Talk:Melania Trump

Archives (Index)

2013

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Relevance?

Who is this person apart from Donald Trump? Does the person's innate biographical interest rise to the level of entry in an encyclopaedia, or is it just, as it appears, celebrity accessorising? I believe this entry should be stricken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.138.173 (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Apart from some minor modelling, the only details of her life here are about her relationship to Trump, including tabloid style details of her wedding, etc. Ashmoo (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree. And the sources, askmen .com? Do we really need to quote such sources here? I don't think we need a separate article on WP, the mention which is already included in Donald Trump article is enough.Bialosz (talk) 04:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Since she might the the First Lady, it would be wise to wait and see. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC) -- The real question is, "Are Wikipedia readers interested in learning about Melania Trump?"

-I- might be the First Lady one day... should I start my wiki biography now and hope for the best? Probably not... and not just because I'm a dude. I agree with striking the article. The world is full of models -and- potential First Ladies. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 21:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The “potential First Lady” argument is inappropriate, and she really is famous only because she is married to Trump. But she is kind of famous, so I would say leave the article. If you disagree, then what about all the other Trump’s relatives that have their own Wikipedia articles – would you strike them down also? I would argue that not that many people would know these people, if it were not for Donald Trump. SyaWgnignahCehT (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

There has been a lot of WP-editor activity on her page here, but not much TALK. Why is that? And I would say she will rise in prominence (as Donald Trump has stated) as the Trump Campaign picks up momentum. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

If you go to the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition infobox, you'll see almost every model in that edition is important enough for a Wikipedia page. (This is totally not my specialty but somehow I ended up here.) >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 05:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and since the question was raised about deleting this article, she has had more coverage than most people with WP articles. Why was the question even raised? -- AstroU (talk) 11:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The question was raised last year, things changed since, and also in WP the quality of sources is also important. When the question was raised there were some articles in gossip magazines, nothing really of quality, so, the comment about "celebrity accessorising" was a fair point.For ex. Ivanka Trump was mentioned by Forbes, big difference, it is a serious source, not a tabloid or men magazine.But since last year Mrs. Trump also got coverage in quality sources, for ex. Washington Post, etc. Bialosz (talk) 09:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Pronouncing her name

Many Wikipedia articles have audio for readers who are interested. Does she (or Donald Trump) say 'Mel-Lawn-ia' or 'Mel-Layne-ia'. Americanized might be 'layne' but the European might be 'lawn' in my lifetime experience. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC) -- PS: This would be to improve the article.

Joy Behar pronounced her name "mel-LAWN-ia" in an interview archived on YouTube. CNN also pronounces it that way. Although she has referred to herself to herself since her marriage as Melania Trump, her maiden name is pronounced "kuh-NAUS", according to Joyce Wadler's December 1999 profile which originally appeared in the New York Times. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I heard Donald Trump say 'Mel-Lawn-ia'.

Many Wikipedia articles have audio for readers who are interested. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done -- So "Mel-Lawn-ia" it is. -- AstroU (talk) 11:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing

Donald Trump is interviewed by HollywoodReporter and is asked about his wife.

Headline-1: The Donald Trump Conversation: Murdoch, Ailes, NBC and the Rush of Being TV's "Ratings Machine"

• http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/donald-trump-murdoch-ailes-nbc-816131

QUOTE: When will you get Melania out there talking about you? "Pretty soon. She wants to do it. She is a very confident person. You've seen her on The View, and you've seen her on different shows. Larry King. You've seen her being interviewed. She's got a great style, and she would be an amazing first lady with heart." -- AstroU (talk) 05:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Headline-2: The Donald Trump Conversation: Murdoch, Ailes, NBC and the Rush of Being TV's "Ratings Machine

• http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/donald-trump-murdoch-ailes-nbc-816131

QUOTE: "What would Melania care about as first lady?" She would care very much about women's issues. We're talking about mostly medical issues but women's issues. She was very strong on that with me the other day. Ivanka and Melania said, "You're not getting fairly treated on your feeling toward women." My mother was this incredible woman. I have known incredible women. I have many women executives, frankly, that are better than my men executives. I pay them the same or more." -- AstroU (talk) 05:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.

More news for more future editing (a lot of comments brought out by Barbara Walters. There are pictures and direct quotes in this article/interview.

Headline-3: Barbara Walters Is Shocked that Melania Trump Is Smart Because She's Also Beautiful

• http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/11/20/barbara_walters_is_shocked_that_melania_trump_is_smart_because_she_s_also_beautiful

QUOTE: "Barbara Walters: ... maybe because she's so beautiful, we don't expect her to be as smart as she is." -- AstroU (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future: (a lot of informatin here.)

Notability of trivia & appropriateness of other material in "Melania Trump" article

@Vesuvius Dogg: I grant the validity of your concerns as expressed at my TalkPage on 2015-09-05, where you wrote: "From WP:BLP: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. Professor JR, you have made wholesale deletions from this page, incorrectly concluding that Melania Trump's comments in 1999 to Howard Stern are tabloid-sourced (although Joyce Wadler's interview, which repeated the "not much" quote and elicited Knauss' own response to it, originally appeared in The New York Times, and Bloomberg is anything but a tabloid, although you removed that August 2015 reference entirely). I'm under the impression that any potentially unflattering insights related to Melania Trump and not already echoed on her own promotional website is unsuitable, in your eyes, for inclusion, up to and including the rather benign fact that she is raising her child in both English and Slovenian, and that she has been unavailable for recent interviews but both supports and intends to play a role campaigning for her husband. Believe me, I take WP:BLP seriously, but I feel like you are stripping the article almost to the point of non-utility, deferring to its bare-bones major source, which is Mrs. Trump's own promotional website focussed on her jewelry and caviar cold cream. That's a shame, because there are RS sources to give the article depth and balance, so it reads less like the PR copy which has previously been suggested for deletion. After a partial restoration of some of what you've removed, I'd appreciate moving the discussion to the article's Talk page (if you continue to object to what I've added) so that we can together find consensus." Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion here on the article's TalkPage is a good idea. Perhaps a relevant starting point for a measure of what should and shouldn't appropriately be included in the Melania Trump article (in addition to due consideration of Wikipedia:Trivial mentions and BLP) would be to look at the Wikipedia pages (in some cases non-existent) for the spouses of other current presidential candidates: e.g. - Columba Bush, Jane O'Meara Driscoll (Sanders), Frank Fiorina, Katie O'Malley, Lacena Carson, Tonette Tarantino (Walker), Mary Pat Foster (Christie), Janet Huckabee, Libby Pataki, Anita Thigpen Perry, etc. We may want to also take a look at Theresa Heinz as a possible comparable here, as Heinz was both a presidential candidate's spouse, and a business-person and individual of some prominence in her own right.

My concerns with the Melania Trump article, more than with BLP problems, had to do with tabloid sourced gossipy sorts of items, and with Wikipedia policies regarding inclusion of non-notable trivia. (Also, the under-age children of political candidates are generally off-limits.) Additionally, Melania Trump -- apart from her public celebrity persona vis-à-vis her previous modeling career, and current jewelry, watch and cosmetics businesses -- is a rather private person, actually somewhat shy. At the very least, Wikipedia owes her modestly equivalent treatment to that accorded other presidential candidates' spouses. If she were to become First Lady, that's a whole different story (and, of course, Bill Clinton is a whole different story). What are your thoughts? Thanks. --- Professor JR (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Vesuvius Dogg: Please note that I have added back in the sourced bilingual bit about the Trumps' son, as well as making a few other minor edits to this article, but have left out the nude-photo stuff, etc., as in my opinion it's probably not worthy, and a bit gratuitous, to call attention to it here. See what you think.
--- Professor JR (talk) 10:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Professor JR: I did add a reference to the "notoriety" of the Howard Stern interview, without elaboration; I also added a line about Trump suggesting the name Barron, as it jibes with what's mentioned in his "Personal Life" section on his own bio, that it's a pseudonym he's used for years; I also cleaned up a bit the footnoting and prose. I probably made it read even more like a PR piece, but can we at least agree these recent changes are non-controversial?

Though I did NOT add it back, I still think it's acceptable to mention their age difference, or ages at the time they were married (my preference), in keeping with contemporary and recent RS sources which have widely reported it. I don't think it's controversial, and while it makes them outliers, as only 1% of marriages have a husband 20 years of more older than a spouse, the fact they've been a couple for 17 years speaks for itself. While I'm not sure Columba Bush is an entirely apt comparison, you did bring her up (above), and you'll see that both her and her husband's age are mentioned b/c they were so youthful. But I'm somewhat resigned on this age issue, as a couple other editors have objected to including it in Trump's own "Personal Life" section. (Oddly, no one seems to have objected to any of my contributions there to the lawsuit and organized crime section, factoids I'd think would be much more objectionable to editors trying to defend Trump's reputation and political viability. So it seems the objection about including their age difference comes genuinely from the conviction that these things SHOULDN'T matter. But IMHO that's different from including it, citing reliable sources, because it has been widely reported.)

While I personally think the nude/see-through/no-bra cultural standard is different in the U.S. than in Europe, and it's anyone's guess how a few old modeling pictures of Trump's spouse might become relevant in the election cycle, if at all, let's at least be clear we're talking about something much closer to PG-13 than NSFW, which is why I weigh toward tactful acknowledgment. She's not afraid to show cleavage, and she has spoken publicly about their sex life. That does set her apart from most political spouses. Censorship itself might lend it undue weight; another editor could insert comment on it later. What I think is of some more immediate biographical relevance is the way they advertised their sexual relationship early on, as couples are wont to do, hence the Howard Stern "notoriety" reference, which I think deserves inclusion. Also a link to the recent Bloomberg profile. Thoughts? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 13:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I have included material on the Caviar Complexe distribution lawsuit, which I suppose was resolved through arbitration. She did prevail in an Indianapolis courtroom and that's worth noting. Oh, and we should probably say somewhere that's she stands 5' 11", as that's contextually relevant to her modeling career. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Vesuvius Dogg: All of your recent changes, and the photo-image someone added, look fine to me -- and the article as a whole as it now stands seems to be in pretty good shape, too, barring any future major developments (e.g. - if she starts campaigning in a big way for her husband, or some such, etc.) I did add a few more details on their son, and a quote from Melania about potentially becoming First Lady, as well as some rather insightful New York Times quotes regarding the Clntons' attendance at the wedding. --- Professor JR (talk) 08:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Professor JR: have a look at Melania Trump's profile in today's Washington Post. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 07:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Professor JR: WaPo gave her birth/family name as 'Knav' without the 's' at the end. I changed it but was quickly reverted; am no expert on Slovenian patronymics but simply assumed WaPo might be right b/c they had found and spoken with one of Melania's childhood friends. Will keep an eye out, but we may need to see the long-form birth certificate Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Am going back to 'Knavs' per a recent revert comment by a Slovene speaker, who said is seemed more natural. Also, her Slovene Wikipedia entry has 'Knavs'. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

was her father a member of the Communist Party?

According to people who knew the family, he was. FYI. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are particularly careful about what they say about living people. Donald J. Trump could take agressive action for publicity, but instead, his campaign team speaks to this. The article actually says the opposite: "...but Reuters could not independently confirm this. The Trump campaign team offered Reuters a different account of her childhood and career, saying Melania began modelling at the age of five, that her mother was a fashion designer and her father a manager in a car company. "Her father was never a member of the Communist Party,” a spokesperson said." -- AstroU (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC) PS: Best to not go down that path. It would rightly be immediatedly reverted!

 Done -- "So let it be written, so let it be ..." dropped. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing

Speaking of 'notability', the future First Lady just became more 'notable'. People vote for First Lady, too.

Headline-1: Things just got ugly: Trump retweets unflattering image of Heidi Cruz compared to Melania before Ted hits back at Donald saying 'real men don't attack women' 

• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3507259/Things-just-got-ugly-Trump-retweets-unflattering-image-Heidi-Cruz-compared-Melania-Ted-hits-Donald-says-real-men-don-t-attack-women.html

QUOTE: "Trump retweets unflattering image of Heidi Cruz compared to Melania; Ted hits back at Donald saying 'real men don't attack women' " -- AstroU (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing. NOTE the very interesting and attractive pictures and a video from Heidi Cruz. Call it "The First Lady Wars". They do this for media attention.

Did Melania Trump graduate from the University of Ljubljana?

We have conflicting reports about whether Melania Trump actually graduated with a degree from the University of Ljubljana. Does anyone have definite and unequivocal evidence that she does indeed have a degree from said institution and that said degree is in "design and architecture"?

Here are the conflicts:

• from the Daily Mail [6]: "Not long afterwards, she abandoned the degree, moving first to Milan where she met New York agent Paolo Zampolli - the matchmaker who introduced her to Trump."
• but CBS News says she does have a degree [7]: "She took a break from full-time modeling to attend the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia, but then returned to the profession after completing a degree in architecture and design. She moved to New York in 1996."

So which one is it? Does she have or not have a degree?

Let's keep the discussion civilized folks.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Her own website claims she completed a degree in architecture and design "at University in Slovenia"[8]. But I know reporters have attempted to verify that university degree, so far withou success. Note how slavishly the CBS story follows Wikipedia's facts and formatting. There's no evidence in it of efforts to verify or double-check information; it appears they have taken Melania's claim of a college degree at face value, because she said it on her own website. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• I included two reliable sources to support the claim that she studied architecture and design at the University of Ljubliana (well, one makes that exact claim, and the other one makes the assertion that she studied at that university without specifying further). It's not a contentious claim and I see no reason to debate the matter further. No claim is being made that she actually graduated. Maybe she studied there for a year, or maybe she graduated. However, we are not detectives; all we can do is provide reliable sources. It's the way Wikipedia works. Besides, it seems highly unlikely that she would make up that story. The university is still there. It would be easy to find out if she never actually enrolled there. If the university does provide proof at some point that she graduated, then we can make that assertion. Dontreader (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• We gotta be careful when using the verb "studied." Notice how meticulous the authors were in the sources you provided: "the teen went on to study" and "she took up her studies at." That's not what this article said when this concern was brought up. I have rewritten it in a way that is not contentious: "she coursed studies at." —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Okay Ahnoneemoos, but I have a question. My English isn't perfect. Could you please back up your claim that "studying" implies graduation? I looked up the verb "study" here [9], and this is what we find:

"to take a course of study, as at a college"

"to take a course of study, as at a college."

"to take a course in (a subject), as at a college"

There's even an example on that page: "He's studying at Harvard." So I wonder, if someone is studying at a university, and then does not graduate, does that mean that the person never studied there? That seemingly contradicts the source I provided. Aren't you perhaps implying with the way you phrased the sentence that she never graduated? Because we just don't know.

Another example is The Free Dictionary [10]:

"To pursue a course of study: studied at Yale. COMMENT: to pursue does not mean to graduate.

"(Education) to take a course in (a subject), as at a college". COMMENT: again I don't see that this implies graduation.

"to take a course of study, as at a college."

So I don't see what's wrong with the original wording unless you can provide sources that indicate that studying something at a university implies graduation. I think what you wrote implies the opposite, which is why I'm asking you. Thanks. Dontreader (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• It's an idiom in American English. Everything that you linked to shows literal meanings, not idioms. In a typical conversation in American English saying, "I studied at Yale" implies that you obtained a degree from that institution, not that you just "pursued studies" in there. Regardless, we do have a few reliable sources that state that Knauss, "studied design and architecture at the University of Ljubljana" so continuing this discussion is moot. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Many thanks for the explanation. I lived abroad for 30 years, so I will perhaps forever be unaware of certain details. Anyway, I think I addressed the issues concerning primary sources well enough. Bloomberg seems reliable enough in my opinion (which was already there as an inline citation for the photographers) and I added other really good sources, most of which were already present in the article backing other claims. Thanks again. Dontreader (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Even media in Slovenia have problem with it, for quite a number of years. I read some reports that she attended university for one year, and that there is nothing in the Cobiss data base (thesis should be listed if a person graduated). But how realiable those sources are? So, it seems complicated.Also people who speak Slavic languages as their native language when they say they studied, it doesn't implies graduating, like the American idiom implies, it communicates that one attended university.This can lead to innocent misunderstandings.As M.Trump didn't state when she graduated, and which degree she has, and wikipedia readers should not be required to know American idioms, in general I agree with Anhoneemoos, further discussion will not bring much. Bialosz (talk) 09:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

QVC jewelry line and caviar cream

For some reason her commercial ventures have disappeared from the article. Shouldn't they be restored to her career history? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Languages spoken — add Italian

Melania Trump stated that she speaks Italian, in addition to the languages listed in this WP article. She stated this when being interviewed by Greta Von Susteren. The interview aired on the Fox News Channel on Saturday, May 28, 2016. I think this should be added to this article. I would have done so myself, but I don't know the proper citation or link. Lyttle-Wight (talk) 00:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2016

Please add them following to subsection 2016 NRC Speech Controversy. Source: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/07/19/politics/melania-trump-michelle-obama-speech/index.html

Melania Trump's speech, July 2016: "From a young age, my parents impressed on me the values that you work hard for what you want in life, that your word is your bond and you do what you say and keep your promise, that you treat people with respect. They taught and showed me values and morals in their daily lives. That is a lesson that I continue to pass along to our son," Trump said.

And we need to pass those lessons on to the many generations to follow. Because we want our children in this nation to know that the only limit to your achievements is the strength of your dreams and your willingness to work for them."

Michelle Obama's speech, on August 25, 2008: "And Barack and I were raised with so many of the same values: that you work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you do what you say you're going to do; that you treat people with dignity and respect, even if you don't know them, and even if you don't agree with them.

And Barack and I set out to build lives guided by these values, and to pass them on to the next generation. Because we want our children -- and all children in this nation -- to know that the only limit to the height of your achievements is the reach of your dreams and your willingness to work for them."

Rs21867 (talk) 05:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

2016 RNC Speech

The entire RNC Speech section must be deleted until an editor is willing to write about it in a NPOV manner. The last few sentences read: "Following Trump's speech, various media outlets reported the similarities, stating that Trump's speech was "awkward", embarrassing" and "an act of plagiarism". Various media outlets also suggested that members of Donald Trump's presidential campaign should respond to the accusations. Prior to delivering the speech, the Cable News Network (CNN) reported that Trump and a speechwriter had been "working on the speech" for the past "five to six weeks"."

These comments from "various media outlets" were in fact made by individuals who are self described commentators, not hard news reporters. Claims that a speech was "awkward, and embarrassing" are inappropriate to include in an encyclopedic article. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, the perceptions of a few media hosts immediately following a speech have no place here.

50.189.1.9 (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

At this point it is going to remain as not including the information would also be a non-neutral point of view. The information should be included that gives a balanced viewpoint between the media, and the Trump campaign's stance on the matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The facts are any similarities to Mrs. Obama's 2008 speech were acts of plagiarism by whomever wrote the speech. Had they credited the source; no problem. Mentioning the resulting firestorm is not a point of view. It's what happened (everywhere except on Fox News). Critical, expressive parts of the Trump speech were "lifted', almost verbatim, from Obama's speech. I think the article thread, as it stands, is as fair and impartial as could be expected. In my estimation the most ridiculous part of the story is Campaign Manager Paul Manafort, the next day, accusing Hillary Clinton of being involved in the plagiarism, "It's just another example, as far as we're concerned, that when Hillary Clinton is threatened by a female, the first thing she does is try to destroy the person," Manafort said. Buster Seven Talk 18:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC) Manafort's response in defense of Malania should be included in the article. If and when included, the fact that the Melania Trump/Michelle Obama parallels were first pointed out on Twitter by journalist Jarrett Hill, should be mentioned. Buster Seven Talk 18:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree with IP user 50.189.1.9 and suggest that the section be condensed as this issue has been making rounds in the media but does not need so much information. This section is a huge chunk of her page and her page is not that large. De88 (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Considering this topic is what she has appeared to have had the most public attention for though. (Besided being married to Donald Trump) I think the large portion is warrented. That is a good bit of what the readers would be interested in right?Pulliam.thomas (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

While the editors have tried to make it sound the most neutral possible, it seems they are taking this as an opportunity to create a negative image of her. Yes, I understand plagiarism is bad and her marriage to Donald Trump has caused a lot of controversy, but this issue should not have been so expanded. It just doesn't need so much information. Keep the most important info and simply condense. It still provides enough info on this issue while balancing the article. De88 (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

"Taking this as an opportunity to create a negative image of her"? Hardly. She did that all by herself. Or maybe with help from some speechwriters. But I've added every significant defense of Trump's speech I could find without repeating any criticism of it. (Such as the Washington Post article that surveyed high school teachers and college professors and found they would have failed her for plagiarism or reported her for discipline.) Unfortunately, Trump's people have generally been silent so there's not much to add to the article, but I did add Priebus and Manafort. Another editor added Sean Spicer. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Include Reince Priebus' Quote

Please add Reince Priebus' quote into Wikipedia that It'd be reasonable to fire the speechwriter. Source: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/2016/07/rnc_chairman_reince_priebus_itd_be_reasonable_to_fire_melania_trumps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.234.214 (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

In all fairness to Melania this quote should be immediately included into Wikipedia, or Wikipedia is a farce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.234.214 (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

German?

Knavs is itself a Slavicisation of German Knauss, right? --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Degree Controversy

As of June 19. 2016, Melania Trump's personal online website claims that Melania earned a "a degree in design and architecture at University in Slovenia." The official RNC schedule also states that Melania Trump obtained a degree in design and architecture at University in Slovenia. .Several news agencies, including The Huffington Post , Politico , and Gawker have disputed these claims, noting that she dropped out after the first year at university. Other than the Trumps' statements indicating otherwise, there is no evidence that Melania Trump was awarded a degree from any U.S. or foreign institution. --Sterilizedusername (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

References

COPYVIO

Someone should check this article for copyright violations. Just sayin' Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2016

107.77.207.84 (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC) Pretty, intelligent, rich, speaks 5 languages, without question a better wife and more qualified to be first lady, Secretary of State, or for that matter President of the United States than Hillary Clinton.

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2016

I guess someone that it was funny to list her school as Velvet Jones School of Technology. This needs to be removed.

96.59.200.129 (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)