Jump to content

Talk:Melania Trump

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.191.132.75 (talk) at 21:55, 21 July 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Friendly search suggestions


Archives (Index)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?"[reply]

-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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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"

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.[reply]

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

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.[reply]

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

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.)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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'

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. MediaKill13 (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agreed. Characterizing the speech with those adjectives is pure propaganda. Also, there are people that are saying that Michelle Obama's speech was taken from Saul Alinsky. If that IS in fact the case, then maybe Melania's speechwriter got it from Alinsky also. We just don't know, and it would be reckless to hypothesize either way until the facts are known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whamrick3 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 un-employed journalist Jarrett Hill should be mentioned. Buster Seven Talk 18:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
"Taking this as an opportunity to create a negative image of her"? More a critique of the speech writer(s) and the Trump campaign than of Melania. Her innocence has not been questioned (although she did say that she wrote the speech with very little help). Buster Seven Talk 01:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My mother gave me a very similar speach many times before either lady was born. When I here either speech it reminds me of my mother. Should I complain that both stole my mom's speech. No, every mother should be saying the same same thing to their children. Saltysailor (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your mother had an audience of one. Melania had an audience of possibly 35 million. Big difference. Buster Seven Talk 04:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

German?

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

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." [1] The official RNC schedule also states that Melania Trump obtained a degree in design and architecture at University in Slovenia. [2].Several news agencies, including The Huffington Post [3], Politico [4], and Gawker [5] 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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ [3]
  4. ^ [4]
  5. ^ [5]
Right. There are many WP:RSs which point out the discrepancies between her claims on her web site that she graduated college, and other accounts which say that say she did not.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/rnc-2016-melania-trump-biography-225781
RNC program flubs Melania Trump's biography
The RNC refers to a college degree, but Trump left college after one year.
By Katy O'Donnell
07/18/16

http://gawker.com/trump-campaign-lies-about-melania-trumps-nonexistant-co-1783912735
Trump Campaign Lies About Melania Trump's Nonexistent College Degree
Ashley Feinberg
This article links to other articles in Politico, the New York Times, and the New Yorker.

So this meets WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT on all fours. There are many references to it in major WP:RSs. There are good reasons for including it. As Gawker says, it bears on the issue of the truthfulness of not just Melania but the whole campaign. Put it in. I think deleting it would be WP:CENSOR. --Nbauman (talk)
I agree this article should address the degree controversy. —МандичкаYO 😜 22:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I attended 4 schools of higher learning. I did not graduate from any of them. Ergo, I am not a college graduate nor do I have a degree. I think any mention of a degree should be removed. We need not shine a light on whether the campaign is truthful or not. Sources say she didnt graduate so we shouldnt mislead the reader by implying that she did. Buster Seven Talk 01:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many WP:RS are reporting it, which means it qualifies under WP:WEIGHT and belongs in the article. There is documentation that she said she had a degree, and documentation that she doesn't have a degree. I think someone could reasonably conclude that she's lying, but can let the reader decide. The WP:RS give reasons why it's important; for example it demonstrates Trump's attitude towards the truth. This all supports including it under Wikipedia rules. I don't understand why under WP rules you think we should keep it out. --Nbauman (talk) 04:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have reconsidered. I agree re: mentioning the false claim of a degree. I think declaring someone has a degree when they don't is a demonstration of D. Trump's clouding of the truth with the intent to create an accomplishment for someone who didn't complete the task. Buster Seven Talk 04:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

COPYVIO

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

Can someone say if there's any legitimacy to this allegation? Ribbet32 (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Done Thanks for spotting. Gap9551 (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Breast Cancer Research Foundation

Is there any evidence that the Trumps have ever actually contributed money to The Breast Cancer Research Foundation? That's actually a highly-regarded organization. If she's done something good, it would be nice to mention it. I would be impressed.

OTOH, "associated" violates WP:WEASEL. If all she did was show up at one of their parties, that's not significant. That's like saying you're associated with the Metropolitan Opera because you saw an opera there. Unless someone has a WP:RS to show that she was doing some meaningful charity work, the section should be deleted. --Nbauman (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donating money, IMHO, is not enough to merit "associated" - I could give $5, it doesn't make me personally associated with the charity in any real sense. If she chairs an event, speaks at a benefit, etc, then I could see use of this word. Otherwise, yes, weasel. —МандичкаYO 😜 22:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And one of the sources is just a collection of photos from some BCRF event and I presume, she's in there. That's not enough. So I removed it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that, both sources are just photos.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

separate article needed on speech?

It seems like the speech would warrant its own article for BLP purposes, especially considering a lot of the fallout, excuses and fingerpointing is not going to be about her specifically. This fiasco is truly one for the ages and meets notability requirements. —МандичкаYO 😜 22:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dislike the idea, if someone wants to make an article then go for it. Do you have any article name ideas? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing "Melania Trump 2016 Republican National Convention speech" or something. —МандичкаYO 😜 23:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There are many viable aspects to the situation that might be able to be elaborated on if there were a separate article. Buster Seven Talk 01:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait until a few days have passed and the media have moved on to more important things, like whether Hillary hates small children or Donald kicks dogs, before we judge the lasting effect (if any) of the plagiarism incident. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Considering Clint Eastwood at the 2012 Republican National Convention is apparently still notable, it seems unlikely that this speech won't have lasting notability. —МандичкаYO 😜 03:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hold off on a dedicated article for now, per Malik, but the info should be mentioned here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the stuff on the Rick-rolling, aside from being stupid, sophomoric and inane (and actually not fitting the definition of "rick-rolling") does not even fit in with a section which is about a "plagiarism controversy".Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Volunteer Marek. It is absurd to create a separate page for this issue. I feel this is going to end up fading out of the spotlight in a few days. It's just not something the media will keep reporting on. In all, there are bigger issues facing this election and a plagiarism issue from the next (potential) "First Lady" is just not that important. Yes, it is bad, but to be fair, the speech sounded rather "generic". Nothing that really stood out. Also, she did not literally copy word for word on Michelle's speech. They did sound similar but again they were just generic, cliché as one delegate puts it in a Vox article. Every delegate I asked about Melania Trump’s plagiarism gave basically the same answer De88 (talk) 04:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, a separate article seems appropriate. I redirected Melania Trump speech plagiarism controversy to this article for now, but I would welcome its expansion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also added a tag to the article to encourage additional discussion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, a separate article is not needed. It's a minor point, not noteworthy of an article, the news channels have already cited several speeches by Obama that were allegedly plagerized, that would require a separate article for each speech according to this type of reasoning. An aide has taken credit for the noted error in Melania's speech already, so its not worth of an article. Melania's speech was well received.StarMountain (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@StarMountain:.Please provide sources for your claim of "the news channels have already cited several speeches by Obama that were allegedly plagerized,..." I scour the various news channels and I think I would have seen such a claim. Buster Seven Talk 18:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But this incident is much, much more than simply improper attribution. Various people associated with the campaign are offering different, even contradictory reasons, and some people have called for the campaign manager's resignation. And sure, Melania's delivery was well received, but that is not an argument against having an article about this major controversy. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The speech being "generic," someone else possibly plagiarizing at some other time, and someone else taking credit for the plagiarism is irrelevant to the notability of the speech and its continued coverage. These are excuses lobbied out by the Trump camp and are not the criteria Wikipedia uses when determining notability. —МандичкаYO 😜 18:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, in fact Melania Trump’s Speechwriter has just taken responsibility for speech "lifing". [11] I feel bad for Republicans out there but this incident in particular is getting in depth coverage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold and moved content over to Melania Trump speech plagiarism controversy. Please help improve if you are interested. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of merging. I don't understand the benefit of having a separate article for the plagiarism controversy. Our BLP policy applies to biography and non-biography articles alike. The controversy is about Melania Trump so it is within scope, and this article certainly isn't too long. See WP:WHENSPLIT. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's noteworthy enough to mention but shouldn't be given UNDUE weight and certainly not enough for its own article. Especially now that they've fessed up and owned up to it I think it's going to become a non-story.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The independent article is too long, and the section in the Melania Trump article is too short. Now that further facts have come out, most of the blow-by-blow claims and counter-claims are irrelevant. We could get to the point with a much shorter discussion. I think the McIver statement pretty much summarizes the whole situation and should be included on this page in the Speech section. --Nbauman (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Wikipedia campaign for the Trumps?

The most prominently displayed part is the "statement by the campaign's senior communications advisor, Jason Miller: 

   In writing her beautiful speech, ..."

That is far from being neutral (called "NPOV" here wasn't it?). Wikipedia, do you get paid for such blatant campaign-advertising?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.134.220 (talk) 11:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a quote, and Wikipedia is also being bashed by extremist Republicans for including the controversy in the first place. Is Wikipedia Democratic propaganda or Republican propaganda? Can't be both. Ribbet32 (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you look towards the right of the quote you will see: Some portions of the two speeches were "very similar" and other parts were "nearly identical". This part advocates for the side who argue that yes it was plagiarism. I see no issue here as both sides appear balanced out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Balanced coverage is important, but a response from Trump or her husband's campaign that addresses the copied lines would be more relevant. Gap9551 (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2016

Can you please remove the campaign-advertising words (Jason Miller's statement) from the article, or at least display them in a less prominent way. They are certainly full of marketing lies, what is of no encyclopedic value for the biography of Mrs. Trump, as such campaigning language is widely known and nothing notable in particular. Repeating those by-word only multiplicates their advertising effect and outreach, what Wikipedia (as far as I knew up to now?) is not for.

92.225.134.220 (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NPOV. Wikipedia gives all sides of controversial issues, as determined by their coverage in the media and other WP:RS. The section contains criticism of the speech, and also Jason Miller's statement in defense of the speech. We let the facts speak for themselves, and let the readers make up their own minds. In this section, even after a lengthy defense, the facts don't seem to be too favorable to Melania Trump.
The block quote is standard for lenghthy quotes. We follow style manuals like the Chicago Manual of Style and Strunk and White.--Nbauman (talk) 12:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done, see above -- GB fan 12:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"This article was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past."

Is the talk page template above that says "This article was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past." necessary? It does not even link to a deletion discussion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed it as being false per [12]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a standard template when a proposed deletion was challenged (i.e., the article was not deleted). There won't be a discussion because PROD doesn't use discussions like AfD does, and there won't be anything in the deletion log because it wasn't deleted. Because the proposed deletion process can be used only once, the template is usually placed there to alert other editors that a PROD was already attempted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to link the original PROD attempt, but I forgot. Here it is. --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay place it above then, I doubt that this page will be prodded again but you never know. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of the use of the lyrics from "Never Gonna Give You Up"

It seems like users are divided about mentioning that media have questioned if she have used the lyrics to the song Never Gonna Give You Up. On the one hand, Volunteer Marek had removed the information because the article is "a freakin' BLP". On the other hand Ribbet32 mentioned that this information was published by reputable sources such as Time Magazine and New York Magazine. So I propose that we should have a discussion whether to include it in the article or not. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are sources from Google News that you might could look at before deciding: Trump + "Never Gonna Give You Up" and Trump + Rick Roll Yoshiman6464 (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm against inclusion at this time. The accusations seem unsubstantiated and more like a joke than like serious reporting. If/when more media outlets cover the story then I'm open to reconsidering. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Melania's Speechwriter Apologizes

Please add this to wikipedia https://www.yahoo.com/news/melania-trump-speech-writer-mciver-000000807.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.234.214 (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RNC speech in lead section

Skibumpmc, you have now removed reliably sourced and highly significant content from the lead section twice without explanation (here, here). Please do not edit war. Could you please explain why you're in favor of removing this information? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced it. (1) It was a subject of huge media attention. (2) Recentism is an essay, not a guideline. It's just one editor's opinion. (3) It was deleted without discussion in Talk. --Nbauman (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger of the Melania Trump speech plagiarism controversy article to the RNC article

It has been proposed that the article Melania Trump speech plagiarism controversy be merged/redirected into 2016 Republican National Convention#Melania Trump's speech. Obviously some of the material will be retained at this article as well. To discuss whether the "controversy" article should remain as a separate article or be merged/redirected, please go to Talk:Melania Trump speech plagiarism controversy. --MelanieN (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism accusation: undue weight

Hi, I've tagged the lead with {{undue weight section}}. In my opinion, the plagiarism accusation is a recentism that will soon become pretty much forgotten, a minor episode in the life of M. Trump. As such, its inclusion in the lead as an independent paragraph goes against WP:NPOV, which states: "For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." --Eleassar my talk 20:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, this incident is the second-most significant reason for her being notable (after her marriage to Donald Trump), and it takes up about 10% of the prose right now. Gap9551 (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Some people think Every. Single. Wikipedia. Article. needs a maintenance tag, and don't even stop to think whether it's necessary. Ribbet32 (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think Eleassar's concern deserves to be taken seriously. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have a weight problem. I agree with Eleassar that recentism is a potential concern, but in this case I think the extreme amount of coverage overrides that concern. Google News is currently showing over a million hits for "melania trump" "speech". I have a hard time imagining that the speech will end up being just a blip in her biography. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that the event has received significant coverage, but I still don't think it deserves a separate paragraph, while other parts of the article are poorly summarised. There are other notable persons the plagiarism of which attracted a great interest of the public at the time, e.g. Joe Biden or Fareed Zakaria, and it's ok to mention it, but it is not even near as much exposed as here. --Eleassar my talk 21:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For those people the plagiarism is proportionally less significant--not because the plagiarism is less important, but because relatively speaking the other aspects of their biographies are more important. Zakaria and especially Biden have had long and storied careers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The page view statistics go from 10,000 all year to 1.5 million since she gave that speech. https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Melania_Trump That's quite a bit of weight. It's reasonable to conclude that readers are interested in her role at the convention. That's the information people come here to get, and that's the information we should give them. --Nbauman (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's totally appropriate to cover the plagiarism in depth in this article. It's really the main thing for which she is known and has received a large amount of news coverage and commentary across the planet, so the current coverage is not undue in any way. If anything, it's too short. --Tataral (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested above that the plagiarism fiasco should be its own article, for this and other BLP reasons. Some have suggested this controversy will just fade away but that goes contrary to logic. —МандичкаYO 😜 22:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to say WP:NOTTEMPORARY. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is about how the lead section of this article should be written, not about whether the plagiarism controversy should have its own article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification and Balance needed, but I can't add this editor: Article is locked out.

The following edit, below, needs to be added to clarify the matter, and be balanced, but I can not add it, since I am not a registered editor. Please, no one lecture me on "registering," since I don't think highly of being bullied and arguing. I can contribute just fine, as it is, and my contributions can stand or fall on their own.

This article is "semi-protected," and this edit can't be done by me, but here it is, if it helps:

To be more precise, McIver places some of the blame on Ms. Trump: "In a statement issued by the campaign, Meredith McIver took the blame but made it clear that Mrs. Trump knew the passages were from the first lady's speech."[1]

Thank you.96.59.186.103 (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like WP:EDITORIALIZING to me. --Nbauman (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like culpability for Mrs. Trump to me. Buster Seven Talk 03:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the source doesn't say it, we can't say it. The source says Trump knew the passages were from Obama's speech. It doesn't say McIver placed some of the blame on Trump. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ OHLEMACHER, STEPHEN (2016-07-20). "Trump speechwriter apologizes for Melania Trump's speech". TheLedger.com. Retrieved 2016-07-20.

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2016


After the mention of her plagiarism, it should be noted that Meredith McIver made a statement explaining the issue.


Bobbert723 (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The lead only gives a summary (i.e., just that the plagiarism happened), no details. The section below gives a quote by McIver. Gap9551 (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Culpability means "deserving blame"

  • 1) According to Melania Trump’s personal website, she obtained a degree “in design and architecture from a University in Slovenia,” Interestingly, the name of the school is missing. Truth is she only completed a freshman year at the University of Ljubljana before beginning her modeling career.[citation needed] An effort to elevate her social status? A continuing attempt to deceive?[citation needed]
  • 2) She was the person who decided to plagiarize sections from First Lady Michelle Obama's 2008 convention speech[citation needed] in spite of what Merideth McIver has taken the blame for. She has yet to accept her major role in deciding on the final draft of her speech. She wrote it, as she herself says, "with little help" from others... she spoke it at the convention... it's her speech. She is deserving of blame (culpable) for the resulting embarrassment to her husbands campaign.
The continuing efforts to soft-sell the incident and what it indicates is a dis-service to our reader. Buster Seven Talk 12:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that, to start with, the article as written was revised to downplay the idea that her web site and the Republican program says (claims) that she has a degree, but WP:RS, including her biography, say that she didn't finish. I propose that we change the wording from:
Knauss studied architecture and design at the University of Ljubljana for one year before dropping out,[citation needed] though her website says she obtained a degree in architecture and design there.
to:
Although Knauss' website says she obtained a degree in architecture at the University of Ljubljana, other sources [citation needed] say that she studied for one year and did not get a degree.
Those [citation needed] were in the article before the editor revised the article to eliminate the citations. --Nbauman (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This would be a step back, as it would imply a false equivalence between reliable and unreliable sources. The GQ, New Yorker, Politico, New York Times, etc. articles are reliable. Trump's website is unreliable. The only reason why we should include any mention of Trump's website is because it's noteworthy that it contains false information. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Melania_Trump&oldid=730947992"