This is an archive of past discussions about Melania Trump. 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.
The reference to Melania's jacket [1] has been removed without any rationale other than "nonsense". In light of the substantial and significant press coverage and public comment of this -- particularly to the extent it negates the previous narrative that Melania was in some way acting as a POTUS conscience urging him to cease and desist separations -- it's clear this cannot be dismissed as "nonsense".
Definitely trivia and nonsense, just as MelanieN stated when she rightly reverted it. Just because media now focuses on nonsense in regard to the Trump's that doesn't mean we have to include it. This is still an encyclopedia. It should read like one. This kind of content keeps that from happening. Such nonsense falls under WP:FART. -- ψλ ● ✉✓03:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
The header is a lie. MelanieN did explain the removal. I removed "unexplained", SPECIFICO put it back in. Can't imagine why anyone would want to keep a header that's untrue. -- ψλ ● ✉✓03:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I changed to "Melania jacket" per WP:TALKNEW bullet 4. There is no need for anything more than the minimum required to distinguish the topic from others, and to insist on more is the opposite of neutrality. ―Mandruss☎14:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Unless anyone has a valid, policy-based explanation as to why this article should expunge mention of the widely-discussed jacket and its relationship to the also widely-covered RS discussion of her stance on these border events, it will be reinserted. Deflection to an edti-war over a header does not provide a valid rationale for removal and "nonsense" is not a reasoned basis for anything other than "nonsense". SPECIFICOtalk15:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
It appears you are upset, SPECIFICO, but I can't figure out why. You put up a dishonest, inaccurate, deceitful header and it was rightly changed by not one, but two editors. As to the existence of the content in the article, I think the onus is actually on you to show why it belongs, per policy. That's what the discussion should be based on. Then, we can proceed toward consensus in a reasonable fashion - which is the correct way to approach the subject, wouldn't you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winkelvi (talk • contribs) 15:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
SPECIFICO: 1. Please don't edit war to make a heading non-neutral (the second time you've done that in my memory)—violating both WP:TALKNEW and WP:EW—and then cry "deflection" over the edit war of your making. 2. Melanie's revert rationale was clearly a WP:WEIGHT argument and experienced editors such as yourself shouldn't need the shortcut link to see the policy basis. She said far more than "nonsense", so please refrain from strawmanning to WP:WIN. ―Mandruss☎15:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Edit warring is never one-sided, thus you can't say there was an edit war[2] while claiming you weren't a part of it. Don't forget to notify me. ―Mandruss☎15:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
The content was removed and described as "trivia". When massive media attention is triggered, it ceases to be "trivia". That jacket choice was no "accident", and it garnered quite a bit of attention, and of an unfortunate type which was triggered by that choice. The media was gaslighted. This article is rather insightful:
This fits the gaslighting pattern we've been seeing from the White House. None of this happens by "accident".
Right now it's a subject of discussion on This Week, with George Stephanopoulos, with comments that it was a deliberate message, not an accident, and notable deviation from normal practice for Melania (which says a lot), used "like a sandwich board", but with uncertainty as to whom it was directed. It's a very notable event, and it should be mentioned, with some of the commentary and opinions. A paragraph should do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe15:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Any talk here of gaslighting by the WH is pure speculation and OR. Further speculation and discussion of same will get it collapsed as a WP:NOTAFORUM vio. Plus, it's purely a waste of time since it has no encyclopedic value and has no chance of becoming content-worthy. In other words, it's tabloid trash. -- ψλ ● ✉✓16:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm just mentioning what that RS says as it relates to this topic, and there are plenty more on that subject in relation to other topics, but that would indeed get us into NOTAFORUM territory. Not going there, but maybe you should on your own time. Get informed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe16:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Strong oppose - and I highly recommend WP:Editorial discretion. WP should not follow the spin of clickbait media, and I agree with Melanie that this material is better left out. It is pure speculation based entirely on POV, and it doesn't matter how many biased sources are publishing the same spin. It's spin based on speculation, and ironically, the discussion here now based on what media has done may well be the reason she wore it. Media should be focusing on what is going on with the FBI, not what FLOTUS is wearing - before this one they focused on her high heels. Pah-lease, WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and as such we should be focusing on encyclopedic material such as what is happening within the FBI, for Pete's sake. It's huge and weighs heavily on so many things. Strzok was just stripped of his FBI clearances and escorted off the property, and later issued a subpoena. Where is the media frenzy about that? Instead, they're busy focusing on their own POV spin about a designer jacket worn by FLOTUS. Sad. Atsme📞📧16:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
She sent a message, so it was HER clickbait. The media reported on it. We document it. That's our job.
Chris Cillizza: "Here's the thing: The jacket decisions made by the first lady aren't as big or as important a story as the crisis along the border. But that doesn't mean it's not a story. It is. She is the first lady of the United States. What she says, does and, yes, wears, matters. Disagree? Ask yourself whether the media would have (and should have) covered Michelle Obama wearing the exact same jacket. The answer is: Of course."[3] -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe16:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry BR - this is pure clickbait POV spin about an article of clothing, and whatever else media is trying to make of it to distract from important issues and what appears to be the caving-in of the entire Russian collusion argument that you have spent so much time trying to establish - the jacket story doesn't belong in this article, and what the biased media tries to make it seem doesn't belong, either. Again - POV spin and noncompliant with NPOV. Editors have that discretion and should exercise it for the sake of the project. Atsme📞📧16:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
She wore the jacket when she boarded the plane and was not wearing it when she got off. IMO she was not making a statement but rather doing a real dumb thing and you'd think that her staff would have told her that but they must be just as clueless as she is. Remember for example when Michelle Obama wore the $540 sneakers to an event about feeding poor people, which is, of course (I'd guess) not in her article (and if it is I'll eat humble pie). [4]Gandydancer (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
The editors of the site you offer reports on "FASHION BEAUTY CELEBRITY POLITICS LOVE" so it's not surprising that I was not aware that she put the jacket back on when she landed in Maryland and that is not the sort of journalism I look to when I want factual reporting about what her motives, if any, were. We still don't know if she wore the jacket to make a statement about the children or not and I'm still guessing she did not. Never the less, it was "Just Plain Awful" and shows how clueless she is and how ill prepared both husband and wife are to represent our country on the world stage. Gandydancer (talk) 11:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Well I didn't find the sneakers episode at Michelle's article so I'd suggest that anyone that want's Melania's dumb choice of clothing in this article add the sneaker information to Michelle's first. Gandydancer (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Um, that's an essay, not a policy, and it isn't clearly against the argument ("These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid."). ―Mandruss☎16:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Well I had no idea that anyone would think I was serious about adding the sneakers incident to Michelle's page. Since it seems that I need to clarify that, I do not suggest that an editor add it to her page.Gandydancer (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. One can never know on these articles. I've seen lots of whataboutisms and other irrelevant arguments, all designed to keep anything negative out of Trump-related articles, no matter how well-sourced. One of the most stupid is the "we should just document the facts" argument. No, that's not how it works here. This is Wikipedia, not Factopedia or Truthopedia. We document literally everything that can squeeze under the "sum total of human knowledge" umbrella, as long as its found in multiple RS for more than a couple days, true or not. That includes nearly all facts, opinions, suppositions, speculations, conspiracy theories, quackeries, scams, history, religion, events and non-events, etc. All of that is potential content. Some may not make it, but it should be considered. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe21:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
You certainly don't need to inform me of all that. Perhaps more than any other editor I have edited more of this sort of information into the Trump parent/child separation article. And even though I am arguing against it, it would not disturb me in the least to see it included. Gandydancer (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Let's not forget about WP:NOTEVERYTHINGInformation should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for opening a discussion. I stand by my removal, and my opinion that this is "trivia" and the coverage is "a flash in the pan." Google it and you find (1) actual reporting that is 2-3 days old, and (2) celebrity reaction that is 1-2 days old, and (3) speculation by the usual suspects that wearing it was part of some sinister Administration plan, either to make suckers out of the press or to carry out some design of Putin’s. I firmly believe the press and everyone else will have moved on within the week. And a story which survives for less than a week is the very definition of trivial WP:NOTNEWS. If it is still a significant news story a week from now (any takers on that bet?), we can add it then. --MelanieN (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
As I said on MelanieN's talk page, I take an intermediate stance here. I do not think that we should include any content suggesting that she wore the jacket as an elaborate chess move from Putin's playbook. On the other hand, it is indisputable that she chose to wear that particular inexpensive jacket that contained a provocative message in the context of that particular trip, and that simple fact was covered by many, many reliable sources from a broad international spectrum. I cannot see how briefly mentioning that fact and the wording on the jacket, referenced to one or two high quality mainstream news sources, and perhaps a high quality fashion source, would be anything other than an improvement to her biography.
I notice that the trip to the detention facility is mentioned in the article, and the reference for that trip mentions the slogan on the jacket. It is striking to me that several editors on both sides of the political divide have taken hardened, entrenched views that indicate a battleground mentality. Battling about the header? Bringing up Peter Strzok, who has absolutely nothing to do with this matter? Stating that this incident is "pure clickbait POV spin" without citing a reliable source for that conclusion? Talking on this talk page about an editor's personal conclusions about the "caving-in of the entire Russian collusion argument", as if an editor's opinion about that has anything whatsoever to do with this topic? Hint - it has zero relevance. Where are the efforts here at compromise and building consensus? This conversation just another ugly example of the toxic battleground mentality of too many editors who are heavily involved with contemporary U.S. politics. It has to stop. Cullen328Let's discuss it17:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Cullen, I don't see this discussion as ugly or toxic at all. I have many years of experience in the consensus method for reaching a conclusion and I have faith that it usually ends in something that most editors can live with. In the beginning people do just what we are doing here, brainstorming the different opinions. It is not toxic and should not be seen as such. This is the only way to begin to reach consensus - compromise will come later. My mind is still wide open and I believe that to be true of others as well. Gandydancer (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
You are most welcome, Melanie, although in general I think the reverting editor should state a solid reason for their edit. We just recently added article content about how Melania and Ivanka influenced Trump to soften his policy with respect to child abuse. Under the circumstances, and since RS connect that likely false narrative to this event, I think it requires more than dismissive comments like "trivia" or "nonsense" which really don't get to the nexus of the event or the RS discussion of it. SPECIFICOtalk17:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
"...soften his policy with respect to child abuse" The President of the United States supports child abuse and has a policy that supports child abuse. That's quite a claim, SPECIFICO - especially when you consider child abuse is a crime. I suppose you have a link to a reliable, unbiased source that proves your statement is true that Trump had/has a policy that allows for child abuse (a crime) in relation to immigration? Hell, child abuse in relation to anything. And, while you're at it, how about showing us a Wikipedia policy that allows you to make such an unfounded claim which contraverts BLP article and talk page policy about such libelous-type statements? -- ψλ ● ✉✓00:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I support the removal as trivia and do not think we should add speculation on the motive or lack of motive for wearing a jacket while boarding a plane. PackMecEng (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
plane...and visiting the site of the Trump Administration's child abuse.
She only wore it getting onto the plane to the center, she did not wear it while visiting the center. Might be different if she wore it while there maybe, but who knows. PackMecEng (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
The press and independent commentators worldwide did not make the OR distinction you seem to be interested in putting on the table. Therefore, why mince words? SPECIFICOtalk00:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Don't make me blink in disbelief here![FBDB] But even the BBC source used for the addition does make mention that she change out of it before arriving. "Mrs Trump had changed out of the Zara coat by the time that she arrived in Texas" It is not a big aspect for sure, but still should be noted she did not wear it while there. PackMecEng (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
If you don't believe the media hype about the jacket is anything more than speculation and political spin - read the BBC report - and go ahead, pick one that supports your POV. That is basically what is happening when we include speculation by media. Do you really believe it has long lasting encyclopedic value - a one time event, nonetheless - and with mid-term elections around the corner? Atsme📞📧23:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Interesting article. The cites are longer than the article. I have to go with Cullen on this one. We hear so little from Melania. And, the choice is so odd. And Trump, more oddly (but not unusally), used it to attack the press. I think it deserves one sentence. However, I would remove the word “however”, as it indicates a contradiction that may or may not exist; and I haven’t the faintest idea why she wore that odd jacket. And no, speculation is not required. O3000 (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
MSNBC is calling it the new yanny vs laurel debate. Are we approaching another new norm - trivia gone viral? I see it as NOTNEWS #2 - a one-time deal, she wore it boarding the plane, and did not wear it when she went to see the children - and from that, a media frenzy erupted. I guess if it's approached from a "could it be?" angle like what the BBC laid out - sure, why not? Instead of writing about factual information, we write an entire noteworthy section about a jacket and speculate on what message it was sending. Atsme📞📧03:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Melanie asked, "If it is still a significant news story a week from now (any takers on that bet?), we can add it then." IMO this has become a story that will last for a long time to come. I'll say again that I don't believe that she meant to make a statement about the result of her husband's decision to cause so much pain and heartbreak but she certainly did do just that. I would as soon leave it out but if it should stay I think that Cullen and Objective are giving the best opinions on keeping it. Gandydancer (talk) 11:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Yup. Also, news stories by their nature have very short decay. That doesn't mean that the underlying events lose their significance. We're not still reading about Cheney shooting his donor in the face with a duck gun, but it is a big chunk of his life story. We're not even reading about Caitlin Jenner's transition every day now. Again, a chunk of her bio article. So "significant news story in a week" or similar metrics are not the test of valid article content. SPECIFICOtalk19:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Please don't compare FLOTUS wearing a $35 jacket to someone getting pummelled by accident with birdshot from a shotgun. Especially when the individual ended up having a heart attack and collapsed lung three days later as a result of the incident. It's not just disrespectful to the victim of the hunting accident and what they endured because of it, but it's also a false and misleading comparison. Ultimately, that false, misleading comparison adds nothing to this discussion of value. Therefore, why even go there? -- ψλ ● ✉✓19:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Support - suggestion by MelanieN - now what was this about? [pause while I search] Oh, yes - something about a jacket. (I need one! Fashion statement. Are they available at Army Surplus?)[FBDB]Atsme📞📧20:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Daily Mail as a reference
I have removed a reference from the Daily Mail, but there are two more. I thought there was a Wikipedia-wide consensus that the DM is not an RS? Shouldn't we remove them all?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I opened a case at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_241#Daily_Mail in May 2018. I have no trouble with your removal of it as a cited source in that situation, especially when other sources were cited. There are rare instances it can be cited. I did not take the time to find the other instances it was cited here, but did see where there was a lawsuit filed against them, so it depends. Atsme📞📧01:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Boldy closing per WP:SNOW. Clear consensus to omit, nothing to be gained by further discussion. Those who feel strongly about the existence of the article in question and whether it should be merged to this article can comment at the AfD here. -- ψλ ● ✉✓18:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article seems unlikely to grow beyond a stub and I think it would help round out the biography if were included here instead. - MrX 🖋 15:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. The article needs to be deleted as (1) it's not encyclopedic in nature; (2) it has no encyclopedic value; (3) it's tabloid, speculative garbage. -- ψλ ● ✉✓15:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - was not aware such a ridiculous article existed but now that 30 days has passed, a 2nd AfD may well be in order. Atsme📞📧21:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Instead of having it merged with this article, you should have nominated it for deletion. It's trivia and is entirely based on baseless rumors. Keivan.fTalk20:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RfC: Should the article mention Melania Trump's "I don't really care" jacket?
Uninvolved close per WP:RFCEND. Clear consensus to omit, nothing to be gained by further discussion, and one of the two Supporters agrees.[5] Mostly variants of WP:UNDUE, with a garnish of WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:RECENTISM, etc. A few of the Oppose arguments had extremely weak or no policy connection, and I ignored them in my assessment. As always, this close is subject to revert; if that happens I will request a different uninvolved closer at WP:ANRFC and they can make their own assessment. ―Mandruss☎00:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the article mention Melania Trump's "I don't really care" jacket?
Something like:
In June 2018, following immense public opposition to the Trump administration family separation policy , Melania Trump traveled to visit a children's shelter in Texas. At the outset of the trip, she appeared wearing a $39 Zara military-style jacket emblazoned with the phrase "I REALLY DON’T CARE, DO U?". The controversial jacket drew worldwide reactions, some describing the fashion choice as "Insensitive", "heartless" and "unthinking". Her staff dismissed concerns that the jacket conveyed a hidden message.[1][2][3][4]
We can tweak after the support close. To repeat my refutation of the "trivia" "notnews" and "headline of the day" denials: News coverage has a short half-life. But ongoing news coverage is not how we judge DUE WEIGHT and NOTEWORHTY encyclopedic content. Any argument on that basis to exclude is empty, as can be seen from the hundreds of thousands of events and other article content that do not have ongoing news coverage. The nature and extent of the coverage has irrefutably established the significance of this event, and smug rejections as "trivia" etc. are not policy-based and will be disregarded by the Closer. SPECIFICOtalk23:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Achieving WP:NPOV requires that we include material in proportion to its coverage in reliable sources, even if we don't personally like it, and even if we personally feel it's trivial or fake news(!). The jacket fiasco has been covered in dozens of reliable sources[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] around the world since it started four days ago. This material is both relevant to her role as wife of the US President and significant because of the unfortunate timing which coincides with peak public outrage about the Trump administration family separation policy. To omit it would shortchange our readers and would border on censorship. - MrX 🖋 23:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Trivia, can't support it. And even if I did, certainly not with the proposed wording above as it not only contains POV wording, but doesn't present a balanced portrayal of all reactions to the jacket. -- ψλ ● ✉✓21:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Classic trivia that is of no consequence. Same opinion as everyone in the above discussion as well. For the record though, I do care what Zigzig20s is wearing. PackMecEng (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
WP:TRIVIA. Besides, there was no clear meaning of the phrase on the jacket, and many different reliable sources have varying analysis and opinions about the incident, making it hard to write about the topic neutrally. Nanophosis (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose adding anything at this point; could reconsider if the story continues to be reported. Definitely oppose the proposed addition, with too much detail and making way too big a deal out of it. We already have a two-sentence section in the article under Immigration: one sentence about her comments about Zero Tolerance, one sentence about her visit to Texas. If we add anything (which I am not yet convinced of), it should be ONE sentence to that section. The jacket does not outweigh the comments and the visit. --MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Just a momentary story so lacks WP:WEIGHT, and is just another of many comments about attire or WP:BLPGOSSIP, trying for amusement or scandal on trivial bits not relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Mentions of her heels, wearing white, patterns of dress, etcetera are just fiddly bits. Similar to some coverage on Meghan Markle attire and learning royal protocol. Or similar to criticisms of outfits Michelle Obama wore when she was First Lady. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:RECENTISM. Sure - this got headlines for a day or two. However to include this in a well covered individual lets see some LASTING coverage - this this shows up in profiles of Trump 2-3 months from now there will a better case for inclusion.Icewhiz (talk) 10:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Weak Oppose I oppose but only weakly. This is just one more example of the fact that neither the President nor the First Lady have even a clue about what it means to be holding the positions that they do. I'm opposing partly because I don't like or agree with the multitude of theories about her wearing the jacket for some reason or another. I think she was just being careless or stupid. Gandydancer (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Threaded discussion goes here (Do not thread discussions in the Support and Oppose sections or they will be refactored)
As a point of possibly relevant information, the respected academic linguistics blog Language Log has recently been discussing the slogan and its presumed derivation from an Italian phrase (which might be better translated idiomatically as "I don't give a toss" since it has similarly masturbatory implications), focussing largely on grammatical issues.
However, in passing it has been noted there that the original Italian expression was a popular slogan of the Italian Fascists in the 1930's and during and after WW1 through to the early '40s, mentioned that the WW2 Italian invasion and occupation of what became Slovenia makes it plausible that, through her family, Melania Trump might be aware of this, and suggested that as a professional model she might also be aware that the fashion house who produced the jacket have previous form in this area.
I myself am neutral on whether the issue should be mentioned in the article at this time, but would be inclined towards inclusion should the controversy build rather than die down.
Excuse me, but what in the world are you talking about? "Slogan"? "Derivation from an Italian phrase"?? "Masturbatory implications"???? The jacket said "I really don't care." That's not a slogan, it's about as straightforward a comment as we could imagine. What is there to analyze linguistically about that? --MelanieN (talk) 04:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
On what basis? Has there been any reasoned, policy-based argument given against this? I think it could be shortened certainly, but I see no argument for omitting it other than "trivia" which is just a personal expression of disdain. SPECIFICOtalk00:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
@PackMecEng: I don't understand the reason for the question, as SNOW doesn't require unanimity. The relevant questions are twofold: 1. Is the policy basis of the two Supports so strong as to override the policy basis of the sixteen Opposes? The assertion that the Opposes have no policy basis is baseless, as "trivia" clearly equates to WP:UNDUE and it is not necessary to link to the shortcut. 2. What are the chances that the clear Oppose trend would reverse if the discussion were left open? In my opinion, the answers are No and Extremely Low, which warrants a SNOW close. ―Mandruss☎00:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not inclined to change my vote, but it's obvious this proposal will not pass. It doesn't require a formal close. No sane person would contest this.- MrX 🖋 00:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Now we have some meat on the bones. No, UNDUE is not the same as "trivia" -- That's a most unfortunate and unsupportable rationale for your view. Anyway UNDUE is ridiculous because the event has received worldwide ongoing coverage for nearly a week and is continuing to pop up in news and analysis. UNDUE is for what brand of shoes she wore that Womens Wear Daily and nobody else reported. SPECIFICOtalk00:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
And the PME didn't say please change so we can close. I think he was just wanting to understand our views and whether any of the many nays were at all convincing to the likes of me and X. SPECIFICOtalk00:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yup, more and more I am thinking that I erred in my decision to not include. In the world over people know exactly what was written on her jacket and ten years from now the words will still be recognized. Sort of a "let them eat cake" saying, perhaps. Gandydancer (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Edit request to permanently change 'Assumed office' to 'In role'
I hereby request a consensus for permission to change the header of 'Assumed office' of infobox of the Melania Trump to 'In role'. There are apparently some people who keep reversing this edit so I'm asking for a consensus on this in order to solve this. The title label should read 'In role' because 'First Lady of the United States' is not a political office (see also the definition of political office according to Wikipedia) and is also not an official title. It carries no official duties or responsibilities and is merely a honorary title granted to the wife the President. As such 'Assumed office' is an inaccurate descriptor. All previous First Ladies are also referenced in this way: one can check the pages of for example Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton... for this.
Civciv5 (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
We don't usually list "– present" in the infoboxes, and "In role" doesn't seem quite right either. IMO, "Assumed role" should be used until her role as First Lady is finished... then "In role" once she has left the White House. Michelle Obama's page wasn't changed to "In role" until , and used "Assumed office" up until her last five days in the White House. Corky18:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Fine with "Assumed role" instead of technically incorrect "Assumed office". No need for "to present" per general infobox usage. — JFGtalk13:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
FYI I have made a change to Template:Infobox officeholder/office so that the |term_label= parameter is allowed to override the default "Assumed office" phrase. Now whatever label is chosen will appear, without the requirement to add an artificial |term_end= set to present. I have set it to "Assumed role" but that may change depending on how this discussion develops. At least the technical basis for a change is now in place. — JFGtalk14:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Jewelry line
Is there data in the public domain about how successful (or not) her jewelry line was please? Or even more basic info like how many pieces of jewelry she helped design?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
It seems fairly trivial, and it's unrelated to modeling. If someone can find several strong sources that cover this, I won't oppose putting the information back, in a more appropriate location.- MrX 🖋 22:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Of course we should include it. If it doesn't go under "modeling" it should have its own subsection. But there is plenty of coverage about it. [15] What's more she still sells her jewelry,[16] and there was a bit of a kerfuffle when the White House website promoted it.[17] --MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Then feel free to re-add it with some good sources, but can we please not write in log style?
"On April 30, 2010, Trump began selling her own jewelry line on QVC"
Also, we can't just include the flattering effusions and comparisons to Jackie O. There is substantial coverage her COI, and about how her fashion choices communicate various things or have been widely criticized as inappropriate. (Pussy bow; flood stilettos; $51,000 outfits, etc). I trust we're all OK with that?- MrX 🖋 17:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
No, because this should not be a tabloidy attack page. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic article. She spent years designing and marketing her own jewelry line. That is a significant aspect of her career. Whatever she wears on a given day is irrelevant gossip. The comparison to Jackie O is historically relevant, but off topic in this thread.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but we can't just include the things that you like while excluding the things that you don't like. If the topic is "analysis of her fashion choices", then any relevant material that is properly sourced should be include in proportion to its coverage in reliable sources. That's how we achieve a neutral point of view.- MrX 🖋 11:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I added a short paragraph about her jewelry and other businesses to a new "business" section. We still need to do something about the "Fashion" section. MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I moved the content chronologically and thematically. We could move the fashion subsection to her personal life section perhaps? And by the way, we need to add more about her philanthropic engagements over the years. There is a lot on Newspapers.com.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
General no to story du jour fashion critiques of her heels, outfit cost, etcetera. The world is full of critics is not news and not relevant to her life. Her jewelry line is something she did and belongs. Unless it is something of enduring impact to her life, or goes on big time for many weeks, just ignore fashion critics. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
That's fine, but only if we remove the critiques that compare her outfits to those of Jacqueline Kennedy and Nancy Reagan. Also, if we're going to gush over her designer outfits, it's reasonable to include analysis of the cost, appropriateness, and other aspects. - MrX 🖋 10:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
This is irrelevant as long as taxpayers are not paying for it. Besides, many public figures wear clothes on loan for designers to promote their new collections. She is married to a billionaire--she can afford nice clothes--there is nothing of encyclopedic value here.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Of course it's relevant. Who pays for her clothes it is not the point at all, nor does it have anything to do with our requirement to follow WP:DUEWEIGHT. I don't give a tinker's damn what other people do. Whataboutism is annoying.- MrX 🖋 13:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC).
Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2018
This edit request to Melania Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change the last name of photographer Matthew Atanianin to Atanian
In the paragraph Statement on bullying, after a first sentence on the subject, there is another sentence regarding "the contrast of her platform with her husband's use of Twitter during his campaign". First, I do not see why it is in this paragraph, as the subject is different. Secondly, it is unclear as it does not explain what actually was the contrast referred: can someone please clarify this? Thanks. 79.19.80.120 (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
They are both WH spokespeople, they are husband and wife, and her statement contrasts with the behavior of the President. Without her statement that she rebukes him for bullying, her platform statements on bullying would sound hypocritical. I think it would be a WP:BLP violation to leave out the second sentence. O3000 (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Birther
Can someone add in a section on her (Redacted) of President Obama and his family, through her Birther (Redacted)?
Isn't there a convention for a consistent name throughout an article? There are Knavs and Knauss and Melania apparently at random.Dfoofnik (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
On bullying
Today she said in an interview that she started her Be Best anti-bullying campaign because "I am the most bullied person on the world."[18] Someone added that to our section on her anti-bullying campaign, and someone else removed it. [19] Personally I think it belongs there, because it got an enormous amount of coverage. [20] Most of the coverage focused on the twitter-storm of mockery she got for saying it, which might or might also be mentioned. (Particularly if she responds to the mockery by saying "See what I mean?") What do others think? --MelanieN (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC) (That's Melanie, not Melania 0;-D)
I feel that it is taken out of context and does not belong unless we include a lengthy section on it - which I do not think is a very good idea either. Gandydancer (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Reading the full section of that talk it is clearly out of context and not even what she corrected it to right after. Is this blurb that important? PackMecEng (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
The lack of context is a good point. Also the fact that today's twitter-storm is tomorrow's wastebasket contents. Maybe wait a day or two and see if this goes anywhere. --MelanieN (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, my feeling at this stage is that the comment merits inclusion as it got an enormous amount of coverage around the world, but I agree that it would be helpful to include a bit more context, something along the lines of: "In October 2018, during an interview with ABC News, Trump explained that she had started her anti-cyberbullying campaign because "I could say that I'm the most bullied person on the world". When the interviewer, Tom Llamas, asked if this was really true, Trump replied '"One of them - if you really see what people are saying about me"
I agree, I think that the jacket issue would fit in well with the bullying section, particularly in light of Mrs Trump's recent remarks, which have been widely discussed and are covered here [22] and here [23]Jono1011 (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2018
This edit request to Melania Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Article says, "She did 10 paid modeling jobs in the U.S. in the seven weeks before she received legal permission to work in the country.[6]" Only one source is given for this, & that from Main Stream Media. And since there is such antagonism between Trump & the MSM, IMHO a claim that Melania broke the law modeling requires strong proof, including sources which are sympathetic to the Trumps. (PeacePeace (talk) 07:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC))
I agree that we need more than an AP investigation to include this info in a BLP. I've moved it to talk while we discuss it.
She did 10 paid modeling jobs in the U.S. in the seven weeks before she received legal permission to work in the country.[24]
No, we do not need sources sympathetic to the Trumps. We need reliable sources. This was reported by some of the most reputable sources, such as The Washington Post. Also - guess what? "Mainstream media" usually counts as reliable sources. The question is - has this claim been denied by the Trumps or a reliable source? Surtsicna (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Surtsicna. This is a non-controversial claim backed by numerous RS, with the AP being one of the most reliable. We could easily add many more sources, with their commentary about the hypocrisy about this, but the AP source is good enough, and the content should be restored. If not, then we can restore it in a beefed-up version, with more sources and with commentary showing why it's very relevant, and I can guarantee that version would be even more bullet proof, and also much more negative. This version states the facts in a very neutral fashion and is good. If the content is not reverted very quickly, a better and more negative version is going in, and I see no need for that. Let's do the right thing and drop the political protectionism and overblown BLP sensitivity excuse. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe19:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh pull-esse, let's drop the bullshit "I',m so sorry I forgot to ping you." As a matter of fact I do not go around deleting long-standing Trump-related stuff without fully expecting immediate feedback--as has happened here. I would have thought you would be aware of that, but apparently not. The thing is, I don't doubt the truth of the information, I just feel that it needs better sourcing. This is, after all, a BLP. Gandydancer (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Outdated website information
It says:
> In July 2016, her official website was redirected to trump.com. On Twitter, she stated that her site was outdated and did not "accurately reflect [her] current business and professional interests".[63]
In early 2017, the MelaniaTrump.com[25] URL (and that line should name the URL and/or link to it) was later made to auto-redirect to her official Facebook page, and that change was made some time between January 21, 2017 and May 10, 2017, as recorded by the Wayback Machine (see the links below). Is about anyone able to add that to the article?
Questionable year referenced in the Early Relationship section
The following text appears in the Early Relationship section:
Melania continued her modeling career[15] with her American magazine cover shoots, including In Style Weddings,[43] New York Magazine, Avenue,[44] Philadelphia Style,[45] Vanity Fair,[46] and Vogue.[47] While they were dating, her family relocated to New York, where they lived for most of the year in 2015.[48]
I doubt referencing the year 2015 is correct. The reference is a newspaper article from 1999. I didn't have sufficient confidence to change the year; for starters I'm not sure if it should be 1998 or 1999. Maybe someone else could fix that. Thank you EricTN (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
There is a section about Melania’s travel costs being larger than Michelle Obama’s in a single year. Is this crucial information? Or just a way to make her look bad. If you look at the Michelle Obama page, there are no sections about her undermining Melania by calling herself the “forever First Lady”, bashing marriage as “shit [that] doesn’t work”, or complaining that Melania hasn’t asked her for help, and also nothing about her complaint that Melania gave her a gift. I don’t think any of the aforementioned things are noteworthy either, but why does the small level of criticism befall Melania and not Michelle? Wikipedia ought to do better to be more unbiased. Lawrencebeesly1912 (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Feel free to remove the information, and see if there's an outcry; then it can be discussed properly towards consensus to include or exclude. I'm neutral at the moment. — JFGtalk08:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed by JFG. Please do not modify it.
Lawrencebeesly1912 asked: "but why does the small level of criticism befall Melania and not Michelle?"
Michelle Obama is a lady and was a great First Lady.
Also, she did not pose nude in porno magazines. That could be one of the reasons. Then, looking a bit deeper, there could be more... like, Michelle has a heart, which is difficult to find in any part of Melania's revamped body. Could be at the end of her stiletto heels... which she wears at every catastrophic event in the US.
I'm opening this section so that Sebastian James can seek consensus for inserting a Razzies nomination and the subject's cameo appearance in a film. A cameo appearance is not acting.- MrX 🖋 13:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Citzenship status
For someone who the article already makes plain worked in the U.S. illegally before obtaining proper permission, the omission of her history of immigration and U.S. citizenship seems very odd and suspicious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.113.104.20 (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
a quick google search suggests multiple verifiable sources (people, vox, esquire, junkee, fox & sky news) that discuss it as a 'conspiracy theory'. It could qualify on it's own as an article so I think a simple section in this article would be warranted, with a mention of the two major 'sightings' of a fake melania (the houston tornado yesterday and the incident in October 2017). Macktheknifeau (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Uh? If this speculation is only mentioned as a "conspiracy theory" (I'd call it a hoax, because even if true, there would not seem to be any cabal conspiring to hide it), there is no reason we should give it a platform. The same nonsense was brought up about Hillary Clinton during her campaign, and I don't see that appearing in her article. Rightfully so. — JFGtalk05:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia has entire categories and massive pages dedicated to "conspiracy theories" eg List of conspiracy theories, Antisemitic canard, 9/11_conspiracy_theories etc and articles aren't based on if people feel something should be "given a platform" or not they are based on neutral POV writing from reliable sources. If Pizzagate conspiracy theory can exist as a "platform", then a paragraph on Fake Melania is hardly out of order. I'm not personally interested in writing about it, but it's a topic that can be written about as per normal guidelines. Clinton did have a health scare during the campaign and it was one that was written about by multiple highly mainstream sources, so I wouldn't be surprised if it actually was included in writing about her campaign. On a final note, wouldn't there be some official photographs from the US President's office regarding the "Fake Melania" that could be uploaded here under public domain and compared with the 'real' Melania, and let people reading such an article decide on their own? Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Sounds WP:UNDUE to me. And no, we shouldn’t upload photos for readers to compare. Even assuming photos are not retouched, they are taken under different conditions. O3000 (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Revert
Hello editors. I revered a revert made by @Gandydancer:, believing I was within the article's parameters to do so based on "Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)." I did not read the "Enforced BRD: If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit) before reinstating your edit. Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts." I realize I did not take this to the talk page as I should have. I would happily revert my revert (?) to address this issue. I absolutely want to stay within the WP guidelines for editing high profile articles. Any thoughts on this? Thank you. --Kbabej (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for the message. Hopefully a few others will check in as well. I work on several political women's articles and it is pretty much frowned on in them. Gandydancer (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
IMO the copy that I removed is not appropriate for this article and I'd be surprised to see anything similar in any of our other articles. I feel it should be deleted immediately. Since no page watchers have commented I've asked for an opinion from an admin. Gandydancer (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Looking at other Cultural depiction articles it is my impression that these articles impose a much looser requirement for importance than the parent article - see the Jackie Kennedy article for example. IOW, what may be included in the Trump Cultural depictrions article may not meet the level of importance to be included in this article. Gandydancer (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Slovenian citizen?
Her citizenship in the infobox is listed as American only.
I wonder if she also has Slovenian citizenship, as Slovenia permits dual nationality in situations where a Slovene naturalizes to another citizenship. Therefore, Melania would not have been required to renounce her Slovenian citizenship when she became a US citizen.
I can't find any sources stating specifically whether she voluntarily gave up her Slovenian citizenship, so should it be assumed that she still has it? In which case, it should be added alongside "American".
>>>so should it be assumed that she still has it? In which case, it should be added alongside "American"<<<
Assumptions without factual evidence to prove such should NOT be included... specifically here on Wikipedia where they always ask for references to backup such claims!
That a photo has the blessing of the article subject should have some weight, but there are other considerations as well, like if a photo is untouched or not --Distelfinck (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
It is taken from White House's website here. Maybe "image-editing" is just makeup and lightning? There is no difference from the official source material and I don't see any point in this conversation. Sebastian James (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2019
This edit request to Melania Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
There is zero evidence that Melania Trump actually speaks French, Italian, or German, unless speaking a language means being able to say nothing more than "Hello, my name is Melania. How are you?" with some grammatical errors. 68.230.23.199 (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth starts by referring to "material ... published previously by a reliable source". The cited source in this case is more or less a blog that starts with "According to Google search ...". The IP editor above raises a reasonable objection. Doremo (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the IP and I removed it - along with a few other things. After all, this is a WP BIO, not a scandal sheet. Gandydancer (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Third wife
Currently the lede says:
She is the wife of the 45th U.S. President Donald Trump.
If you’re going to have the tautology, that she has to married to the US President to be the First Lady, then it also makes sense to point out she is also fortunate to be First Lady because she is also Trump’s third wife.
So:
She is the third wife of the 45th U.S. President Donald Trump.
Deliberately misleading blurb about dating timeline
The page currently states:
“In September 1998, Knauss met real estate mogul Donald Trump at a party and they began dating[46] while Trump was married to his second wife. In 1999, Trump divorced his second wife, Marla Maples.”
It seems relevant to note that Trump and Maples publicly announced their separation in May 1997, Trump officially filed for divorce three months later in August 1997, and the case was finalized in 1999. This information can be found on the Maples wiki page and the linked sources. Lalafresh01 (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Per MOS:ETHNICITY I removed the struck portion: "is a Slovene-born American former fashion model and the current first lady of the United States." in the first lede sentence. I also question the need for the second paragraph to begin with birthplace - early life history is rarely lede worthy. The use of her maiden name, Knavs, in the third paragraph is also peculiar.Icewhiz (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
This is nonsense. "Slovene-born" does not mean ethnicity. Besides, it is important to include as something noted in majority of sources in her biography. My very best wishes (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
"Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." - MOS:ETHNICITY. Passing V is not the issue here - Trump is notable (barely) for modeling (mostly outside of Slovenia) and for being the US first lady - her birthplace is irrelevant to those two. What you are calling "nonesense" is a guideline - which we follow on Wikipedia as such marking is unseeemly.Icewhiz (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
That is something notable, mentioned in almost all her short biographies. There is nothing inappropriate here. Here is her official bio provided by White House. It tells: "she is the only First Lady to become a naturalized U.S. citizen"... "Melania Trump was born on April 26, 1970 in Slovenia.". My very best wishes (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
It should remain. Her Slovenian birth is absolutely a key part of her identity and is prominently featured in all sources about her. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I have restored the longstanding version "Slovene-born American". Since the change has been challenged, it will need consensus here to restore it. This is especially true with a change to the lead sentence. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I have a question. "Slovenia" did not exist as an independent country in 1970, when Mrs. Trump was born. Might we want to instead say, "Yugoslav-born"? Unschool21:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I think we can leave it. "Slovenes" is what the people of the country are called, and they were called that when it was Yugoslavia. It's similar to what we do with Donald Trump's ancestors, who we describe as "German" even though they were born before Germany became a united country. Or people we describe as born in "Russia" rather than born in the USSR. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Is a "Slovene-born American" somehow different from other Americans? Having this as an adjective modifying American is quite irregular. As for consensus - local consensus can not override a project guideline which clearly states we do not place birth places in the lede unless relevant to notability. Most profiles of any person mention their early life and birth place - Trump is no different. Trump's main claim to notability is being FLOTUS - her birthplace is irrelevant in regards to being FLOTUS, her marriage, or her previous modeling.Icewhiz (talk) 04:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
(a) The inclusion is consistent with MOS:ETHICITY, and (b) The guideline "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.". Not only it can be override by local consensus, but by a decision by an individual contributor if there are no objections from others. My very best wishes (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The inclusion is relevant to her lineage with former first ladies. The article establishes her as the first naturalized FLOTUS. So the question, "Nationalized from where" needs to be answered. ―Buster7☎19:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Images
The article contains a very flattering image of a Melania thumbs-up at a rally. Shouldn't we now include an image her and her husbands thumbs-up at the recent ElPaso Hospital visit with the little parentless waif? Seems much more worthy of inclusion than a rally years (2015) ago.―Buster7☎19:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
As a Catholic Melania is challenged to do all in her power so that her children are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church. Trump would have been made aware of this undertaking pre-nuptials. Is Baron a baptized Catholic? ―Buster7☎14:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
No longer a practicing Catholic so I long ago shredded my Rule Book but I guess one baptism is as good as another. ―Buster7☎19:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointers. I've digged out the original 2006 source and added the information to the "Religion" section. — JFGtalk21:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
"U.S. citizenship" section has irrelevant material
The "U.S. citizenship" section contains a campaign statement by then-candidate Donald Trump regarding his proposed immigration policy. "Speaking for his immigration agenda in January 2019, he called the lottery and chain immigration laws "sick and demented" and referring to Mexican immigrants said, "Do you think the country is giving us their finest? No, they're not. No, they're not. They're giving us the opposite of their finest."[47][48]"
Notice that this citation states nothing about Melania Trump, and she is the subject of the present article. You may choose to insert this material into an article regarding Donald Trump's presidential campaign, but it is clearly utterly irrelevant to an article about Melania Trump's life. Any attempt to connect the two demonstrates a nasty political agenda.
Except for the "nasty political agenda' comment which is just as much out of left field as the quoted material I agree. ―Buster7☎01:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Melania Trump attended one year of University. Not sure that fits under the most prevalent definition of Alma mater which usually means a graduate of the school. We should never intentionally mislead our reader which I think this article does. perhaps change the ID box to "Attended" which is more truthful. ―Buster7☎11:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree that it is misleading (the term usually implies graduation). I have added "(dropped out)" to help resolve the issue. Doremo (talk) 12:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I think that would still be misleading because it might imply receiving a certificate/certification of some sort—or exchange as part of a longer academic program elsewhere—rather than failure to complete the program. There are also one-year degree programs. Doremo (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
The article states that "She speaks five languages: her native Slovenian, Serbian, English, French, and German", and cites an article from CBS news. That article indeed says that, but offers no proof. This has become something of a controversy. On the one hand, Melania is on video saying that she speaks five languages. On the other hand, there are videos such as this that seek to demonstrate that she does not. My own view is that she does not, but that's not the point. I suggest that without better proof, the statement should be removed.Bellthorpe (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
This has been debated before. Wikipedia is based on sources. If you provide sources that demonstrate that the cited ones are wrong, this is a good basis for removal. Otherwise, no. --Tone15:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
The language claims are probably false (in the absence of proof or evidence), but her failure or refusal to speak the languages does not prove that she cannot speak the languages. Doremo (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Of course, I agree. It's not proof that she doesn't speak the languages. My problem with this is that the page has made a claim that is not substantiated. Just a link to a web page that says that she does. I'm truly puzzled that this is OK. Bellthorpe (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
There's a long history of exaggerated language ability claims in the former Yugoslavia (like the dubious "Tito learned to speak Kyrgyz perfectly" assertion). It gets repeated[26] because nobody can disprove it, despite serious doubts.[27] This is because such claims are viewed as inconsequential trivia rather than serious biographical information. If a few sources claimed unicorns lived in Alaska,[28] and there were none to the contrary, then WP would dutifully cite that "fact" as well. However, people take unicorns more seriously than Melania's language abilities, and so plenty of reliable sources assure us that there are no unicorns. There is a lack of reliable sources contesting claims of Melania's language abilities because nobody has (yet) bothered to care enough about the issue. Doremo (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
MORE ON THE LANGUAGES CLAIM
Over time, it has been indicated that the claim of 5 languages is exaggerated. Learning to say please and thank you is a start, but it is not 'speaking' a language. Ms. Trump has been recorded on video with sub-elementary French, and there are no reports she actually speaks German. Macron and his wife did their best to be polite about her non-French, and German speaking leaders are said to have a skeptical view of her German proficiency.
Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2019
This edit request to Melania Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the first sentence, the phrase that says that Melania Trump is current First Lady ", by virtue of her marriage to President Donald Trump" should be deleted. The phrase is superfluous since (a) the definition of a First Lady of the United States is that she is or has been married at some time to a US President while such President is in office, and (b) her marriage to Donald Trump is noted only four sentences later; further, the phrase I am requesting be deleted seems to be intended to convey a negative viewpoint (i.e., that she's only a First Lady because of being married to Mr. Trump) rather than the fact of the matter, which is that she's the current First Lady. Whether you or anyone else in this community possesses a negative viewpoint about the current First Lady or the current President, this is supposed to be a fact-based community, so loaded statements intended to communicate viewpoints should have no place here (if nowhere else in the entire world). Further, I note that no other First Lady's Wikipedia page makes this contextual reference that, as I've argued, is completely unnecessary. For example, it does not say on either of Michelle Obama's or Hillary Clinton's wikipedia page that they obtained their status as First Ladies by virtue of their marriages to their husbands even though that fact is equally true of them and every other First Lady in history (i.e., irrespective of what other accomplishments a person can achieve, the only way a person becomes a First Lady is by virtue of being or having been married to a US President while such President was in office). Either the context is needed or useful in all cases or in no cases. The latter seems clearly to be the more appropriate choice since, in addition to not requiring, essentially, that the same statement be repeated twice, it has the merit of not emphasizing a woman's identity as being subsumed by that of her husband, even if a given title may well be based thereon. For your reference as to the statements I made about the Wikipedia pages of Michelle Obama: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Obama and Hillary Clinton: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton. Truthchecker25 (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Not done: The phrase you're describing is always used for the page of the current first lady; for example, Michelle Obama's page mentioned her marriage to Barack prior to Trump's inaguration. Philroc(c)19:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@Truthchecker25: I think you're splitting hairs here and assuming bad faith or partisanship in Wikipedians when in reality I think the current version of the article is merely a function of a different perspective that is not immediately obvious to you. English is spoken by about 1.1 billion people, out of which on some 300 odd million are Americans. Furthermore, most other native English speakers come from countries with parlimentary systems, where there is no equivalent office to FLOTUS. Althrough I am personally familiar with the role and function of FLOTUS, from my perspective it is not immediately obvious why such an office does or should exist, or how it is obstained, especially since this office is the only office in an ostensibly democratic non-monarchy that is soleley assumed due to familial relationships. Perhaps this is immediately obvious to you, whether you're an American or not, but I think that there's space in the article to clarify how an office is attained for those 900 million non-American English speakers.
I think it is a false equivalence to call onto the contents of the article of other former FLOTUSes. Those articles were written by different Wikipedians about different individuals who must have, by virtue of being former FLOTUSES, done something else with their life; that is being or having been a FLOTUS is not their current main area of concern. If every article had to mention the exact same selections of facts about every FLOTUS we might as well write one article and setup dynamic variables to simply fill in the factual details of each individual.
With respect, I don't think I'm splitting hairs when I insist that people who obtain a uniform title have the title be referred to on these pages in a relatively uniform manner, nor, in light of how much animosity this particular President, as well as members of his family, bring out in about half the people in the world, am I without a strong basis for presuming a certain motivation for the use of this particular phrase when it comes to Melania. I believe it's absolutely critical to have one place in the entire world where facts actually matter and where these facts are not poisoned by political views. I have often viewed this place as perhaps the last bastion of pure facts, and I think we all must police that boundary vigilantly or this thing called Wikipedia becomes yet another venue for the distribution of politicized "facts." Although I can appreciate that not everyone, particularly people outside the US, understands how an individual becomes First Lady, if one were inclined to understand how a person becomes First Lady, they would have to merely click on the link to "First Lady of the US" provided in the very first clause of the very first sentence of Melania's page, which, provides a succinct one sentence definition of the term as the first sentence and which then provides just about every fact one could ever want to know about the topic. You have simplified my argument to "whatever Obama's page says, must be reiterated in Melania's." That's a gross oversimplification. I can appreciate that not all pages will be exactly uniform since they aren't at this point created by machines, but it's not just Michelle Obama who lacks the pejorative statement about the basis of her title; it's every single other First Lady! That's an awfully powerful coincidence (44 out of 45) to be explained by mere chance. Further, your reference to the fact that Michelle's marriage to Barack was mentioned in her Wikipedia page is beside the point. Clearly the fact of a person's marriage to a US President or former US President is a salient fact that belongs on a First Lady's page, and it is in fact referred to on each First Lady's page (just as would be the case if any person who has a Wikipedia page were married to any famous person, whether a President or not). I'm disputing that the marriage should be referenced in the context of a reference to Melania's title as First Lady in light of the fact that such context is not needed for any other person who bears the title. Truthchecker25 (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@Truthchecker25: As explained earlier, the statement is only used on the article for the current FLOTUS. The pages for both Michelle and Laura Bush contained something similar to it during their respective tenures. Notice that these are the only first ladies not including Melania to have held office since Wikipedia was founded in 2001. In its current state, this article is consistent with how those of other current FLOTUSes have been written in the past. Philroc(c)01:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Purely weighing in to back the respondents and mark it complete. The fact is fundamentally true, there are many nations that read the English Wikipedia hence it not being degrading as a double statement of the obvious, and former FLOTUS articles have been stylized in the same manner during their tenure — IVORKDiscuss11:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2019
This edit request to Melania Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done Thanks for the suggestion. But by the time she came to the U.S. she had Germanized her last name to Knauss, and that is the name she was using at the time. This is explained in the opening sentence of the article. -- MelanieN {no relation! ;-D ) (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
With respect, I do not know where the story started that Melania Trump speaks five languages, and I believe that this is a statement that has been perpetuated without corroboration and should not reside in this Wikipedia article. It is important to distinguish between "speaking" and "being fluent in." The article doesn't claim that she is fluent in any language. But what does "speak" mean? Does it mean "carry on a conversation, using proper pronunciation and grammar," or does it mean being able to say "hello" in five languages? Please note this video, in which John Aravosis analyzes this problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxbeaFgDS_oWikiprincess1972 (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
It is a nonsense claim (there is no evidence that she speaks five languages), but the claim has sources. Please see the discussion here. Doremo (talk) 05:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
It is actually not a "nonsense claim" at all. It is based upon the educational requirements in place at the time she completed her education (understand that European countries often require demonstration of competency in a variety of languages before grant of a diploma), and upon interviews she has given throughout her career using foreign languages. At a minimum, she would have been required, graduating in Slovenia, to demonstrate competency in English, German, and her own language, as well as a romance language (I have personally heard her speaking in French - which I understand and speak also. She is quite fluent.). Momspack4 (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2020
If her skills are authentic, at some point she will be end up being recorded using these languages (for example, when meeting Emmanuel Macron or, say, school groups), and then we will all be satisfied because the fact will be obvious. Doremo (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
And she in fact HAS been recorded using other languages. I have personally listened to news programs out of Italy and France, where she was using languages other than English and her native language. These recording have existed and do exist. I also wanted to mention, in response to the comment below this from Surtsicna: I have gone to both secondary (pre-gymnasium) and gymnasium in the European system. You do in fact have to demonstrate competence in foreign language, before being admitted to gymnasium. What exactly you have to study in terms of languages depends upon the country where you are studying. "Gymnasium" is equivalent, generally, to the last year of high school or early community college, in the U.S. The school before that level is not a "vocational school". It is rather equivalent to the first two or three years of high school. Momspack4 (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2020
"Sexually explicit" seems like an appropriate and polite euphemism. Typical media coverage [30] says: "naked pictures from lesbian-themed photoshoot", "steamy series of pictures ", "completely naked", "just in heels with her hand over her private parts", "another female model, both fully naked on a bed, with Mrs Trump's breasts completely bare", "brandishes a whip as if to spank her", etc. Doremo (talk) 09:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Still, it's not pornography, which we treat as the main meaning of the phrase "sexually explicit".
Based on the illustrations at softcore pornography, the text description closely corresponds to that genre of pornography, also by the dictionary definition of pornography ("a portrayal of erotic behavior designed to cause sexual excitement", – Merriam-Webster). So it is pornography by many standards. I'm unable to offer or argue a distinction between that and erotica ("artistic items having an erotic theme", – Merriam-Webster). Perhaps leaving it alone is the best option. Doremo (talk) 11:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the Max photos are widely available on multiple online pornography sites, so they must have some kind of pornographic value. Doremo (talk) 12:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
She was not born in Novo Mesto. She was born in the Novo Mesto hospital of Sevnica, where her parents worked and where she grew up. Novo Mesto, meaning the New Town Hospital, as opposed to the Old Town. Also, "speaks five languages" linguistically implies one is fluent in five languages, not just able to greet the French president or generally get about daily living, like shopping. Even "visiting school groups" wouldn't qualify since memorising speeches or conversing on repetitive topics doesn't mean you 'speak' the language, either. I'd say her English is fluent, but since she did not spend two decades in Italy and France, chances are good she's not fluent in Italian or French. Her parents probably know Russian, but few Slovenians of her age were required to learn it or needed to ever use it, though having a slavic mother tongue would help. So what does that leave? German? If she did not attend Gimnazium, then language exams were not required. Unfortunately she is so opaque about her own history--deleted her own website--a lot of this is hard to verify and media outlets are wary of getting sued. In 2015 Univision visited her home town and spoke with people who knew her (which is where I read that the Trumps were trying to censor the Amazon release of a Slovenian biography on her). It's best if Wikipedia just leaves out the "speaks five languages", since it hasn't been corroborated and it's neither here nor there, in the context of the article or of the average U.S. immigrant (especially since it would draw attention to and ridicule the ungrammatical "Be Best"--I like how Wikipedia included the anti-bullying campaign and her comment that she couldn't manage to curtail her own husband's Twitter bullying). Barron's bilingualism is certainly noteworthy as should be his maternal parents' citizenship application shortly before his father decided to end Family Reunification altogether. Which reminds me, her husband was an avid Obama Birther conspirator, but Melania herself refuses to release her own documentation of her citizenship path or fraud thereof.
71.11.254.3 (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Type of Visa Melania originally used.
I wanted to post objection to having my addition to the article reverted. I had added some information about the type of visa she would have been eligible to use - my source was the U.S. Immigration page. The person who removed my addition told me I didn't "use a reliable source". Huh? I also object that to leave that paragraph as it stands is potentially problematic because it creates a FALSE IMPRESSION about a living person's motives. The implication is that Mrs. Trump somehow intended to cheat the system, for which there is no evidence. The person who removed my addition had cited an Associated Press article as their "source", which was obviously incomplete when one reads the immigration site regulations, leading one to realize the AP was biased. I don't like to see any living person disrespected, regardless of politics, and my addition had brought the other angle into the previous information, AND with a reliable government website! This is the kind of nonsense that makes me hesitate to even add to Wikipedia - too many people don't care if your sources are good, if your argument is good, they just have a political agenda, and that's it. It's exhausting and discouraging and it's sad because it ruins any reliability Wikipedia once had.Momspack4 (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC) Momspack4, 3 April 2020
Please read WP:RS and WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. We don't look at primary sources, like the the U.S. Immigration page, tie it together with somethnig else and come to a conclusion on our own. We report, we don't analyze. O3000 (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Huh. That is a pretty condescending answer. Using the logic you just presented: the other editor actually looked at a SECONDARY source, "tied it together with something else and came to a conclusion" to fit a political narrative. The fact that you seem to have no issue with that tells us everything, doesn't it? So... Seems it's fine if someone who is obviously anti-Trump "analyzes" based on an inaccurate AP story and inserts their own bias into the article. But I am not allowed to use information clearly stated - from a primary source to defend her. WOW. There was a lot of "analysis" all through the article, but believe me, there is very little "reporting". As I said, Wikipedia, because of exactly this type of bias and nonsense, has become a joke. It's a shame. You may want to learn a more mature, polite way of speaking to editors, by the way.Momspack4 (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC) Momspack4, 7 April 2020
The revert was proper; the added text was a jumble of conjecture ("seems to ...", "would have ...", "likely ..."). Doremo (talk) 07:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, that makes sense. How about then, we just remove the section about her motives - since it is based only upon a questionable secondary source? The AP doesn't actually know what type of visa she had, any more than I do. I will say that my "conjecture" makes a lot more logical sense than theirs does. How about if we remove the whole section? That would seem fair - it would certainly be more respectful to the living person the article is about. Momspack4 (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC) Momspack4, 7 April 2020
I noticed that the image on the article with Melania Trump, Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, and another woman lists that other woman as "Kylie Bax". However, that is clearly Karen McDougal. Indeed, the image information (the image caption that is given with the actual image, as opposed to the caption under the picture in the article; I don't know what the technical term for it is) states that the woman is Karen McDougal, and according to the same information, the image was distributed by the White House (which probably verified who the people in the picture are).
The caption should be changed to reflect the correct names of the people in the image. I am guessing that the name was changed to Kylie Bax because it is known that Karen McDougal had an extra-marital affair with Donald Trump.
Should we have a section about Melania Trump's style?
Melania Trump is often compared to Michelle Obama and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, both First Ladies whose Wikipedia pages talk extensively about their public image and fashion/style. Shouldn't Melania's page have a section about her public image, fashion, and style? I think it's worth nothing. There were designers that refused to dress her and Anna Wintour refuses to put her on Vogue. Politics aside, Melania's style has generally been widely praised and like I mentioned earlier, I think it would be worth noting. Besides her efforts to fight bullying and helping children, it's safe to say that most people recognize her for her style and beauty. What do you guys think? Factfanatic1 (talk) 08:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I doubt there's a coherent narrative about her fashion style. Opinions tend to be divided about her purported anti-bullying and kids' advocacy along the lines of support for her husband. Do you have sources that give an overview of the topics? SPECIFICOtalk12:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: What do you mean when you say "Opinions tend to be divided about her purported anti-bullying and kids' advocacy along the lines of support for her husband. Do you have sources that give an overview of the topics?"? I brought that up because BESIDES those things she's known for her fashion, because Michelle Obama and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis both have rather large sections about their fashion style, and because much like how when people think of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis the first thing that comes to their minds is her style and beauty, I think the same could be said about Melania Trump. I'm just looking for a request for comment and/or multiple opinions before going forward and creating the section. Factfanatic1 (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that in the case of either Jackie or Michelle Obama they are noted most for their fashion and good looks. In fact, that sounds like a rather retro misogynistic take on their public profiles. In the case of Ms. Trump, I think people who do not support her husband tend to think poorly of Melania, both as to her fashion and style and as to the announced anti-bullying and pro-kids campaigns which, to my knowldege, have not been implemented. That's why I asked for sources. My impression from the coverage I have seen does not really show much. SPECIFICOtalk13:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm unclear why this topic is consider inappropriate or illegitimate. There's a great deal of reporting in WP:RS on her wearing the jacket; I cited several sources. There are on-the-record statements from both Melania Trump and her spokespeople regarding her wearing it. Her wearing this jacket is among the most-discussed and most-reported-on public statements from Melania Trump as First Lady.
It was discussed at the time it occurred and consensus at that time was to not include it. As the First Lady everything she does gets a lot of attention, but ten years from now will we still be talking about her jacket? Gandydancer (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Furthermore, that discussion appears to have concluded around June 25, 2018, preceding Melania's notable and well-sourced statements about her motivations for wearing the jacket.
ten years from now will we still be talking about her jacket? Not 100% clear, but I suspect it will endure as one of the most notable moments of her career as First Lady. If it seems less notable 10 years from now, we can remove it. Right now, the text on her jacket and her statements about it appear to be among the most notable and most discussed public statements about public policy that Melania Trump has made as First Lady. That's why I want to include it. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 19:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Actually 10 years from now nobody may care very much about Melania at all. Unless she becomes Secretary of State as Hillary did. I think the rationale for inclusion at that time was that the coat incident was reported as emblematic of her attitudes and beliefs. Now, 2 years later, there may be RS discussions in greater breadth and context that describe these aspects of her consciousness and they may draw on that or other actions or incidents as examples. I think the best approach would be to search for broad assessments of her political, moral, and personal characteristics. SPECIFICOtalk19:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO, there are currently 4 sentences, one paragraph discussing her June 2018 visit to the children's shelter in Texas… as far as I can tell, the jacket she wore was the only notable part of this visit, in terms of generating substantial discussion. Everything else was pretty much pro forma. And yet there's no mention of the controversy over the jacket at all, or the extensive coverage and public statements about it. I don't understand this. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 23:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Boring. We don't need this speculative stuff in an encyclopedia. Frankly, the story about why she didn't immediately move to the WH is more interesting about her. O3000 (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@Objective3000, I agree that is a significant and important topic as well. It appears the latest allegations are that she didn't move to the WH immediately in order to have more leverage in negotiating a revised pre/post-nuptial agreement with Donald Trump. Those allegations come from a new book; as far as I can tell, they're not otherwise corroborated… in any case I think they're significant and should be included in the article. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 23:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I can't edit this page but it should include a section on controversies like for other public figures. One controversy, which is certainly newsworthy considering it propelled Donald Trump into politics, is Melania Trump's bither comments in 2011 that she's never repudiated. [1]. Another controversy that's important because it helped Donald Trump during his campaign's biggest crisis after the Access Hollywood tapes came out was her defense of her husband against the multiple allegations of sexual assault against him. [2]EzekielEzekiel (talk) 03:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Text on Wikipedia reads: "Trump's office has avoided the use of the term "cyberbullying,"[100] "
However the source is the Washington Post, a biased hostile anti-Trump source. The WAPO article makes the unverified and unsourced claim that [But the people said they don’t expect the first lady to unveil any policy proposals to combat cyberbullying — a term her team has sought to avoid, instead opting to focus on the need for kindness online.] First, this is unsourced and undocumented, so unreliable speculation and opinion. Second, preferring to focus on a positive term like "kindness" does not actually mean someone has any true aversion to the term "cyberbullying" itself.
The text reads: "In January 2018, The Wall Street Journal reported that during a three-month period where she lived in New York in 2017, she took Air Force jet flights between New York City, Florida and Washington at a cost of more than $675,000 to taxpayers.[98][99] In comparison, former first lady Michelle Obama's solo travel cost an average of about $350,000 per year.[98][99]"
However it intentionally leaves out that the distance to fly to Florida is a much longer distance and so it should cost more than flying to Chicago. Chicago is only 733 miles from NY, while Florida is 996 miles. Additionally, Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club is near the very bottom of Florida and the state of Florida is 500 miles long. Please delete this intentionally slanderous and misleading comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:D100:714:6185:11D0:A23B:2CAE (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Ms. Trump is fond of saying "Be Best;" since you appear to be concerned about her article, let me suggest you "Be Bold." That said, if your edits are undone, then it will be time to come here and discuss. I see you're new here, but you'll find WP editors to be receptive to reason, so be ready with reasoned arguments.
This edit request to Melania Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This was written by a democratic hateful person. Every time I read something about a Republican, I see putting their character down. The person who writes these biographies needs to be neutral. 24.213.102.36 (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
And another tape has her claiming that migrant children are amazed by the excellent treatment they receive in ICE jails, where they are “taken care of nicely.” “The kids, they say, ‘Wow I will have my own bed? I will sleep on the bed? I will have a cabinet for my clothes?’ ” Melania said on the tape. She also told Winston Wolkoff that said she wore her “I really don’t care, do u?” jacket on a plane to visit a child detention center purely to troll the libs. “I’m driving liberals crazy, that’s for sure,” she said, per the CNN report. “And they deserve it, you understand? And everybody’s like, ‘Oh, my God. This is the worst. This is the worst.’ After, I mean, come on. They are crazy, OK?”
I strongly agree that the "I don't really care" jacket should be included. Seems silly at this point not to include it given the amount of sourced discussion from Trump, Melania, the press and others at the time and the recent resurgence and interest from the American public. Continuing to omit information regarding jacket and it's being worn, would seem like to an act to overly sanitize her page given it's almost iconic status, and that it's a moment that she is probably most known for as her role as first lady for the majority of US citizens. User:The One I LeftDiscussion04:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I also agree that it should be included. The "I don't really care" jacket has indeed become iconic, and it may have generated more coverage than any other detail of her time as first lady. Doremo (talk) 08:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Much of the opposition to its inclusion back in 2018 centred around it being "trivia," a "momentary story," and how it "will likely be forgotten by the time this RfC runs its 30-day course." The fact that it's still frequently mentioned today proves these points false. It didn't become trivia and it wasn't a momentary story. Meanwhile the much more recent secret audio recordings from last week currently have a dedicated section in this article and most importantly, Melania mentioned the jacket in the recordings. Everything she says in that recording (the Christmas and children remarks) is mentioned in this wiki article except her comments about the jacket. As it is was of the main controversies of her time as First Lady, and relevant to the section on the secret recording, the jacket should be included. Duey (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Still not seeing enough to over ride a well participated RFC. Especially one that was so overwhelmingly one sided. Yes there was a recent blip during the election with a leaked private conversation, but just not seeing a lasting impact on her. Also technically your broke the 24-BRD DS on the page by a few hours. PackMecEng (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request to remove censorship of profanity
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I'm new to Wikipedia, so I don't know the exact policy on this matter, but I believe the Secret Audio Recordings section should be edited to remove the censoring of profanity. I found this Meta article that says Wikipedia should "quote the swearing of others [without censorship], when historically or otherwise important" especially when using a politician's exact quote. It's clear from the recordings that Melania did not self-censor herself, and the bleeps were only added for the CNN broadcast. This article should be clear on what she actually said and write out the full words without asterisks.
Also, I'm not sure why Cosmopolitan is used as a source for the quotes, when all that source does is transcribe what is said in the CNN broadcast, which is already transcribed in the CNN article that's cited earlier. The Cosmopolitan article also has a very biased title: A Secretly Recorded Tape of Melania Trump Saying Truly Awful Things Just Dropped, and doesn't add any credibility to the section.
@EvergreenFir: Yes, but that's because CNN doesn't publish profanity, even opting to censor "damn" or "ass" in some cases. It's clear Melania said the actual words and the bleeps were added in post, and the asterisks added for print. The Wikipedia article, if it discusses these quotes at all, should be crystal clear as to what she actually said, not what CNN had to render those words as for publishing. Duey (talk) 04:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
There is this article by The Guardian that doesn't censor what was said, and has a more neutral title: "Melania Trump tapes reveal complaints on Christmas and migrant children row". I don't feel confident about adding it into the article right now, but I have created the citation in my comment if someone wants to uncensor the quotes and paste in the citation.
[1]BoatSnack (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Novo Mesto has been part of Slovenia since 1945. We should not mislead our readers into thinking otherwise by stating that Novo Mesto is "now Slovenia". It was just as much Slovenia back in 1970. There is not a single style of anything that works in all situations, and this style never works in Yugoslav biographies. Surtsicna (talk) 10:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
True, however, as far as I know, the common style in biographies for people born in countries that no longer exist is to list the country at the time when they were born. I remember we had this discussion at Anže Kopitar's article and some policy was cited there. Some random examples, look at Nikola Tesla (Austria-Hungary), Franjo Tuđman (Kingdom SHS), Novak Djoković, Slavoj Žižek, Vaclav Havel etc. Melania is not different in this regard. I am reverting, before you make further changes, please seek a consensus for a policy change. --Tone16:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Adding, (now Slovenia) can probably be removed from the box since this is not a common approach. --Tone16:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree, I will remove (now Slovenia). It was Slovenia back then, just not the same political entity. --Tone17:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2021
This edit request to Melania Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Trump will serve as First Lady until January 20, 2021. As President Trump has not ceased to be President on January 13th, Mrs Trump will not cease to be First Lady on that date. This article needs to be protected against vandalism. 138.51.250.34 (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Done as to removing the date. If you'd like to request that the protection level of the page be increased, you can request that at WP:RPP. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 23:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Just to try to forestall any strife on the subject, because I'm likely to not be the only one to want to do this...
I had added Dr. Biden's academic title to the "Successor" section on the main page. It was removed without comment, which was a bit annoying, so I went and looked. MOS:DOC says that such titles should not be used except in certain circumstances, none of which apply here. If I were emperor of the universe, I might have made things go a different way, but I'm not, so I'll follow the Manual of Style (and save others a bit of research).
@Shinx990:, I think Trump looks better in the 2019 photo, and it's a newer photo as well. That makes it superior and we should use it instead of the 2017 one. --Distelfinck (talk)
I think we should keep the official portrait from 2017. While not every First Lady has their official portrait as her infobox image, most of them do. The quality is about the same and I see no compelling reason to change the image. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
That is basically what is happening when we include speculation by media. Do you really believe it has long lasting encyclopedic value - a one time event, nonetheless - and with mid-term elections around the corner? Atsme📞📧 23:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Atsme📞📧 03:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Do you want a new RfC? — JFG talk 05:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Done - 
Done--B dash (talk) 05:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Not done: The phrase you're describing is always used for the page of the current first lady; for example, Michelle Obama's page mentioned her marriage to Barack prior to Trump's inaguration. Philroc (c) 19:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Not done Thanks for the suggestion. But by the time she came to the U.S. she had Germanized her last name to Knauss, and that is the name she was using at the time. This is explained in the opening sentence of the article. -- MelanieN {no relation! ;-D ) (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2019 (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. JTP (talk • contribs) 21:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg)