ohio-strip-club-michael-avenatti-says/ |archive-date=July 13, 2018 |dead-url=no |df=mdy-all}}</ref>

CHANGE:

<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/07/12/stormy-daniels-is-arrested-at-an-ohio-strip-club-michael-avenatti-says/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180712080003/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/07/12/stormy-daniels-is-arrested-at-an-ohio-strip-club-michael-avenatti-says/ |dead-url=no |date=12 July 2018 |archive-date=12 July 2018 |access-date=20 September 2018 |title=Stormy Daniels is arrested at an Ohio strip club, Michael Avenatti says |author1=Samantha Schmidt |author2=Lindsey Bever |website=The Washington Post |language=en |quote= }}</ref>

69.181.23.220 (talk) 09:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Why? Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. An editor seems oppose this edit request Hhkohh (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily opposed, it's just that the request is impossible to read, as it's just two big blocks of markup with no indication of what changed. The one obvious change, to the title, does not seem to match what's in the source. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I fixed the ref to match the source. While I was at it, I also fixed the article to match the source. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Introduction, sentence no. 5 : "allegedly" ?

The sentence says

Trump and his surrogates allegedly paid hush money to silence Daniels about an affair she said she had with Trump in 2006.

On 2 Mai 2018, Trumps new lawyer Rudy Giuliani stated in a Fox TV live show (with Sean Hannity) that Trump reimbursed Cohen 130.000 USD. Trump admitted it the next morning via Twitter. => no need to write allegedly. --Neun-x (talk) 04:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Stephanie Clifford or Stormy Daniels

Whether a person likes their name does not lessen the fact that it is their name. The argument and source used to change the leading name from Stormy to Stephanie is invalid, as her argument is that she dislikes her name being used at all - whereas even in the proposed change we still list her name in the following paragraph. She wishes not to use her given name, you are using that argument to have her stage name first. These are two different arguments.

If you wish to make a case for the change from the accepted lead (which as been in place for at least twelve months exactly) then by all means do so, but do it here, and without bullying your preferred version into the article while discussion happens.

In order to counter your source - all her examples are listed in Wikipedia with their real names before their stage names. I accept that some article have stage name first, but this is not one of them, and as per retain it stays that way until consensus develops otherwise. Curved Space (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I looked up MOS:HYPOCORISM -- thanks for pointing me to it:

For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym. Follow this practice even if the article itself is titled with the pseudonym:

• Louis Bert Lindley Jr. (June 29, 1919 – December 8, 1983), better known by the stage name Slim Pickens

This seems to support the current state of the article, and if anything -- you've strengthened the argument to keep it as is? Curved Space (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2020

Dear Wikipedia friends. Was just watching Party Down, Season 1 Episode 5, and was surprised to see Stormy Daniels. Was going to add it to her credits. Independent reference here: https://www.avclub.com/lets-rewatch-the-time-stormy-daniels-crushed-ken-marino-1823644964

Thanks! Michael Mitchgt (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2022

Under "Legal Affairs" section "Trump affairs allegation", should have the following paragraph appended due to new activity in the case:

In March 2022, the 9th Circuit affirms and upholds the final ruling in the Stephanie Clifford (aka Stormy Daniels) lawsuit case against Donald J. Trump, wherein she owes nearly $300,000 in attorney fees, costs, and sanctions (not including appeal costs) to the injured party. Allegations of an affair remain unproven, and the final court ruling on the matter asserts that Stormy Daniels (aka. Stephanie Clifford) has suffered a loss in court with no merit for further appeal on the matter. Mrshaunwilson (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2022/03/18/20-55880.pdf (Decision of the 9th Circuit three-judge panel). This should meet your requirement to support publication of the judgment. 2600:4040:4908:1B00:24E1:EE6E:1276:3A61 (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Pornographic

I don’t understand who defined her this way rather than as an adult film star. I want to see that changed. This page should only be protected by Stormy Daniels or her representative IMHO. 24.87.6.127 (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

For the love of Dilfs

Stormy is currently hosting the gay dating show on OutTV and has just been renewed for a 2nd season. 2A02:8109:AFBF:E618:6500:900D:1B85:10CA (talk) 09:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2023

I would like to edit on this page I won't vandalize the page Jma ren 777 (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2023 (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) 20:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Tondelleo Schwarzkopf, she was restricted by a non-disclosure agreement at that time. Cullen328 (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Added Daniels' denial and interview describing the affair, both from Jan 2018. These are parallel with Michael Cohen's denial and later admission. -- M.boli (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

This: "In Touch Weekly magazine published a 2011 interview where Daniels described her year-long relationship with Trump, including a sexual encounter." is in the January 2018 bullet list as having taken place in Jan 2018. Clearly it did not take place at that time. That is, unless you are saying that they RE-published a 2011 interview. In which case, the "re" must be added, along with specific dates for each item in the bullet list; and the items must be listed chronologically Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

It is in the WaPo reference you provided. In Touch interviewed Stormy Daniels in 2011. They published the interview in January 2018 after the story hit the news. In the wikipedia page I sourced this from a 2nd WaPo article specifically on that event. -- M.boli (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

False Information

As of today she herself said in a document on truthsocial said that people keep asking her about an affair with president trump and she officially denies it! Oh also he never admitted to anything and the hiding 600 pieces of evidence should let people know that democrats are attacking 2600:6C64:4F3F:9490:4529:DE06:1AD0:D6D (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

She is not denying having an affair with Donald Trump. She only did when held by her non-disclosure agreement. What is 600 pieces of evidence referring to? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

she herself said in a document on truthsocial said that people keep asking her about an affair with president trump and she officially denies it. That would be a hoot, considering that Daniels published a freaking book on the topic, has given numerous interviews, and even went on a standup comedy tour tell folks about it. It seems, as best as I can tell, she tweeted a slick burn at Trump who accidentally admitted to the affair through the wording of one of his messages -- M.boli (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I read the DT message you are talking about, and it did not read like an admission to me. I did however, recently read SD's Jan 2018 signed statement where she denies it. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

signed written statement

In 2018, SD issued a signed written statement which declared her position; she did not merely issued a statement "saying" something. The proposed wording of "issued a signed written statement affirmatively declaring" vs. the current wording of "issued a statement saying" differ vastly in the precision with which they convey the information. Reliable sources confirm that the statement was written, and it was unequivocal; thus "affirmatively declaring" is proper verbiage. We need to update that sentence. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe something like "issued a written statement affirming the affair 'never happened'" would suffice? I think the objection of the other editor is that for encyclopedia purposes the precise legal language obfuscates what happened for the average reader. The communicative intent for the average encyclopedia reader trying to learn the story is simply "Daniels said she didn't do it". It is also useful to communicate there is possible legal implications for the knowledgeable reader. Is there a way to do both? -- M.boli (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

We are making some progress and that's good. Form my perspective, it's very important we include the fact that the statement was written. After we get that fact in, which should not wait, we can continue to discuss the verbiage we might choose to best describe that event. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Not convinced it's that important as she and Cohen say she was paid to say that; unless it was under oath. We cannot suggest possible legal implications without RS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

We write in an encyclopedic, plain-English style which avoids MOS:JARGON. So no she didn't "issue a signed written statement which declared her position"; she issued a statement that said it. Also, the cited source did not mention anything about an affirmative declaration so synthesizing that assessment would be both WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTHESIS. VQuakr (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Surely it's not excessive to add the word "written", is it? Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure is. We want tight language; we edit until there's nothing left that can be removed. VQuakr (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

But there is a world of difference between a verbal and written statement. Keeping the word "written" out clouds the meaning of the sentence and significantly reduces its information value. Also, there is some consensus developing here to add the word "written". Also, to my knowledge, it's not commonly understood that "all issued statements are written". Thus, for that rationale to be the premise of keeping the word "written" out, there should be a source cited on this talk page so we can discuss that. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

No there isn't a world of difference but that's not really a consideration. No one issues a verbal statement. If they had verbally stated something we would use the verb "said". VQuakr (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Notably, some attorneys such as Gloria Aired, are well known for releasing verbal statements on behalf of clients. And often, I've seen on TV, persons reading a statement verbally at a microphone, without ever subsequently releasing that statement in written form. It's these things which come to mind, which make me think "written" is not such a waste of language that the clarity it adds is a good thing. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Legally, I don't see any difference. And this is a legal issue. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

It's WP:OR for you to offer your legal opinion as a justification for an editorial decision. If you want to argue that's a reason to not mention "written", you need a WP:RS to prove there's no legal difference between written and verbal statements. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

No, the burden doesn't shift that way. VQuakr (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Court-Ordered Legal Fees to President Trump

No mention at all of the Court-Ordered Legal Fees of nearly $600K, and the additional $122K by the 9th Circuit, for President Trump’s Legal Team for her frivolous lawsuit? Too many sources to begin to post here! Unbelievable, we all know about it, all over the news, and not in the Article!Easeltine (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Easeltine, do you want to propose an edit to the article? Or are you complaining? WP:ONUS for suggesting text and sources is on the person requesting a change. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done I added it at the conclusion of the paragraph describing Daniels' failed defamation suit against Trump. -- M.boli (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, M.boli Easeltine (talk) 00:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

"Storm Daniels" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Storm Daniels has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 14 § Storm Daniels until a consensus is reached. (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 19:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Stormy Daniel redirect also added to discussion (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 20:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

"Stormy Daniel" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Stormy Daniel has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 14 § Stormy Daniel until a consensus is reached. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

"not to be confused with Storm Daniel"

See also: Talk:Storm Daniel/Archive 1 § "not to be confused with stormy daniels"

Why do some editors find it necessary to create a spurious confusion between the article titles "Stormy Daniels" and "Storm Daniel" where none exists? Such hatnotes "should only be used when the ambiguity exists for a significant portion of the readership." And neither misspelling seems very likely. Drdpw (talk) 03:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:HATCONFUSE is meant to remedy confusion between similar terms. We already recognize such potential for misspellings with Storm Daniels, which was created two days ago to redirect to this page. While I didn't create the the redirect at "Storm Daniels", I created the redirect at Stormy Daniel for the same reason. Edge3 (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I second that. BananaBaron (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Disagree - confusion between a porn actress and a weather phenomenon is somewhat unlikely. Despite the similarity of the name, there is no likelihood of mistaking the two.

Additionally, as the first instance was added here on 11th September, we're discussing the addition of the hat, not the removal - and as such the status quo is to discuss without the presence of the hat until an agreement is made. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think a status quo argument carries much weight in this discussion, as Storm Daniel occurred earlier this month. We could not possibly have included a relevant hatnote before last week. Edge3 (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the subject of the hatnote happened a week ago, a month ago, or 2000 years ago, the fact that the hat itself only appeared a few days ago is the topic under debate, and as such (and at risk of repeating myself,) you need to justify the inclusion.

To use your own argument - Storm Daniel was categorised on 4th September, but it took a week before the hat was added, and a day after the hat the storm had dissipated. Is it really that notable? Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The Storm Daniel article wasn't posted on the Main Page until September 11, so the article would not have been highly-trafficked until then. Edge3 (talk) 03:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

A hatnote is only appropriate when the ambiguity is significant, common enough that a significant percentage of readers might be confused. The likelihood of confusion—Stormy Daniels for Storm Daniel or Storm Daniel for Stormy Daniels—though the double misspelling Edge3 hypothesizes are slim to minuscule, making a hatnote out of place. Drdpw (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Support the addition But there should be a small explanation as well. I believe there is a separate template on wikipedia to do that. It'd look like something to the effect of "Not to be confused with Storm Daniels that killed X people in Libya in 2023", emphasis mine on the difference--Daikido (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I think {{about}} is what you're looking for, but all of the hatnote templates are listed at Wikipedia:Hatnote#Hatnote templates for your reference. Edge3 (talk) 03:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Official site

Official site link is incorrect. Currently leads to spam site.

should be https://stormydaniels.com/ 68.9.117.241 (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I made the change. Maybe some sort of protection can be added here? Arbalest Mike (talk)

Stormy Daniels is taking the stand at Trump's New York trial today

Should this news be added to the page?174.130.222.28 (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

We don't do the future. Frankly, I wouldn't do it until the trial is over. But, I'd lose that argument if I bothered to make it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Stormy Daniels is on the stand now. (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Another Wikipedia page has already recorded most of the details about her testimony at Trump's trial today. 174.130.222.28 (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

That's where those details should go. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

References