Talk:Natalie Harp

Her Birthday is February 7th, 1991.

Add this to the information. You can thank you sleuth. ~2026-37118-66 (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

This article indicates she celebrated her 35th birthday Aug 8 2026. Would someone please fix the coding in the initial paragraph? Thanks. Skywriter (talk) 04:39, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Added 8/8/2026 for DOB per the Daily Beast article. Not sure if this addresses your specific concerns regarding coding. Cedar777 (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Reverted per WP:DAILYBEAST Mikewem (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, we must be cautious with most content from the Daily Beast. However per WP:RPSP, "Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons."

DOB (especially the month and year in this case) is not controversial. We are not using DB to comment on how the subject spent her birthday, only that a publisher listed the day and month it occurred. Cedar777 (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

DB did not explicitly list the day and month of her birthday. Mikewem (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

The article was published on August 10, 2026 and refers to her birthday as being on the preceding Saturday (which was August 8). Cedar777 (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

IMDB also lists 8/8/1991: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm10765467/bio/ Sunday Natural (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

IMDb is user-editable and thus not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Funcrunch (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

IMDB Is not reliable source. --Wassim^talk 06:00, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Cockamamie citation scheme

The final citation of this article in this section fails verification, evidently a broken footnote. The "Harv error" javascript highlights the error. I looked up the reference which exists at the WSJ. It also exists here in the section "Works cited." So it turns out this is another one of those articles with cockamamie reference scheme I spent a month cleaning up. (There is a list of them on my user page.) Would the editor responsible kindly fix this? It appears to have been User:ElijahPepe in this edit from November 2025 with the edit summary, "Rewrite. The content should be intact, if rewritten. Still working on this." ElijahPepe, you changed the citation scheme without consensus (and sent me on a wild goose chase). I appreciate the work you've done getting the article to GA. Thank you.

References

-SusanLesch (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I seem to recall ElijahPepe has this script installed, but in case anyone needs it, it is described here: User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors. Errors light up like a Christmas tree. This can go above my pay grade when an author is cited for two works in a year (resulting in ref=XXXXa). But they weren't. The four link errors have been fixed. All's well that ends well. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

It’s such a shame that (for whatever reason) editors felt called on to break citation schemes for the pursuit of GAs. I knew this was an issue but I thought it was resolved and not ongoing. SusanLesch as far as you know, if I take the time to turn all this into standard format, is there any standing opposition to that? Mikewem (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

As I recall we have a standing OK to change it back. It won't take you long. Thank you, Mikewem. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes indeed, please change to a normal citation scheme. I'm relieved to see that I'm not the only editor bothered by that. Anomalous+0 (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, User:ElijahPepe has not taken account of this discussion. Despite the apparent concensus in support of using normal citations, I'm afraid he is continuing to convert such citations to SFN format. He even left me an edit summary saying "This article is in shortened footnotes format; use it." Anomalous+0 (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Done! :–) Converted all existing citations from SFN to typical named references (except for book citations) Gravelove (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

That's awesome. Thank you. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I would also very much appreciate if someone could change this to a normal citation scheme. I’m willing to help if someone could show me how. Captainbeetroots (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I fully agree, and I would also be very willing to help change the citation scheme to something more sane. Also: is this level of in-footnote quotation either normal or necessary? Especially when the source being cited is linked and immediately available to read online? Like, the quotation that has been pulled to back up the assertion that Harp was raised in California is just "California". Gravelove (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Generally, I think cite quotes tend to only be supplied for especially contentious claims or for context of direct quotes and maybe only after the source has been challenged. Yes, I was intending to cut those down judiciously in the spare time I imagined to do the switching.

I guess it would’ve been better to do this immediately before more sources and content were added. What can I say, I was busy editing content. Mikewem (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

And the parameter documentation does say “extensive quotations are prohibited” Mikewem (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I guess that's why I haven't already gone diving headfirst into tackling it - On an article like this one, I'm not sure which claims are actually contentious enough to justify the quotation! (btw my comment was not in any way meant to disparage your editing efforts here, @Mikewem - I completely understand the citation style not being the top priority atm. sometimes I forget not everyone loves citation cleanup as much as I do....) Gravelove (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I am not used to the manner of citation used in this article. It's a bit more sophisticated than adding a ref tag and a citation template, and find it challenging. I may have included a cite or two and not known how to make it appear correctly, but someone appears to have fixed it. Thank you.  Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 10:03, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

A serious, careful, and considered review of each cite quote led me to remove each of them (except for the one I wrote about the exact text of Harp’s title. There was a lot of back annd forth editing on that point and it stopped once I added the cite quote.)

Often, our prose did not align to the source or even to the provided quote, so it was helpful for the quotes to be there.

Next step is to name refs and copypaste to switch formats, we should be set up well to do that smoothly now. Mikewem (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that! Makes the whole thing a lot easier Gravelove (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Captainbeetroots, Gravelove’s big edit here shows the final result (ignore the intermittent copy edits on apostrophes).

Sfn is great for books and maybe journal articles, sfn goes in a Works Cited section. Regular citations that were used to go in a References section.

The news stories that were in the Works Cited section were already all formatted to be cut and pasted into the article, they just needed <ref></ref> tags added. When you paste a cite into the article with the added tags, it auto-populates an entry in the References section. The ones with a,b,c superscripts are the ones you have to name, for their multiple appearances.

Add <ref></ref> tags outside of Works Cited #1, Cut works cited #1, Ctrl+F its author (or its sfn code if you have it) through the article, check that each found sfn is the correct article of this author (sfns can list multiple authors, and use whatever the |date= line in the Works Cited entry says), paste over the code for the existing sfn cite in the article body.

If it’s a multiple, change the opening <ref> to <ref name="Smith">. The name inside the quotes can be anything, the first listed author’s last name is a good option, and in this example, it’s Smith. If they wrote multiple articles, it can be "Smith 2024" and "Smith 2026", etc.

Then to call it for subsequent appearances, you just paste <ref name="Smith" /> over the whole existing sfn code.

Rinse and repeat for Works Cited #2, and so on, skipping books and maybe long scholarly journal articles. Mikewem (talk) 02:14, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

An efficient workflow to make sure you don’t lose anything is ctrl+F for sfn|Smith, where Smith is Work Cited #X’s author, click through til you find its matching sfn code, copypaste that into your Find box, cut Work cited #X with its added ref tags (opening tag should be named, for multiples) and paste over the found sfn code. Copy the opening named ref tag, paste that over the next instance of the sfn code, and don’t forget to add the extra [space]/ at the end before the >. Then copy it again with its added forward slash, and paste that over instances #3 and on.

If it’s a solo, you just have to find it once and you don’t have to name it and it’s very easy. Mikewem (talk) 02:40, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

ElijahPepe has a long history of forcing this horrible citation format on everyone. It really needs to stop. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

There’s plenty of blame to go around, and especially to the editors who passed EP’s GA submissions. Probably even moreso to them than to EP. Mikewem (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Good point. Citation formatting aside, I do appreciate the work Mr. Pepe has done on numerous articles. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Anomalous+0, would you please give me a pointer to the offending edit summary you mentioned? We need to do something about this. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Pardon me, it was this article. Found it. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

@Mikewem Just saw this, and couldn't not respond. I'm an editor that recently passed two of EP's GA submissions. Please don't tar all GA submission editors with the same brush. Please compare this article's GA review, Talk:Natalie Harp/GA1, to the two we did for

• Talk:Susie Wiles/GA1 and
• Talk:Dan Scavino/GA1.

I have to write we, because User:ElijahPepe did most of the edits, I just did most of the nitpicking. With all due respect, Elijah and I did a darn good job on those two GA submissions, even if I do say so myself. --GRuban (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello GRuban. Respectfully, Scavino should have not been passed because it fails GA5. EP’s preference for sfn is an ongoing content dispute that EP is edit warring over.

I’ve described the opposition to sfn for news org websites as unanimous because that’s what I’ve seen so far. In your view, do sfn citations for news sites help the reader and are sfn citations the best format for news websites? Is there any support for sfn for news in this thread that I missed? Mikewem (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Are you serious that an article shouldn't be passed for GA because some dispute that can in no way be found from the article is ongoing in a completely different place? --GRuban (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I am serious. Ideally, there would be some kind of way to flag a user who submits many articles to GA that all contain the same objected-to error. But that is not the system we have.

Short of that, yes, I do expect GA reviewers to be able to independently look at a broken citation scheme and independently determine that broken citation schemes do not serve the project. If GA reviewers feel that they are not at liberty to make that kind of determination, then that is an issue to be taken up with the GA review policies.

When you saw the sfns at Scavino, did you have any reaction to them whatsoever? Mikewem (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi, GRuban. FYI, I made dozens of content neutral edits in December to restore the citation scheme to what it was before Elijah came through in June. That's why Susie Wiles is on my list of articles I didn't write. I applaud that GA. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: Thank you! @Mikewem: Yes. I never used them myself, but I knew they were allowed. "If you are able to figure out what the source is, that's a good enough citation for GA." is a direct quote from Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not. If you disagree with the rules of WP:GA, that's fine, we are all Wikipedians here, we make the rules we can get them changed. But until you do, don't blame those who follow them. --GRuban (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Essay text isn’t “the rules”. This is a GA5 issue, not GA2. Though I’m also open to the argument that a novice editor/reader who has only ever encountered standard cites for news orgs really might not be able to figure out what the source is. I think some of the replies in this thread might express that difficulty. Sfns are a speed bump to figuring out what the source is, where no speed bump is called for per our policies.

And yes, to be clear, I do also hold WP:GA to be responsible to a certain extent for the disruption to the project that EP’s cite preference has caused. Mikewem (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. WP:GAC GA5 is: "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." The Dan Scavino article did not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute; there were less than 20 edits in all of 2026, and only one in July, the whole month before the GA. What's the problem? --GRuban (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Left wing bias

This article is filled with left wing opinions and not facts. Clean it up. ~2026-45542-59 (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

We can only report what WP:RS say. We don't set the tone, the world does. Everyone, including your POTUS, is a subservient lessor to what is. We report what is. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:45, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

change your username to "not so very polite person" ~2026-45493-66 (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

What are your specific issues with the article? What specific passages do you consider biased? QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 20:16, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR

this paticular section:

According to the journalist Alex Isenstadt, in one instance, Trump's wife Melania discovered Harp in his private quarters, an area reserved for the Trump family, working with him at night.[53] In Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump, Haberman and Jonathan Swan reported that Trump had described Harp as the "only one who loves him as much as his wife and children", and that she "will never leave him".[54] Trump has described Harp as "my Natalie".[55] In a letter to Trump, Harp called him her "Guardian and Protector".[56] Trump reportedly calls Harp by the French language form of her name, "Nathalie" ([na.ta.li]).[57] CNN reported that in one letter, Harp wrote to Trump:

You have the absolute right to cuss me out, if need be, when I deserve it, because no one knows or cares about me more.[58]

Harp was recorded sprinting across the grounds of Trump International Golf Links Scotland to keep up with the President in his golf cart; she sent him a letter in response to her actions apologizing for having caused any embarrassment.[59] The incident reportedly caused Harp stress to the point of, noted in her letter to Trump, that she had been "forgetting to eat" and sleep.[60] Staff in Trump's second administration raised concerns about Harp, described as "red flags".[61]

Staff have tried to discreetly isolate Harp from Trump without success, and noted she and Trump were unaware of their actions.[62] Discussions and media investigation of any Harp and Trump relations reportedly angered the White House.[63] When questioned by CNN about allegations from United States Senator Jon Ossoff that Trump was focused on Harp over his duties, Trump insulted Ossoff, calling him "Pee-Wee Herman",[64] and lashed out at the reporter who asked the question.[65]

I don't think it's appropriate to present these allegations as fact. Even the news outlet reporting them has not confirmed that they are true. Unless there is verified evidence or an official finding, repeating unproven allegations can be misleading and potentially unfair. Especially such serious allegations on the horrible implications on the Executive Assistant for the POTUS.

Wikipedia is ridden with horrible implications on many conservative figures and restricts editing their

pages to the maximum security and doesn't even take a neutral stance.

You could argue the whole day claiming Wikipedia is on a noble quest for neutrality, but the site that uses CNN or MSN even the Daily Beast for their sourcing of information can clearly raise doubts on the credibility of a international foundation. This is so problematic that Wikipedia had to make up a page just to show how left wing they are.

Silencing someone isn't cooperation.

❖ ⚜ 𝕽𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖆𝖗𝖉 𝖁𝖊𝖊𝖗𝖆 𝕽𝖔𝖞 𝕯𝖊𝖛𝖔𝖓 ⚜ ❖ 05:45, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-45542-59

preach

this article stinks of false leftist propaganda and is unchecked and based of false facts?

does wikipedia only block and take action on Conservative or Right wing editors?

man Wikipedia is such a biased place to edit

heck CNN themselves have said it's not fact checked and Wikipedia Woke Editors rush to edit anything to defame trump

CNN-

In letters released by The Daily Beast, Natalie Harp, executive assistant to President Donald Trump, wrote to him, "You are all that matters to me" and "You have the absolute right to cuss me out," among other personal lines. CNN has not independently confirmed the letters ❖ ⚜ 𝕽𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖆𝖗𝖉 𝖁𝖊𝖊𝖗𝖆 𝕽𝖔𝖞 𝕯𝖊𝖛𝖔𝖓 ⚜ ❖ 19:30, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@RichardDevon3451: We have multiple successful conservative editors, including at least one admin who is a conservative Catholic. Please remain civil and avoid insulting your fellow editors. Is there anything specific you would like changed about the article? QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 20:18, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't claim left-wing bias. The article states facts. But they are presented in a non-neutral way, which seems inappropriate for a bio of a person near the center of a bitter national political controversy. Deetrumpet (talk) 08:16, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

But they are presented in a non-neutral way

To start, can you please copy/paste here in reply one (1) such sentence in the now-live article you think is representing facts correctly from the source used, but in a non-neutral way, and how? WP:NPOV is basically law here and that would need review.

which seems inappropriate for a bio of a person near the center of a bitter national political controversy.

To be clear however, the circumstances/whom is involved - Donald Trump, Natalie Harp, some Random "Schlub" - the who is always irrelevant. The living all get WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. What no one gets is any special consideration past that. The "who" is never a factor. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:04, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

This article in Wikipedia (and too many others with a similar tone) is just one reason why fair-minded people do not look to Wikipedia for truth, and why we do not contribute any money to Wikipedia. A straightforward recital of facts without any political slant, without any not-so-subtle digs, with at least an attempt to be objective, is apparently too much to expect from Wikipedia authors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-45653-22 (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

What, specifically, do you object to about the article? What opinions rather than facts do you see? Bkatcher (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Please feel free to give examples of this. Wikipedia cited what the reliable sources say, even if not everyone likes what it is. TheBritinator (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Natalie Harp

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

Look at the original GA review. That was not a review. That GA should never have been allowed. This article has never had a proper GA review. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:56, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

You haven't checked if this article meets the GA criteria, so this reassessment is also not proper. A review with no comments is itself not a reason to open a GAR. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:01, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how the article does not meet the GA criteria. Some comments from the reviewer–@Thepharoah17–would have been nice (WP:GANI#R3) but with 22 reviews and 16 GAs, it's clear that they are familiar with the review process. aesurias (she/her) (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

At the time of the GA pass, May 10, it appears that there was no citation for her birth year, and the WP text of the name of her title did not match the name of her title as reported in RS. Different reviewers I’m sure have different priorities in BLPs that they spot check for verifiability, but it does seem to me that birth year and job title should be very high on anyone’s list. If we had some comment we could point to as evidence that any amount of fact-checking occurred in this review, it might be easier to overlook the miss on the birth year and job title.

Either way, the article has expanded significantly since May 10. I would think a case could be made that the article is over-focused on the more lurid details (therefore not broad in its coverage) and someone might reasonably be able to articulate that our presentation of the more lurid stuff is not neutral.

My understanding is GA Reassessment is not meant to assess new material added after the GA pass. Mikewem (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

GA Reassessment examines the article in its current form. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:38, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Bgsu98 is correct, but I'm not seeing a compelling reason to reassess the article. In a strange sense, more attention dedicated to this article has meant that uncited statements are being noticed. I agree that "the article is over-focused on the more lurid details", but that does not mean that it is not broad in its coverage. Broad coverage is the floor, not the ceiling. It seems to me that editors have come here instead to try to paint a particular view of Harp that is hasty. I'm not seeing any problematic sources on a brief glance, it might be correct, and it probably doesn't warrant a GAR yet. I would want to see a rewrite done before a GAR, which strikes me as an article for which a rewrite is beyond the realm of possibility. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:05, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

The problem is this article never had a proper review in the first place. Thepharoah17 received a notice on their talk page about sparse GA reviews around the time this supposed GA was completed. It should have been vacated and sent back to the queue at that time. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:35, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

GAR does not appear to be the avenue for that. The review was already completed. The point of this process is to assess whether the article meets the GA criteria at the current moment, regardless of how detailed the review might have been at the time. If you are not able to explain why this article does not meet the criteria, then this needs to be closed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:04, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

As one of the editors who was part of the more attention, I’m very sympathetic to the argument that the increased attention was good for filling in citations.

But the increased attention did result in the addition of a lot of potentially non-neutral material.

I think a good solution for right now is for interested editors to take a critical look at the Relationship with Donald Trump section for neutrality, with an eye towards volume of material we cover in the section. Even the name of the section might conceivably attract criticism. The word Relationship possibly implying a “relationship”. Mikewem (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2026 (UTC)