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 109.152.9.74 (talk) at 16:16, 10 March 2017 (→‎Autism charity work: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Friendly search suggestions

Birther interview

Can someone please expand this section on Melania Trump and the interviews she gave to Joy Behar on Birtherism and President Obama.

http://www.ew.com/article/2011/04/21/melania-trump-donald-president-birther

Her comments were welcomed at the time by the Birther movement and posted on this Youtube Channel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBqkLZvJu0c

Christianity

Is anyone able to find out if she was christened and confirmed later in life please? Her "early life" section says she was not christened at birth, but she appears to be a Christian now.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this matter? To anyone outside the US? BTW you lock the piece, fine - but for goodness sake do a copyedit. You got commas where there should be full stops and so forth.
Please do not respond in such an uneducated matter to a serious question, unlogged IP anon. 104.169.17.29 (talk) 08:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have just seen that the passage about her religious background was removed because it was referenced with The Daily Mail. That's fair enough, since we've now banned the Daily Mail as a source, but could we find other sources please? It seems very encyclopedic to note that under communism, she could not practise her religion as they suggest.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship

It says that she married Donald Trump in January 2005, but did not become a US citizen until 2006. Is that correct? Would she not have become a US citizen upon marrying Donald Trump? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.146.103.149 (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: no. If you marry a U.S. citizen, you become eligible to APPLY for citizenship, after meeting certain requirements including length of residence etc. But citizenship isn't instant or automatic. --MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is true but I would add that a person must live in the U.S. for at least five years before being eligible to become a citizen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.191.251.196 (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The information on when she became a permanent resident, and when she gained US citizenship need a "CitationNeeded" tag added, as the article does not provide any data to support that assertion. DBalling (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I see we reference cites later in the article. Should those cites appear up here on the first mention of that fact, and not buried down on a later mention? DBalling (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Melania Trump ... was paid for 10 modeling jobs in 1996 before she received legal authorization to work in the United States". That's snipped from the lede para of a WaPo article from last November. It re-reports the results of a well-sourced Associated Press investigation that relied on documents filed in an unrelated modelling firm lawsuit. This news made it's way for a time into the M. Trump article, including a verbal denial of the allegations from M. Trump's lawyer. The edit to this reporting has since been removed.

I've gone back through the edit archive and consulted the talk archives as well but can't find any discussion or cited reasoning for the removal of a credible fact based on a wiki-approved, reliable source. Can anyone point me to/cite the reason why this brief addition to M. Trump's immigration section was added, then removed? To be clear, this issue is unrelated to a controversy around M. Trump's nude modeling work that also came and went on these pages. This is a separate instance.

My proposal is to re-insert the WaPo/AP reporting with appropriate links. Soliciting comments.

For the edit history, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melania_Trump&offset=20161108104918&action=history and the changes being made at November 5, date of the AP report. Find the WaPo piece and the AP source investigation linked atop this page -- https://www.google.com/#q=did+melania+trump+worked+here+illegally&* of Google search results.

Thanks for reading. Will monitor this page for responses before making any edit.

RfC: Photo

There is a clear consensus for image A or D over B or C. The current image is C, rendering it counter productive to reach a "no consensus" between A and D. I find a very weak result for D. Alsee (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Which photo should be used in the infobox? This discussion was started because it keeps getting changed without discussion. For the record, as I am writing this the image is File:Melania Trump at Inaugural parade.jpg. Feel free to suggest any other images not listed below. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • 2017 (A)
    2017 (A)
  • 2016 (B)
    2016 (B)
  • 2016 (C)
    2016 (C)
  • 2017 (D)
    2017 (D)

Survey

  • Agree with the above. None of these photos are ideal. Pretty much poor lighting all around. For an article that is, at times, getting 1g+ views a day, it's worth the extra time to attempt to find a better option, rather than choosing the least worst. TimothyJosephWood 13:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pic A appears comparably pixilated as other choices to me. It's taken from an angle where Melania is facing forward, unlike pic D. It is also an image which is recognizable as being taken in her new official capacity as first lady of the United States, which makes it a superior choice to pic B and C in my opinion. --DynaGirl (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DynaGirl: - I can see the individual pores in her face in pic D. Pic A doesn't appear to have anywhere near that resolution. Agree that pose in A might be better, but the photo quality (i.e. the degree of resolution/lighting etc) is wholly superior in D. NickCT (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is a closer shot of her face but she isn't facing forward in that pic. You can only see one side of her face.--DynaGirl (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DynaGirl: - Are you clicking to enlarge the image? The resolution difference should become really obvious with the enlarged image. NickCT (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm clicking to enlarge the image. Large or small, Melania is not facing forward in pic D and I personally don't think being able to see her pores is really important or makes up for fact that she is facing off to the side in that image. --DynaGirl (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DynaGirl: - Ok. So you see D is better resolution then? I agree that the pose might be better in A, but the "quality" (i.e. resolution/lighting etc) is clearly better in D. I guess the question is whether you think image quality trumps pose or vice versa (pun intended). Not sure there's necessarily a right answer to that... NickCT (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain my decision, please proceed with picture A. Ralphw (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My vote is still A. RedBear2040 (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, I've switched to D. Thanks for apprising me of the new photo. Coretheapple (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

If we're going to conduct a 30-day RfC over this, I would strongly urge a revert to the longstanding Melania picture before the edit-warring began. (We've learned so much from the Donald Trump portrait debates…) I'll do that revert right now. — JFG talk 12:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't the photo from The White House website, https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/first-lady-melania-trump , being used? Donald Trump, Mike Pence, and Karen Pence's pages all use the photo being shown on their whitehouse.gov page. --Flyguy33 (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What next?

The RfC is now well over 30 days, with pictures A and D sharing the preferences of editors about equally. There is very little support for the current picture in the article, so it wouldn't look fair to call "no consensus" and leave that one as status quo. What can we do? Relist the RfC with just A and D choices? Place the "most voted" one in the article? Advertise the RfC more widely? If we don't reach consensus here on the next course of action, we should call upon an admin to perform a formal close. — JFG talk 09:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Libel suit against Daily Mail

Haven't been editing this article, and came here because of a previous RfC. In perusing the article I was surprised to find a total absence of any mention of the legal battle between Mrs. Trump and the Daily Mail. Yes, we need to be careful for BLP reasons. But no mention I think is just not reasonable. Today we have multiple reliable sources, including The Washington Post indicating that she filed a libel suit against the Daily Mail in New York, claiming that she lost hundreds of millions of dollars because of an article that the Mail published.

Now, I agree that the allegations in the article per se are tabloid stuff that definitely need to be handled with great care, and perhaps not even mentioned at all in the suit context, per BLP. However, this high-profile legal battle is another matter entirely. Given that this article is under arbitration sanctions I think we ought to discuss it here first. In skimming this talk page and the archive I surprisingly saw no discussion of the libel suits. Comments? Coretheapple (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since lawsuits always have only two sides, the plaintiff and the defendant, it's near impossible IMO to maintain a neutral POV. Legal disputes such as this can expand to infinity thanks to the media, whose only goal is to sell more hot dogs and cotton candy. It also devolves into a trial by media, as any and all allegations and defense facts get published, with the public having no way to know who's right, partly right, or totally wrong. IMO, the cleanest way to deal with active legal cases is to note the final decisions by courts, or if settled, to give whatever facts about the settlement get published. --Light show (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that's necessarily been our practice in dealing with litigation. Note also that she settled a suit with a Maryland blogger just today.[2] I don't think that waiting until final adjudication makes sense, especially since most lawsuits don't have a final adjudication. I don't see BLP or NPOV prohibiting us from mentioning libel and other legal disputes involving major public figures prior to their termination. Especially given that in this instance she is initiating legal action. Coretheapple (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't recall ever reading about the filing of lawsuits in traditional book biographies or encyclopedias. Suits are always based on unproven claims and counterclaims, where the only facts are the allegations. The fact that you wrote, "especially...[since]] she is initiating legal action," even implies a natural bias from innuendo alone. Encyclopædia Britannica would never mention a lawsuit until decided.
Allegations can also cause collateral damage, such as from Mickey Rooney's article. Since even though his allegations were never proven, and in fact denied, we can assume that his children's reputations have been seriously and permanently damaged. Those undecided allegations are even still in the lead. So while they always make for juicy sensational stories, they never seem encyclopedic, only a form of raw entertainment. --Light show (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This was clearly inappropriately removed as a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It is neutral, highly relevant (as RS agree) and there are no NPOV or BLP concerns at all. The section that I wrote (not noticing there had been previous attempts to write about this) neutrally and accurately reported on this based entirely on her own public claims in the lawsuit she filed against one of the world's largest newspapers. The story is not about whether she worked as an escort or not, but about the lawsuit she filed as first lady in which she revealed her intention to use her husband's office to establish "multimillion dollar business relationships." This is the story that RS have highlighted and considered significant. The original (escort) controversy is really a parenthesis in all this. --Tataral (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, your rationale supports all the reasons for not including it: Lawsuits are never neutral, and thereby are always POV issues. To say that there "no NPOV or BLP concerns at all" is a bit silly IMO, since those are obvious. You wrote, incorrectly, that "she revealed her intention to use her husband's office to establish "multimillion dollar business relationships," which is an opinion with no source. And in any case, at least in the U.S., suing tabloids is common in celebrity and political circles, since tabloids like the Daily Mail are not considered reliable sources by anyone, including WP. --Light show (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth noting that you proposed an entire sub-section be devoted to that lawsuit, which you placed under First Lady of the United States. It would naturally draw undue attention, not only as a sub-section, but the only sub-section under her primary notability, effectively corrupting the entire bio.--Light show (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It belongs under the first lady heading because the lawsuit was filed when she is first lady, and because RS focus on her stated intention of using that office for monetary gain. Indeed, she herself has made her current position front and centre in this case; her lawsuit is based on her claim that she could use the first lady office to to establish "multimillion dollar business relationships" and exploit her fame financially during the years she is first lady. --Tataral (talk) 09:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose inclusion at this time. In my view, this is not significant to Ms. Trump's biography. True, there are a lot of headlines, but that's more reflective of the subject's prominent status than relevance or enduring attention. We are not a newspaper. More importantly, covering a defamation lawsuit gives voice to possibly libelous and unfair allegations—a perverse effect. What's been shown so far is not, in my view, nearly important enough to outweigh that concern.
I'd also like to point out that BLPREQUESTRESTORE applies to this material. Rebbing 23:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rebbing: This has gone well beyond a simple matter of editors wanting to discuss spurious allegations. She has commenced litigation in multiple courts, lately claiming grievous financial loss due to dimunition of her brand identity. That aspect sparked a New York Times editorial. [3] This has escalated to the point that we're tipping over into POV territory by excluding mention of it. Coretheapple (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. The complaint—drafted by attorneys, not Ms. Trump—merely makes a case for lost financial opportunities based on some fairly obvious realities; it doesn't actually state that Ms. Trump planned to make use of them. (For the curious, this is the complaint filed on Monday.) In my view, the fact that the New York Times published an editorial on the matter changes little. But, by all means, open an RFC. Rebbing 15:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Um, that was kind of... original. Her lawyers are employed by her, they are authorised by her to act on her behalf, and everything they do is by definition in her name. When a person additionally is the first lady and married to a highly controversial billionaire president who surrounds himself with lawyers, you don't get to claim that you do not understand what your own lawyers do on your behalf in a very high profile case. For Wikipedia's purposes, the claims cited by her her lawyers in her lawsuit are her own claims. --Tataral (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe we've reached a kind of tipping point, such that exclusion of mention of the libel suits creates an NPOV issue. Note the New York Times editorial today:[4] This is not tabloid fodder. This is consequential. The local consensus here cannot overrule policy and I think we're heading in the direction of an RfC. Coretheapple (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue has gone beyond the Daily Mail, when ethics counsellors of Obama and Bush are commenting on the lawsuit - [5] [6]. It raises issues of ethical conduct, and I don't see how its removal can be justified now. Hzh (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the editors that argue that it belongs in the article and I feel certain that a RfC would agree as well. Gandydancer (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuit against Mail Media

It appears that User:Light show is edit-warring against multiple users to remove an extremely well sourced mention of her high profile law suit against one of the world's largest newspapers, filed now in February after she became first lady. The story is not really the allegation in the original Daily Mail article, but the revelation by herself that she intends to profit from the first lady position and her husband's office. This section is entirely based on her own public claims in a lawsuit she has filed as first lady which she describes as a "unique, once in a lifetime opportunity" to "launch a broad-based commercial brand" to establish "multimillion dollar business relationships" in her current capacity; reliable sources agree this information is highly relevant and noteworthy (see [7]) --Tataral (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is already being discussed above in "Libel suit" section. There is no edit warring going on.--Light show (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. BLPREQUESTRESTORE requires that clear consensus be developed before restoring the challenged material: we err on the side of restraint in these matters. Best. Rebbing 23:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are mistaken. This is only a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and I have not seen a single policy-argument for its exclusion and not a single valid BLP objection (the idea that mentioning her own public claims in her own lawsuit, widely reported on by RS, is a BLP violation, is clearly frivolous). --Tataral (talk) 09:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually arbitration sanctions at the top of the page indicate that consensus must be had before material reverted can be reinstated. I've started an RfC to get the widest community input. Coretheapple (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • See discussion above, Note what I posted above re a New York Times editorial. I agree that we are creating an NPOV issue by excluding mention. But for efficiency sake let's please keep the discussion in one place. Coretheapple (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Melanie Trump libel suits

I am of the belief that after running for a near-full course, the RFC has generated clear consensus on most aspects while it remains a bit hazy on certain other spheres.Also the discussion has of late failed to garner any new interest to the community.Hence the decision to close.
  • As to Q-1--There are ample policy cum rationale driven arguments which roots for the inclusion about the context of libel suits in some manner.Consensus is clearly established.
  • As to Q-2--There is consensus to briefly mention about the original allegations mainly because it could serve as the source of how the matter initially sprang up .Also, it shall be mentioned that they have been since retracted.The second line per the two people of the four who stand opposed to the inclusion because of the subsequent retraction.
  • As to Q-3--Consensus is not clear. Either the participants on the page could discuss and develop a consensus or another RFC could be held solely on the location of the section/paragraph.Winged Blades Godric 06:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)Amended-11:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

As reported in multiple sources, Mrs. Trump has brought libel suits in the U.S., most recently in New York, concerning allegations originally published in The Daily Mail. These new developments are not a simple rehash of the original, inflammatory allegations, but rather delve into how Mrs. Trump is protecting her brand. Multiple reliable sources are reporting on this, including The New York Times in this article and accompanying editorial[8].

The questions we need to address is

1. whether the libel suits should be mentioned

2. if so, to what extent, if at all, should the original allegations published by the Mail be mentioned?

3. Should they be included as a separate section or subsection?

--Coretheapple (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


History

Withdrawn per WP:RFCEND. Clear consensus established to support discussion of the libel suits. Coretheapple (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC) .... here is the entire RfC discussion... Reopening per discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Support

  • Support This is not tabloid fodder. The material addressed in the news articles, such as the ones I posted, deal with the Trump family's commercial interests and the libel suits in relation to them. Favor mention of libel suits in a separate section or subsection. Uncertain about inclusion of original allegations, lean in favor. Coretheapple (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as it is now an issue about ethical conduct about which a number of people have commented on, including constitutional law experts and ethics counsels of Obama and Bush - [9], [10], [11], [12] The Daily Mail allegation however should NOT be mentioned as it has been retracted. This is about the lawsuit itself rather than the allegation. I think putting it in a controversy section should be fine. Hzh (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This clearly needs to be included. It is a very high profile lawsuit filed by Melania Trump herself, after she became first lady, against one of the world's largest newspapers. It has been the subject of extensive coverage and commentary in reliable sources due to the extraordinary statements that Melania Trump herself makes in her own lawsuit, namely what she describes as her intention of using her current position to "launch a broad-based commercial brand" to establish "multimillion dollar business relationships". The key story here is the lawsuit, her own statements about using her current position for monetary gain and the very serious response to those statements. We should just briefly mention the background for the lawsuit, the escort allegations, which is necessary for understanding what the lawsuit is about (and which can be neutrally sourced to her own public statements in her lawsuit) but which isn't the main issue for our purposes, which is rather the controversy over using the first lady position for monetary gain. The material should be covered in a sub section under the first lady main section, because the lawsuit was filed when she is first lady, because the main focus in the coverage in reliable sources is on her stated intention of using the position as first lady for monetary gain, and because she herself makes her current position as first lady the main issue in her lawsuit. My proposal for a wording can be found here. --Tataral (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would just say that what's important is the criticisms raised by ethics counsels and constitutional law experts, which you didn't mentioned. It is not clear from what you wrote what the issue is. You should also add the denial that there is any intention to use her position for profit. There is an excessive number of cites and trimmed the quote (mention of jewelry, fragrance, and whatnot is unnecessary.) Hzh (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The ethical aspects of her business are not at issue here. It's only about the lawsuit against the Mail. She's not suing them because of any comments about ethical business practices, but only because they damaged her reputation. Whether she intended to use her position for profit is unrelated to the lawsuit. So the legality and ethics of profiting from political positions, even if unintended, is an important issue otherwise; but it's not relevant to the lawsuit against the tabloid. --Light show (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'd find that it's the rationale given in the lawsuit that is the issue, and that is what the article should concentrate on. Hzh (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is no longer a question of privacy; she has invited the coverage by filing this high-profile lawsuit. Highly relevant: the suit explicitly says she had intended to leverage her position as First Lady to make million-dollar deals. (“[The] plaintiff had the unique, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, as an extremely famous and well-known person, as well as a former professional model, brand spokesperson and successful businesswoman, to launch a broad-based commercial brand in multiple product categories, each of which could have garnered multimillion-dollar business relationships for a multi-year term during which plaintiff is one of the most photographed women in the world.”[13]) Her lawyer later said that wasn't what she meant and she would never do that, so we can report his denial also. --MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC) P.S. Obviously we will have to mention the allegation that led to the lawsuit, but we should do so as briefly as possible and in generalities if possible, and of course point out that the story was retracted. The lawsuit and her justification for it is the story; the tabloid allegations are not. --MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - While notable, this deserves no more than a sentence in the Career and immigration to the United States section. Anything more would be WP:UNDUE. Also, a Controversy section is not needed. Meatsgains (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is no longer a question of privacy; she has invited the coverage by filing this high-profile lawsuit ... the suit explicitly says she had intended to leverage her position as First Lady to make million-dollar deals. The suit (and commercial logic attached to it) is precisely the issue, the original 'Mail' article is now mere background. Pincrete (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as long as mention is not UNDUE and follows WP:BLP#Public_figures, which should simply document what these sources say. A section for Litigation is appropriate, but I cringe at the use of the term "Controversy" in any BLP which should be following NPOV; therefore, void of controversy. With regards to the DM litigation, a brief mention of the lawsuit and DM's retraction would be appropriate, such as DM stated "yada yada", and MT denied the allegations stating "yada yada". DM retracted the article - make it succinct. The same should apply to the other litigation and/or legal issues. A spin-off article for Melania Trump Litigation might be a consideration in the future if such matters grow rather than shrink. Atsme📞📧 15:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. At this point, the amount of continuing coverage makes this relevant and is enough to overbear my previous concerns about WP:NOTNEWS and unfairly amplifying libelous remarks. I'm particularly pleased with MelanieN's proposed wording, which I believe is a neutral and appropriate summary of the facts and controversy. Rebbing 20:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per all of the above, this deserves a mention of sensible length. (I.e., not too long, but sufficient to identify the main issues and put in context). I support MelanieN's wording or something similar. Neutralitytalk 06:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support – The libelous article per se would not deserve mention, per WP:BLP and because it was retracted. However the extensive coverage now resulting from Melania's lawsuit against the Daily Mail and the editorial exploitation of these circumstances to accuse her of graft, have now made the event more notable. Extreme care should be taken in the formulation (I will comment below on the currently-proposed phrasings). Waiting a few weeks until the formal end of the RfC would hopefully also provide some more insight on further development of the story. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:No deadline. — JFG talk 08:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per previous comments. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Oppose - (1) WP:BLPGOSSIP a tabloid put out a sexy story and it's since been retracted so there is no longer a source for the implication; (2) WP:UNDUE prominence to a foot note of her life -- while titillating it's just not an enduring tale nor is a lawsuit a widely important part of her life -- or is that moreWP:OFFTOPIC?; (3) she is WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE not an elected official nor otherwise sought public celebrity, doesn't even seem to be wanting to do First Lady role; and (4) unsuitable material, the sensationalism tabloid nature runs counter to WP:NOTSCANDAL and also would want to avoid the potential or appearance that WP here is a proxy way for attacking Donald. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

  • Issues worth considering:
BLP. It likely goes against its guidelines: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
Any lawsuit filed in a U.S. court is public. The fact that the media read it and turned it into a headline news story, even publishing the full lawsuit (a primary source,) naturally started an editorial frenzy for the MSM.
WP not a newspaper. The guidelines were quickly broken with edits such as this one, creating an entire sub-section, with 8 citations! In any case, suing tabloids is fairly common. Their methods of presenting the news leaves a lot to be desired.
Allegation. Allegations are not facts: In law, an allegation is a claim of a fact by a party in a pleading, charge, or defense. Until they can be proved, allegations remain merely assertions. While this is SOP for the media, which survives by attracting readers for selling ads, WP has a higher standard.
NPOV. It's basically impossible to maintain a neutral POV about a non-neutral legal dispute. Note that the editor who added the sub-section also commented above that it was Trump's intention to "exploit" her standing, which is their personal opinion, and shows how this lawsuit can become a gossip-magnet for those so inclined. In 2010 she already had a line of jewelry being sold, but that fact is not mentioned in the article. Not as titillating maybe. If there was a way to mention the lawsuit yet limit the inclination by editors to expand it and blow it out of proportion, I'd support it. I don't think that's possible. It would be easier to put a cork back in the bottle, IMO. --Light show (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the argument that "If there was a way to mention the lawsuit yet limit the inclination by editors to expand it and blow it out of proportion, I'd support it" which basically boil down to "I can keep it but won't because of what others might do" is going to convince. Others might argue for the opposite using the same kind of argument ("if you don't keep it then others will keep adding it"). The BLP issue is certainly a concern, even though allegations are permitted for public figure per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, I think it should not be mentioned given that it is an unsubstantiated allegation that has already been retracted. If someone else adds it, then you deal with it as appropriate. Criticisms of the lawsuit (or rather the implications of what's been said in the lawsuit) however is another matter, removing it would be more problematic, precisely because doing so would make the article non-neutral, and can be seen as trying to airbrush something controversial out of someone's biography. Hzh (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I would respond to the above as follows:
BLP: this might have been applicable early on, but no longer is a "tabloid" matter.
Not a newspaper Not applicable either, as I think is self-evident. We don't use that proviso to arbitrarily eliminate relevant material.
Allegations I don't understand this objection so I can't reply to it.
NPOV We ensure NPOV by mentioning the lawsuits in neutral fashion. Omission is the NPOV issue in my opinion.
--Coretheapple (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you really believe that "omission" is the issue, all three supporters should oppose. Note that the added text was 120 words with 8 sources. Yet while it included details about allegations against Trump, it oddly omitted that they were all denied and retracted. And each of the 8 sources made it clear that the allegations were denied and retracted. To include a 120-word sub-section which on its face is thereby deceptive and misleading by omission, is why IMO the NPOV issue can't be dealt with. Even User:Hzh mentioned the retraction, but didn't see any harm in omitting it. --Light show (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what it is that you think I "didn't see any harm in omitting", but whatever it is, I think you misunderstood what I wrote (I wrote that the allegation should not be mentioned, I certainly didn't say that the retraction can be omitted). I do agree with you on BLP, and we need to be careful writing something like this, certainly on an allegation that has been retracted. The issue here is whether the lawsuit has any place in the article, and I believe it has, how you write it is another matter. Hzh (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Light show has written a wall of text above, but nothing that is relevant to this discussion. The existence of her lawsuit is not an "allegation", it is an undisputed fact. The controversy is about the existence of the lawsuit (an undisputed fact) and the existence of the claims that Trump has made in connection with the lawsuit about using her position to establish "multimillion dollar business relationships" (also undisputed facts). --Tataral (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct, and thanks for putting your finger on the issue. What's relevant is that a controversy has arisen over the existence of the libel suits, which are indeed indisputable. As a public figure this is highly relevant. The fact that it spawned such breadth of coverage leads me to believe that unless we have some substantive opposition in addition to what LightSnow has posited above, that we have a "snow" situation. But this is an RfC, there is no rush. Coretheapple (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that Ms. Trump hasn't actually stated a desire to use her position to to establish multimillion dollar business relationships; rather, she opined through counsel that she had the opportunity, "as an extremely famous and well-known person," to pursue such relationships. There are a number of fairly obvious strategic reasons why a competent lawyer might add such language to a complaint regardless of his client's actual intent. Rebbing 00:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are two issues we should keep separate: the allegations by the tabloid, and the amount of the lawsuit. They're related, but still independent. Even if Trump was only an unknown housewife checker at a supermarket, or a fashion model, she could have sued them for defamation of character. The "opportunity" loss is only used to estimate damages. If she was a checker who had a home business selling cookbooks or a fashion model, her damages would have been less. If she only suffered "emotional distress," or injury to her reputation, which Trump claims, she could sue on those.
Plenty of suits have been filed against the Daily Mail for damaging reputations: Didier Drogba, Angelina Jolie[14], J. K. Rowling, Bob Ainsworth, Sally Morgan, David Duchovny[15] and George Clooney[16] have all filed suits. IMO, it's the allegations by the Mail, especially since they're denied and were last year retracted, which are the BLP issue. Her being famous or widely photographed are only used to support the amount of damages. --Light show (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beginning to sense a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT element to your one-person campaign to exclude thiis material. There is clearly a consensus to add, and so far as I know only you have objected to this material being included, at least at this stage. However, we do need to discuss how much to add on the libel suits and whether to make reference to the original allegations at all. User:MelanieN sums up my sentiments. Coretheapple (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the original coverage in the Daily Mail, it might possibly not have been appropriate to mention the escort controversy. However, with this extremely high profile lawsuit by her (she recognises in her own lawsuit that she is "an extremely famous and well-known person") against an equally "extremely famous" newspaper (one of the world's largest) there are some things to consider
  1. The lawsuit in itself is without doubt highly notable and needs to be mentioned – not because of the escort controversy but because of the nature of the lawsuit, the claims made by Trump in the lawsuit relating to using her position for monetary gain, and the overwhelming response to that, and coverage of all this in reliable sources
  2. Mentioning the lawsuit without mentioning what it's originally about would not be a good solution
  3. Trump has actively sought much more publicity regarding this controversy than was originally the case before the lawsuit
  4. The claims that started it all can now be sourced entirely to her own public statements in her own lawsuit (as reported on by reliable source); no "third party gossip" or anything like that is necessary to mention this, so even if there was, possibly, formerly a concern over privacy/BLP in relation to reporting on this based only on the original controversy, there no longer is. In her lawsuit she now herself publicly describes the allegations that were made against her, why she disagrees with them and so on.
  5. At some point a person can become so prominent, and a controversy so prominent and widely reported on, that it is meaningless to argue that the information in question should be excluded for privacy reasons – for example we have an entire article devoted to the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and claims that Obama is a muslim; a person's birth certificate and religion would normally be considered entirely private matters, but in this case Obama's status as President and the prominence of the controversy trump such concerns.
  6. Because the escort controversy is of secondary importance to the lawsuit itself, Trump's claims in the lawsuit, and the response to those claims, the escort allegations should only be very briefly mentioned as the background for the case. There is no need to go on at length about it, but it should be briefly mentioned in a neutral and factual manner. My wording proposal is something along the lines of: In February 2017 Melania Trump filed a lawsuit against Mail Media, the owner of the Daily Mail newspaper, over an article that alleged that she had worked as an escort. In the lawsuit Trump claimed the article had hurt her chance to establish "multimillion dollar business relationships" ...etc --Tataral (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with your analysis and your proposed solution. Coretheapple (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I find the persistent attempt to add the allegation without even saying that the Daily Mail had retracted it ([17]) to be extremely unhelpful, and certainly cannot be considered unbiased. Someone else might be more suited to writing it. Note also that Daily Mail is no longer allowed as a source - Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Daily Mail RfC. Hzh (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a de novo approach to this passage is warranted, and that the retraction needs to be mentioned, obviously. Yes, the Mail is indeed not a reliable source and that has been getting considerable publicity! In fact, it's getting so much publicity that it arguably may be worth mentioning in the article on the newspaper.Coretheapple (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This controversy is about the lawsuit. It is not about the escort controversy in itself. Personally, I see no particular need to go into lengthy detail about her original quarrel with the Daily Mail relating to the original controversy, as discussed above, which would serve to make the discussion of whether she was an escort or not longer. There is also no need for us to pick sides in that quarrel; Wikipedia merely reports what reliable sources report, and in this context the background story is that Trump has sued the Daily Mail over an article which said she had worked as an escort and the controversy is about the lawsuit itself and the claims she has made in connection with it about "multimillion dollar business relationships" and the response to those claims. Whether an old newspaper article noone (except her) cares about was retracted or not is a trivial detail in all this, since the controversy – for Wikipedia's purposes, as covered now in reliable sources – is not about that article or its content in itself. Furthermore, I'm not aware of anyone proposing that we use Daily Mail as a source, which seems like an attempt to derail the discussion. The Daily Mail is quite irrelevant in all this, except for being the party that Trump has sued (which we can report on by citing other reliable sources, not the Daily Mail itself). --Tataral (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moving post below, which had been inserted out of sequence and within one of my comments- thus making it impossible for me to respond without screwing up my post entirely. Please do not respond to people within their posts. Thanks, Coretheapple (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Using WP as a vehicle to repeat allegations, especially when they've been both denied and retracted by the tabloid, goes against policy to avoid SOAP, i.e. "scandal mongering." Even when sensationalist fake news gets retracted and the paper apologizes, there are enough people who will still read the story and believe it may have been true. Doubt is created, at best, and the story get repeated. For that reason alone, it would reward the Daily Mail, IMO, to detail that they're being sued and what for. It's just another publicity stunt to get readers and increase sales. And I realize that WP can use any RS, but when an unreliable source gets sued, and they've already admitted to the printing of fake news, it creates a possible exception. I'd leave the entire suit out of WP. Just an opinion.--Light show (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has been amply addressed already and I am not going to repeat myself in response to an "IDIDNTHEARTHAT"-style comment. Coretheapple (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the lawsuit initiated by Melania Trump after she became first lady, and which has created this new controversy discussed here which revolves around shameless abuse of public office at the White House for the purpose of entering into "multimillion dollar business relationships", in reality a publicity stunt to get readers and increase sales for the Daily Mail, all thought out by Melania Trump, who must be a real friend of the Daily Mail in that case? Also, shouting "fake news" at mainstream media (an absurd abuse of the term, which really refers to an entirely different specific phenomenon) is not really helpful for you or your argument. --Tataral (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. We're dealing with new facts, and for one editor to continue to raise the same stale arguments is disruptive. Coretheapple (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More than one editor objecting here, and the RFC is still running. Seems to me there are a lot of WP reasons her bio page or for WP encyclopedia reputation should not include a now-retracted tabloid story and a not-notable lawsuit, not seeing much reasons why it should. It seems in the same bucket of trivia with the tale of the moth named after Donald or the orange alligator or coverage of her dress being white (gasp!), and just propagating a now-retracted titillation.
I'm also a bit dubious on treating first lady as Public figure since she is not politician, celebrity, nor business leader but just married to one, and the lawsuit seems not getting a higher burden of proof mentioned that a public figure would. I guess as stuckee first lady does mean 'pervasively involved in public affairs' for WP guides but it seems a bit different from seeking the limelight for herself and a bit of a stretch.
Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez, her lawsuit is not "a now-retracted tabloid story" and it is not "a not-notable lawsuit." Notability is judged based on coverage in reliable sources, not editors' personal views. The lawsuit is highly notable, and it is entirely her own initiative, and the "now-retracted tabloid story" isn't the issue at all, and only Trump cares about that story. That doesn't prevent us from writing about a highly significant lawsuit <redacted>. --Tataral (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ms. Trump has not said any such thing. Her complaint stated that she had the opportunity to do so, but opportunity and desire are not the same thing. Rebbing 17:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true at all. Melania Trump has filed a lawsuit where she has claimed a huge compensation, 150 million USD, from the Daily Mail's owners based on what she claims are lost business opportunities in her current situation[18]. Her case, as argued by her, rests entirely on her claim that she could have earned millions of dollars by using her current position for monetary gain in a very specific way which she has described in great detail, and she claims that the Daily Mail must compensate her based on that claim. So if she were, theoretically, awarded the 150 million USD compensation that she claims, it would be based directly on the abuse of the first lady position for monetary gain. According to her lawsuit, the only reason she has not been able to use her current position in this way to enrich herself is the fact that the Daily Mail ruined the opportunity for her by reporting critically on her last year. Again, all this is based on her own claims in her own lawsuit, and she is still actively seeking to use the first lady position to enrich herself in this way by claiming the 150 million USD compensation for lost business opportunities. --Tataral (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tataral it's a bit hard to ignore that it was "a now-retracted tabloid story" that caused her lawsuit -- so for WP reasons her bio page or for WP encyclopedia reputation should not go to the retracted story, of which the lawsuit is part. We're supposed to be encyclopedia WP:NOTTABLOID nor WP:BLOG, and this article is supposed to be the important (and WP:V) parts of her life not some barely-started legal proceedings or WP:NOTNEWSPAPER chasing the trivia WP:BLOG tale of the week, especially since it's been retracted by the paper and blogger. While I'm loosely interested in the legal precedents that it was going forward, that's not BLP material something about her life -- whether repeating something as a rumor is still libel, that there was no mention of legally handling it as a public figure. The original blogger who the Daily Mail relayed has since issued a settlement statement that the tale "was replete with false and defamatory statements about her. I had no legitimate factual basis to make these false statements and I fully retract them." we can also skip. Just skip the whole titillating tar baby mess, let's just not take WP there. Markbassett (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Proposed wording of libel text

Proposed wording 1

We clearly have consensus to include something in the article. I don't think it can be done in a single sentence. Building from the wording suggested by Tataral above, how about something like this?

In February 2017 Melania Trump filed a lawsuit against Mail Media, the owner of the Daily Mail newspaper, seeking $150 million in damages over an August 2016 article that alleged that she had once worked for an escort service. The Mail retracted the allegation a month later. In the lawsuit, Trump claims the article ruined her "unique, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity" to establish "multimillion dollar business relationships for a multi-year term during which Plaintiff is one of the most photographed women in the world".[1] Commentators said the claim raises "real ethical questions about profiting from being first lady."[2] However, her attorney said "The first lady has no intention of using her position for profit and will not do so."[1]

References

  1. ^ a b Puente, Maria (February 7, 2017). "Melanie Trump's 'Daily Mail' Lawsuit: A FLOTUS First?". USA Today. Retrieved 10 February 2017.
  2. ^ Reid, Paula (February 7, 2017). "Melania Trump libel suit settled, another filed". CBS News. Retrieved 10 February 2017.

Comments, edits, wording changes? Also, where in the article should it be put? --MelanieN (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fine. I think it should be a sub section of another section, either the first lady section, or potentially another (yet to be written) section about e.g. legal affairs. The reason that it should be part of the first lady section (if no other more appropriate first-level section is created) is that the controversy is primarily revolving around her use of the position as first lady for potential private monetary gain. The lawsuit was also filed during her tenure as first lady, and is receiving the attention it receives in RS precisely because she is first lady and because the lawsuit concerns her use of that position. --Tataral (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the wording is fine. I'd suggest adding some text from the New York Times editorial [19] and footnotes from some other sources of similar caliber. As to location, I believe someone suggestion a "litigation" section and I think that makes sense. Coretheapple (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly there is much more that could be said, opinions that could be quoted, etc. But considering that this is a biography article, and considering how recent this news is, I would rather keep it to the minimum needed to lay out the facts and issues for now. We can add more material later if continuing coverage makes it warranted. --MelanieN (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking a bit more text indicating the breadth of opinion concerning the commercial interests. As to location, one possible place for this might be in a section concerning her business activities. Coretheapple (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I like it! I think it should go in § First Lady of the United States as the controversy is precisely because of her role. I oppose creation of a litigation section. Rebbing 20:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reply to you since you at least claim to know a bit about the law. Defamation is the basis and issue of the lawsuit; the estimated damages resulting from it are separate. And the lawsuit is not about an ethics controversy. I explained all that above.
But you and the others amazingly agree with an editor's OR rant above to go Off topic, minimize the libel retraction, and simply free-ride the lawsuit bus to promote an ethics issue. But the lawsuit is not an ethics issue, and the lawsuit and retractions do not rely on lost profits, whether $1 or $150 million. The damages estimate stands alone if there was an injury. I won't change my oppose just to join free-riders obsessed with misusing a valid libel claim by turning it into a separate controversy about ethics. If someone wants to create a topic based on ethics as an issue, feel free.--Light show (talk 22:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I share your view that it's an unreasonable exercise in imagination and transparent political prejudice to project an ethics issue onto Ms. Trump's complaint. But it's not for us to look through to the merits of a controversy; instead, we merely ask whether the controversy is worthy of mention by virtue of receiving significant attention in reliable sources. Rebbing 05:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The ethics issue is well sourced, and anyone could create a new topic based on that, as I mentioned.--Light show (talk) 06:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that they're separate issues since by law (p. 209), for defamation, a claimant does not need to prove that they have lost money, or suffered any other kind of loss or damage. --Light show (talk) 07:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN -- Premature - the RFC has been up only 2 days so moving to close and presuming all three questions were 'go go go' is premature. Come back in a few more days and see what's here, or at least follow WP:RFC process -- either Cores close it, 30 days elapse, or a non-involved editor proposes closure to the noticeboard/RFC and that goes for closure. Part of the closure should get by-question answers (1) whether to mention lawsuit, (2) whether to avoid retracted text that is in a libel lawsuit re potential that it is libel to do so, and (3) context of whether it is to be a separate section. Personally I'm at no, heck no, and if neither happens then #3 doesn't happen. Markbassett (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least the "supports" can work out a definite proposal, so we know exactly what we are talking about inserting. 30 days is probably more than this is going to need, but the RFC should stay open for at least a week. --MelanieN (talk) 01:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is clearly consensus to include the material in question in some form, and an emerging consensus for the wording suggested by MelanieN, although the discussion should probably continue for a few more days before we conclude. It is also much more helpful for the discussion that we discuss and agree on a specific wording early in the process. --Tataral (talk) 12:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the fact that it has been up two days, and an overwhleming consensus has already emerged, actually indicates that there is no reason for delay and certainly none to wait for another 28 days. It is a "SNOW" situation. One or two editors with repetitious, stale arguments don't detract from that. RfCs are not "temporary injunctions." Just a means to an end, which is to get more eyeballs on an article. The eyeballs have arrived and they reinforce the consensus. Coretheapple (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think SNOW applies here, at least not yet. Numerically, we're at 9 and 2—what I would consider clear but not overwhelming agreement. Perhaps thirty days is unnecessary, but I think this should be up at least a week. I also don't agree that Light show's arguments are stale or repetitive. Rebbing 17:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rebb -- A week seems a more reasonable timeframe to me for some outside inputs to appear. WP:RFCEND says the poster Coretheapple can close it earlier but 2 days seems excessive urgency. My input (that this both smells bad and does not suit a BLP) is in, for what it's worth. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed wording 2

The the core of the RfC started by Coretheapple is the libel suit, which asks a few relevant questions:

The questions we need to address is

1. whether the libel suits should be mentioned 2. if so, to what extent, if at all, should the original allegations published by the Mail be mentioned?

3. Should they be included as a separate section or subsection?

However, since the supporters are primarily interested in the ethics issue, which is a digression from the core issue, I'd propose a simple chronological alternative, borrowing from Genesis: "In the beginning ...."

In August 2016, the Daily Mail, a British newspaper, published false allegations which defamed Melanie Trump, including "racy photos" of her in sexy poses. She denied the published details were true, and the newspaper admitted there was actually no support for the allegations. The original source blogger of the details admitted in part that their details were "replete with false and defamatory statements about her... had no legitimate factual basis... [and] acknowledged that these false statements were very harmful and hurtful to Mrs. Trump and her family..."[1] The newspaper also apologized for suggesting the allegations were true or may have caused her harm.[2] Those allegations were published while her husband, Donald Trump, was running for President.

On February 7, 2017, she filed a libel suit against the newspaper for defaming her and causing her reputation injury.[3] She claimed damages based on lost business opportunities for a line of clothing she had intended on launching. Outside of the context of the litigation, however, some have questioned the ethical aspects of a first lady potentially profiting from her position.

References

  1. ^ "Melania Trump libel suit settled, another filed", CBS, Feb. 7, 2016
  2. ^ "Melania Trump: A retraction", Daily Mail, Sept. 2, 2016
  3. ^ "In Libel Suit, Melania Trump Cites Loss of Chance to Make Millions", New York Times, Feb. 7, 2017

The ethics of potentially profiting as first lady, or the conflict of interest issues, or the estimated $ damages, are secondary and not directly relevant to the original libel. She could have claimed $1 for damages, and left it up to a jury to decide damages. That's clear from the DM article in the link, where her line of clothing isn't even mentioned. Publishing defamatory information which causes personal injury is bad enough, and is all that's necessary for a Cause of action.

The real question is whether the subject should be in the Daily Mail article, not in this one, since it began with their publication. Had they not published the libel, there would be no lawsuit. It's not necessary or directly relevant to mention the many other famous people who have also sued them for libel, or even the fact that WP itself has acknowledged their poor record for accuracy. In any case, a lawsuit is a pending action that could take years to conclude if it ever went to court (unlikely, IMO.) And if it gets settled beforehand, there is no requirement that the terms be public. As the core issue is the defamation and personal injury, and the defamation has already been admitted, retracted, and apologized for, the libel suit is not a "controversy." --Light show (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • Proposed Wording 1 is far preferable to Proposed Wording 2, which is POV. Coretheapple (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also strongly prefer MelanieN's proposal as better representing the sources. Rebbing 23:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted above, I support the wording by MelanieN, and there is currently a consensus for this wording (although we should still wait a few days before we formally conclude). The proposed wording by Light show is horribly biased, non-encyclopedic and written entirely from the enraged and emotional perspective of Melania Trump herself ("published false allegations which defamed Melanie Trump" and so on and so forth). In addition, it focuses on the trivial bickering over an old newspaper article from last year, instead of the notable controversy, her lawsuit filed after she became first lady. It also misrepresents her lawsuit and deliberately omits what RS consider to be the key issues in relation to the lawsuit, namely her claim for a 150 million USD compensation based on her stated intention (which she claims the Daily Mail ruined) of using the first lady role as a "unique, once in a lifetime opportunity" to establish "multimillion dollar business relationships." --Tataral (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposed wording 2 preferred. It covers the lawsuit without giving undue weight to the ethics issue, which CBS stated is "outside of the context of the litigation." IMO, the text still gives undue weight to this lawsuit, but at least it's balanced and not being misused as a pretext to digress primarily onto the ethics factor. --Light show (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both are POV – I prefer wording 2's chronological structure but it gives too much weight to the harm and distress allegedly suffered by Melania and her family, sounding like it came straight from their lawyers. On the other hand, Wording 1 overplays the editorial exploitation of these circumstances to accuse Melania of graft. Whatever we end up writing, extreme care should be taken in the formulation to abide by WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL restrictions. Waiting a few weeks until the formal end of the RfC would hopefully also provide some more insight on further development of the story. We are WP:NOTNEWS and there is WP:No deadline. Accordingly, I am not ready to put forward a more balanced wording proposal yet. — JFG talk 08:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposed wording 1, or some consensus-based tweaking with the same general thrust, for reasons I expound below in "Explanation". MelanieN alt (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposed Wording 1. Far better. Wording #2 draws legal and factual conclusions with the language "published false allegations which defamed Melanie Trump." That would be something a judge or jury would decide and even if it did, we would state it as the opinion of fact-finder. Also, the emphasis at least one of the news articles in on the ethics and potential conflict of interest with the first lady profiting off of her position. Wording #1 does a much better job summarizing that aspect. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation

There are a lot of IDIDNTHEARTHAT comments here, so I will briefly point out something which Light show seems unable or unwilling to understand/accept: The lawsuit filed by Melania Trump isn't simply a lawsuit for libel over the old article from last year. If that had been the case, she wouldn't have received all this criticism, there wouldn't really be much of a controversy. Her case is specifically about claiming a huge compensation for "business opportunities" she claims that she lost as a result of the article, and she has described these "business opportunities" in a very specific way; they are about using her husband's office for monetary gain (according to herself). If she had merely filed a lawsuit in a British court for libel she might have been awarded a few hundred thousand pounds if she were lucky, or maybe even less, because that is a more typical amount in a libel case. What she is claiming is 150 million USD not based on libel itself but on allegedly lost "business opportunities" – "business opportunities" that Richard Painter (chief ethics lawyer for the George W. Bush White House) has said would be corruption, plain and simple.[20]

Painter added that Melania is effectively claiming ownership of something he believes she never had in the first place: the right to make money from the presidency

--Tataral (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your comments are personal opinions, heavily biased, and self-contradictory. For instance, you downplay the original defamatory text by saying it's from an "old article from last year," thereby ancient history and irrelevant. Yet you and CoretheApple nonetheless prefer to keep the defamatory text in the article.
You wrote that the "case is specifically about claiming a huge compensation," implying again that the defamation of a potential first lady is irrelevant in your neck of the woods, and certainly petty in the UK, which might have awarded her a few shillings for hurt feelings. (In the UK, the law of defamation "is probably the single most important area of law for any journalist to know about."[21]) So if you want to write about ethics as a new issue, go ahead. But don't manipulate and downplay the lawsuit to do so. The sources make clear that the ethics issues are "outside of the context of the litigation." --Light show (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not about litigation. Litigation does not get privileged treatment here. Wikipedia is about notability as judged by reliable sources. In this particular controversy, the controversy over the ethics of using public office for monetary gain is the single most important aspect. Noone except Melania cared about that newspaper article and noone argued it should be mentioned in the article before this lawsuit – it is the lawsuit and the ethics controversy which make it necessary to mention it, albeit briefly, as background information of secondary importance to the main controversy over ethics. --Tataral (talk) 12:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with Light Show's premise here - that this item ought to be purely about the lawsuit itself, not about the public reaction and the coverage emphasis of virtually every Reliable Source. That appears to be your opinion, rather than having any basis in Wikipedia policy. That would be like saying the article about an administrative action by a president must be entirely about the administrative action itself, not about the consequences or the reaction. I disagree with this premise for several reasons. First, Wikipedia's selection of material is based on what Reliable Sources report, and virtually every Reliable Source is quoting from, or citing in full, that one sentence about the million dollar deals she thought she could make because of her position as First Lady. That sentence and its implications are the news here, not as a matter of Wikipedians' opinions, but as a matter of WP:Reliable sources and WP:DUEWEIGHT. Second, we pretty well have consensus that for BLP reasons we should NOT dwell on the paper's original allegation any more than is necessary for clarity. Your premise makes it front and center. Third, the tabloid's article and its retraction are old news, and would long since have vanished from the public view if she hadn't reacted so publicly and so persistently. I think most people in her position would have been satisfied to accept the retraction and let the allegation vanish down the memory hole. Bottom line, I think the proposed writing I came up with can be improved but we should keep the same focus. So I support version #1 and Oppose version #2. (Rereading version #2 I find a fourth reason to oppose it: it is so singularly focused on her side of the issue that it sounds like it was written by her PR firm.) MelanieN alt (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lest we forget, the issues for this RfC, Talk:Melania Trump § RfC: Melanie Trump libel suits, are about the lawsuit, not about side issues:
The questions we need to address are 1. whether the libel suits should be mentioned 2. if so, to what extent, if at all, should the original allegations published by the Mail be mentioned? 3. Should they be included as a separate section or subsection?
I've already commented that I don't feel the lawsuit should be in the article at this point, and if it is, shouldn't be an entire section. I didn't think the editors were capable of staying on the issue. That they would keep digressing into the ethics question and corrupt the bio with commentary "outside the context" of the lawsuit.
And I agree with you that there's no need to magnify the retraction details, which you feel sound like they came from a PR firm. They were added after Tataral wrote, in error, that the original version 2 wording was horribly biased, non-encyclopedic and written entirely from the enraged and emotional perspective of Melania Trump herself. So I simply edited version 2 to quote from the CBS article which you added in version 1, to clarify where the comments came from: the Daily Mail and its source blogger.
But your vague suggestion: we should NOT dwell on the paper's original allegation any more than is necessary for clarity, is unlikely to happen. The two editors who initiated the RfC have already said they want those defamatory details to be included. Who's to prevent them from adding images? They have already used text from the original lawsuit itself. They keep riding the wake of the lawsuit RfC as a pretext to digress into ethics. I suggest they simply get off the wake and create a topic based on the ethics issues. --Light show (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's just false. I am totally in accord with MelanieN's characterization of how the subject of the original allegations should be dealt with, and I have made that clear, as I have that this RfC deals with the brand identity claims. You really to stop the nonsense. You are just wasting everyone's time with your stale, repetitive arguments. Coretheapple (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN alt - (are you MelanieN?) I doubt that "let the allegation vanish" ethics of letting libel profit or ethics of not get to defend herself can viably be separated from how much to sue for, or from the underlying libel, or the legal bits as or if it progresses. It's all a tarry mess. Light show exaggerated only slightly in saying "Who's to prevent them from adding images?" because its links to the "Girl-on-girl photos" already going on below since the photos aren't public domain. Markbassett (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"What's to prevent" mythical editors hell-bent on adding libelous material here is utter nonsense. There is no consensus for adding pornographic images etc here, only whatever text is necessary to make Mrs. Trump's branding allegations understandable. Misrepresenting what other editors have said (referring to previous comments, not the one directly above) is disruptive and needs to stop. This article is under Arbcom sanctions and disruptive conduct is not tolerated. Coretheapple (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was speaking of actual editors and stuff that already did -- so think can view anything about "mythical" editors as OBE. Resuming the other bit to Melanie now. Markbassett (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to comments made previous to you. Perhaps you didn't notice the parenthetical. Coretheapple (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coretheapple - ??? That's not making any more sense to me than why you'd say "mythical editors" about actual edits. For "Comments made previous to you" - I'm doing find and not seeing any comments starting addressed to me. For 'Misrepresenting what other editors said referring to previous' - well previous to this tarbaby bit I think I sometimes disagreed but wasn't usually doing response to another except me posting after your "for one editor" to say 'more than one' because I'd just joined and made it 2. If you've got a specific item then point to where you're concerned and maybe I can see what you mean and sort it, but at the moment it's not making sense. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I felt that further discussion with you on this wasn't going to be a waste of time, I'd take another crack at it. Coretheapple (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coretheapple - up to you, but going away without specifics when asked or offered to sort it -- I'll take as there is nothing worth mentioning or worth sorting and we all move on. If there's anything you'd rather do via my talk page instead I'll be happy to work it with you. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN alt - back to the actual RFC questions and prospective content and ethics is all one tarball ... again I doubt that the different aspects of ethics questions can be viably separated as you seem to say, particularly since they form a sequence and are dependent on each other. Just doesn't look like it works when it's all one big tarry mess. Even if you dropped the second sentence about retraction to flow a bit better, and move the lawyer bit earlier so all parts of that cite are together and not thrashing to and back between sources, it's only going to be a 'some say they have ethical questions' and just not going to make much sense unless more about the competing ethical premises and circumstances is added. (p.s. It's "refile" and think $150M damage claimed not "seeking" $150M said [here.) The sources all seem too brief and light to cover ethics anyway. Those are at least two solidly major RS, thanks for that, I know it's hard amongst all the lesser sites that jumped on it which google hits, but treatment of the story simply is short all over and not going much into ethics info. As an odd sidenote, ABC remarked about WP with making it more likely she'll win here.
I'll add a WP concern too that in your disagreement with Lightshow about your mentioned premise of WP:WEIGHT for the story seems like it should apply for all the parts -- if any of it is BLP (and I think either as legal tiff or ethical debate it is WP:OFFTOPIC for a BLP) then seems like all of the bits the stories go into belongs. To pick just some parts when more is in the same articles as equally commonly said might not look like WP:DUE, it might look more like not WP:BALANCE or some flavor of WP:Cherrypicking. Just sayin. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Missing information

closing discussion; borderline BLP issues and unlikely to lead to any changes in the article. MelanieN alt (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

his bio is missing her history of doing nude lesbian sado masochistic photos, and of working in the US without a work permit.. Those are well documented were highly publicized and should be included if wikipedia is to be accurate and neutral — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.137.75 (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She did some nude photos as part of her modeling career; what's wrong with that? The former First Lady of France did the same, and nobody blamed her. I don't think it needs to be specifically mentioned. Regarding your assertion that she worked in the USA illegally, do you have any reliable sources documenting this? We know she modeled in various countries, including stints in the USA, which probably did not require a specific work permit at first, as she would have been booked by her European agent. Then, starting in 1996, she obtained several H-1B temporary residence visas, applied for a green card and moved to the country permanently in 2001, married Trump in 2005 and finally became a US citizen in 2006. If there was anything illegal about her US work and residency, surely this would have been uncovered during the campaign scrutiny. — JFG talk 09:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why shouldn't it be mentioned if it discussed by reliable sources? Coretheapple (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement over "Missing information" question

I am reverting Malerooster's (silent—contra TPO) redaction of this question. This is an acceptable question to ask, and, while I would not use the same language in describing Ms. Trump's modelling photographs, it's not far off base. These two sources provide support for the facts alleged by the IP, thus, I believe BLPTALK's relevance and references requirement is satisfied:

Rebbing 23:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not restore BLP violations, even on a talk page. --Malerooster (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no colorable BLP violation in either of the IP's claims:
  1. Ms. Trump's alleged history of "doing nude lesbian sado masochistic [sic] photos"

    The New York Post article describes one of the photographs under discussion: "In another photo, [another woman model] . . . raises a whip as if preparing to spank Melania, who pretends to recoil."

    The IP's summary is supported by this article—a source we could permissibly cite ourselves.

  2. Ms. Trump's alleged history of "working in the US without a work permit"

    The AP article states: "Melania Trump was paid for 10 modeling jobs in the United States worth $20,056 that occurred in the seven weeks before she had legal permission to work in the country, according to detailed accounting ledgers, contracts and related documents from 20 years ago provided to The Associated Press."

    The IP's summary accurately reflects a reliable source. There is no BLP violation.

These two claims may be unfavorable to the subject, but that in itself doesn't mean that they violate the biographies of living persons policy. The policy merely requires that contentious material be reliably sourced; it is not a cudgel to silence discussions. Curiously, you chose to silently redact the IP's comment—convention holds that you should have notated the modification—but you did not censor JFG's repetition of the IP's statements that you claim violate BLP. Rebbing 03:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rebbing, its to bad that you would edit war over this and feed the troll, you should know better, but obviously not. I will not revert again since you will just revert this. --Malerooster (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your rationale for silently modifying the IP's question was invalid and repeatedly carried out contrary to convention; there is no reason to assume bad faith by the IP; and at least two established editors appear to believe this is a legitimate topic. You don't need to be patronizing: we've both reverted twice. However, I will not be reverting you further. Rebbing 04:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to close this discussion. It is a borderline BLP violation started by a troll who deliberately used inflammatory language not found in the sources. This never became a major issue. Risqué pictures from early in her modeling career were discretely ignored by virtually all mainstream publications. As for the immigration issue, during the campaign it did get some coverage but nothing came of it. During the campaign when coverage was at its height there was discussion here and general. consensus was not to mention it. Nothing has happened since then to change that. MelanieN alt (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous closing of RfC

Per snowball test, the RfC did not establish any consensus. The Talk:Melania Trump § RfC: Melanie Trump libel suits was a request to address a number of different questions. In response, while there were a number of "Supports," those supports were supporting different areas, and none of them were supporting all three RfC issues presented. Even Coretheapple, who opened and closed the RfC, stated they were themselves "uncertain about inclusion of original allegations..." The next Support by Hzh did not support those 3 issues, and in fact opposed a key issue, stating that it "should NOT be mentioned." Another support only referred to the privacy aspect, which wasn't an issue.

The other Supports were similarly vague and often off-topic, with one only stating they liked a proposed wording version. However, the actual "wording" was never an issue either. As for the subsequent suggested wording section, there were 2 proposals, with somewhat equal supports for both. But essentially there is no consensus for the RfC of 3 separate issues. I'd suggest restoring the RfC which was closed for the wrong reasons. --Light show (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Observations from an uninvolved admin) - 1. The only valid oppose was Light show's, as Mrs. Trump is clearly not a low-profile individual. 2. I would recommend that Coretheapple re-open their RFC, just so Light show doesn't have to open an entirely new RFC for the same question - simply because the result was not "unanimous". — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why invalidate Markbassett's oppose? He in fact had a lot more reasons that even I did. BTW, no one has claimed that she was a "low profile individual." I also doubt I would suggest anyone re-open a new RfC for the same question, since this one was merely a request for comments concerning a variety of issues, not just a question. --Light show (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Light show: The validity of arguments is not tied to their quantity. And I'm not sure I get the point of your last sentence... I was asking the editor to do exactly what you were requesting they do (reverse their close of the RFC), and you have an issue with that? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No issue with that at all. I was more confused at the apparent ignoring of Markbassett's lengthy comments with his oppose. --Light show (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coffee - umm, saying she was actively seeking media attention doesn't seem correct. Talk did mention WP:PUBLICFIGURE maybe marginally so, because while it's not an official post and apparently court not handling her as Public figure, she is still stuck with FLOTUS which is "pervasively involved with public affairs". Make that the boundary though -- dragging in all the ex-wives and kids and grandkids would just be tacky. Markbassett (talk) 04:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Light show - Actually I'd been thinking today I should ask about closure, of Rebb since he said a week at the bottom of Proposal 1 section and JFG who'd said in his survey a few weeks for more input or perhaps more news, and to suggest that if they felt it time to start a new section (like this one) and propose it. But it's closed by poster so nevermind.
I see four more did show up after Melanie started proposal 1 at 20:02 10 Feb, but none since JFG at 08:32 12 Feb. I see few newsitems after that, iNews 12 Feb basically a late repeat that includes the WP and Gawker mentions; then ABC online 13 Feb also a repeat that mentions WP and adds London suit too. Then on 15 Feb just slightly related BBC News/USA Today on the NYT reporter in trouble for spreading it 'unfounded rumors', and the NYPost/USweekly about Melania 'miserable'. Suspect it's just nothing is happening fast on the case or maybe this was just a minor newsblip anyway.
The close didn't detail by questions, but by casual (possibly flawed) look I think it wound up at
1. whether the libel suits should be mentioned - 10 yes, 2 no
2. should the original allegations be mentioned - 1 yes, 5 minimally
3. Should they be a separate section - 4 new section, 2 within existing section
Maybe some later fiddling on wording at the level of saying 'refiles' versus 'files' lawsuit or 'claim damage' versus 'seeking damage' I guess -- will have to see, partly as I think MelanieN may look in after returning from vacation. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick review and came up with different totals:
1. Same: Yes=10; No=2
2. Yes=0; Minimal=5; No=7
3. New section=4; Within existing section=2; Not mentioned=7 --Light show (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see no rush to close the RfC before the nominal 30-day period. Once again, WP is not news. There is indeed a trend in "support" opinions but they are not always supporting the 3 questions explicitly. My own !vote was almost going to oppose per BLP but I found myself in agreement with some mention of the affair, while being extremely cautious not to overplay serious accusations of graft by inference. I think the SNOW close is being over-extended here; it is normally reserved for RfCs in which there is overwhelming support or opposition with no serious counter opinions. Here we have only qualified support numerically and we have a valid debate among several editors over the extent of the coverage that should be included. I would recommend that Coretheapple re-open the RFC and let it run the 30-day course. Alternately, I would welcome a new RfC with a tighter formulation. I do not support any inclusion of text about this affair in the article until clear consensus is achieved, either by a tighter RfC or by successful editor discussion on the proposed texts. — JFG talk 06:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a clear consensus on the questions posed by the RfC, so I ended it per WP:RFCEND. It was nine days (someone had suggested one week) and the supports far exceeded the opposes, all the wikilawyering above notwithstanding. We can and should add a reference to the libel suits, the objections of editors opposing the consensus notwithstanding. Consensus does not mean unanimity, and there is no reason to continue an RfC for thirty days when a clear consensus has emerged. While there is no deadline, the article has an NPOV issue due to its not mentioning the libel suits and that needs to be addressed, and there is a consensus to do so. Coretheapple (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Coretheapple: Consensus might not mean or require unanimity, but WP:SNOW (which is the basis you're relying on to use WP:RFCEND) sure as hell does require unanimity: "If an issue is run through some process and the resulting decision is unanimous, then it might have been a candidate for the snowball clause." If there's this much contention about the close of RFC, which was open less than a third of the time most RFCs run, I'd say you haven't much of a leg to stand on here. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Issues per renewed RfC

The renewed RfC is confusing issues and has a neutrality problem. While the guidelines say keep it brief and neutral, this RfC lists 3 separate but related questions, per top section. All 3 questions relate to whether the lawsuit should be in the article. However, the explanation preceding the questions veers off into a topic about "brands": These new developments are not a simple rehash of the original, inflammatory allegations, but rather delve into how Mrs. Trump is protecting her brand.

But whether she planned on starting a line of clothing or even had a brand, are irrelevant facts for the defamation suit. As noted in the above discussion, her rights or injury for filing a suit for defamation against a newspaper does not rely on monetary damages. They are separate issues, (see laws, p. 209), since for defamation, a claimant does not need to prove that they have lost money, or suffered any other kind of loss or damage.

And the RfC rationale admits that the "brand" issue is a "new development," not just a repeat of the old defamation. It's thereby a new and separate issue, one related to business ethics. And it implies that had there never been any defamation or a lawsuit, the ethics issues would remain the same. Yet with ethics admittedly being the main issue, there are 3 questions about the lawsuit and none about ethics, making the RfC confusing and defective.

In addition, the posted RfC states that multiple reliable sources are reporting on this [ethics issue]..., and gives a non-neutral link to an editorial about the issue. That link alone may go against guidelines about neutrality in creating an RfC. I would suggest the editor who opened it fix the problems with the RfC.--Light show (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any Westlaw cites? Honestly I have never seen such protracted wikilawyering. My last comment on this utter hogwash. The RfC is clear as a bell and so far overwhelming. Coretheapple (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opening Paragraph

There is an article missing in the second sentence of the opening paragraph. "Prior to becoming the First Lady, Trump was a Slovene American former model" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.39.100.21 (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed --Light show (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The phrasing is actually pretty weird. She's a former model, certainly, but it's odd to describe her as having been a "former" model prior to becoming First Lady. It's also weird to describe her nationality as part of what she "formerly" was. I'm going to add some sourced language that describes her as having been a model and businesswoman, before becoming a self-described "full-time mom" prior to becoming First Lady, and I'm going to reword the statement of her nationality. --DavidK93 (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DavidK93: Thanks, and I have further edited the prose for clarity and chronology. — JFG talk 11:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Autism charity work

Can someone add in a section on all the good work that the Trump family have done supporting Autism, including Autism Speaks?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Melania_Trump&oldid=769609477"