Talk:Melania Trump/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Discussion on "Melania was reported to have taken a four-hour round trip from D.C. to Palm Beach, to visit the spa."

Continuing from User_talk:Galobtter#Melania regarding diff:​ Yup, BRD, you were bold, I reverted, now we can discuss.. Since everything she does gets a lot of coverage, not everything can be included (this is very minor over all); if you want to define the family's sense of entitlement, probably get a source that does so to do so and state that. This is gossipy and your wording is additionally BLP vioish since she was only reportedly/(according to two people close to the couple) "furious" yet you've written as "piqued Melania". Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Leave it out. Trivial, bordering on gossip. --MelanieN (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree, leave it out. Corky 02:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree this is beneath us. If nothing else, mentioning it would be UNDUE. And the practice outlined in BRD—especially in matters like this—is that we revert to the stable version, which very clearly would not mean restoring Activist's change pending further discussion. (WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE actually dictates the same in the reverse situation: had this tidbit been in the stable version of the page and the challenged edit its removal, we would leave it out until consensus developed for putting it back.) Rebbing 14:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that any comments on Melania's state of mind and the romantic affair should be left out, but if it can be substantiated with RS that she took a $64,000 flight to visit a spa and then immediately returned, then the flight info belongs. That sounds like an extraordinary waste of taxpayer funds. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans:, Keep the reason for the trip and the costs. I believe she stayed overnight. The "four hours" referred to the in-flight time. The aircraft and its crew would have waited at the Palm Beach airport overnight and the consequent additional expenses for the considerable Secret Service presence and coordination with local law enforcement, which Palm Beach officials have been complaining loudly about for a year, would have run up a whopper of a bill. The reason she cancelled her trip with Trump to Davos, Switzerland at the last minute, was because of the revelation about the affair with the porn star according to the close family friends. These are integral parts of the same story. Activist (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

This requires secondary RS discussion to establish and explain the significance of such a trip. There may well be some sources that discuss or interpret her life style and engagement as first lady, but the fact of her travel is not by itself noteworthy, and WP editors cannot be the ones offering or assuming the interpretation. SPECIFICO talk 17:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: This isn't a case of WP editors assuming anything at all. It's a direct attribution from a reliable source, in the aspects of motivation for the cancellation of her trip to Davos, Switzerland, the year plus, post-partum for her, affair with a porn star, Melania's mood, the alternative very brief trip to Mar-a-Lago, and the costs involved in the alternative arrangements. It was notable enough for the Times, Politico and dozens of other reputable media across the U.S. and in Europe, especially Great Britain, to take note of it. We're not here to make the subject of any article look better or worse, but just to accurately memorialize notable events. This aircraft isn't a Piper Cub. It's an immensely luxurious version of a 239-passenger plane. Here's its Wikipedia description: Boeing C-32

Design

The C-32 is a specially configured version of the Boeing 757-200 airliner. The C-32 body is identical to that of the Boeing 757-200, but has different interior furnishings and more sophisticated avionics. For the C-32A, the passenger cabin is divided into four sections:

• The forward area has a communications center, galley, lavatory and 10 business-class seats.
• The second section is a fully enclosed stateroom for the use of the primary passenger. It includes a changing area, private lavatory, separate entertainment system, two first-class swivel seats and a convertible divan that seats three and folds out to a bed.
• The third section contains the conference and staff facility with eight business-class seats.
• The rear section of the cabin contains general seating with 32 business-class seats, galley, two lavatories and closets.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Activist (talk • contribs) 20:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN, Galobtter, Snooganssnoogans, Corkythehornetfan, SPECIFICO, and Rebbing:, I couldn't understand why this was reverted. The title of the cite itself in People Magazine should have been enough to prima facie establish its importance: . 'Furious' Melania Trump's Escape to Mar-a-Lago Spa Cost Taxpayers $64,000: Report

I wrote "piqued," because we can't plagiarize the reliable source we're quoting. Definition of piqued,

feel irritated or resentful. "she was piqued by his curtness"
synonyms: irritate, annoy, bother, vex, displease, upset, offend, affront, anger, exasperate, infuriate, gall, irk, nettle

Then I Googled "Melania Trump" and "$64,000" and quickly found about 30 stories in other reliable sources from the NY Times, which had the original story on it, used DOD figures for the cost of operating the particular aircraft, as well and the NY Post, the NY Daily News, the San Jose Mercury News and numerous British and other papers and tabloids.

The roughly two-hour trip from Joint Base Andrews to Palm Beach International Airport cost $16,168 per hour, which means that the first lady’s short trip aboard a C-32A plane cost taxpayers around $64,600, according to figures kept by the Department of Defense.

That of course is only the cost of the round trip flight, not the additional considerable costs of surface transport and Secret Service and other security. She didn't hail an Uber when she got to Palm Beach. I expect the trip may have cost taxpayers in the neighborhood of $100,000 for her getting her nails done or a massage or whatever during that day trip. The stories mostly mention that the trip was provoked by her response to the quoted $130,000 payout to the porn star in 2016 to keep quiet about the decade-old, extended affair. So I would argue, restoration of the original text and cite is in order. We shouldn't have to tiptoe around this because of her position. Thank you all. Activist (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN, Galobtter, Snooganssnoogans, Corkythehornetfan, SPECIFICO, and Rebbing:, I should have mentioned, as many of the sources did, that she went on the day trip to Mar-a-Lago although she had been scheduled to attend the summit at Davos, Switzerland, rather than traveling with her husband. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activist (talk • contribs) 22:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The issue is that People Magazine is in the RECENTISM business, and we're not. They're also not a good source to tell us whether this is a significant development. Do you find extensive discussion in other sources to confirm this? I do recall reading that she went AWOL when Stormy came to town, but we'd need RS to tell us how noteworthy this is. SPECIFICO talk 22:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I noted just four of the dozens of publications I'd quickly found that mentioned the Mar-a-Lago trip, in context with the absence at Davos, to wit: NY Times, as well and the NY Post, the NY Daily News, the San Jose Mercury News. It's not just People Magazine or RECENTISM any more than Hillary, Monica and the blue dress were "RECENTISM" Activist (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

And I just looked at the Hillary Clinton article:

(from the lede)Her marital relationship came under public scrutiny during the Lewinsky scandal, which led her to issue a statement that reaffirmed her commitment to the marriage.

Activist (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

There's been lots of reporting and speculation as to their marriage, but unless you have RS that give a reasoned and documented overview of the subject, it's basically OR to say that this or that event is an indication of this or that theory about their relationship. SPECIFICO talk 23:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not "reporting" or "speculating." I'm merely following the dozens of sources that turned up with my quick Google search. Here's what the Times said, in a follow up to their original article, and I wish you would actually read the article before accusing me of: "theorizing, "OR," etc.:

Mrs. Trump and the president have had a tumultuous relationship at times over the years, but few episodes have roiled the peace as much as the news surrounding Ms. Daniels. The reports of a payoff blindsided the first lady, who was furious with her husband, according to two people close to the couple. She has kept a low profile since.

Activist (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

IMO this is not at all noteworthy for WP. I feel pretty strongly about that. Gandydancer (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

While it may be true that reliable sources have reported these facts, I think the interpretation you're proposing—that Mrs. Trump is a profligate at the public's expense—is largely original research. Do you have a reliable source saying that Mrs. Trump's official travel expenses are unusual for someone in her position? I found similarly surprising figures given for elements of the previous administration's travel. Even if we had a reliable source stating the underlying facts about this trip and drawing the conclusion that Mrs. Trump is wasteful, I would still doubt that such a fact was important enough for us to cover.

Also, please stop referring to your change as the "original text and cite" and the like: this matter was first added to the article yesterday by you. It is not the stable or original state. Rebbing 00:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

When I referred to the "original text and cite" I was referring to MY original text and cite, which had been deleted. I never claimed it was original wording from the Times or People Magazine, or anyone else. Had it been, it would have been plagiarism. Activist (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting you were: you were obviously labeling your change, your version of this article before it was reverted as "original," not remarking on the underlying sources. (Elsewhere, you wrote that the revert of your addition was "[i]nappropriate" and that, per BRD, we ought to return to your version pending further discussion. But you have it backwards: your addition about Mrs. Trump's trip was the 'bold' edit; the original text of this article is the version that does not cover it. Rebbing 01:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I went to your cite from the Tampa Bay Times which yielded an error message. Then I used the TBT's search engine with http://www.tampabay.com/section/search?text=Trump%27s+Trips+Versus+Obama%27s and got zilch. I've been reading for the last eight months or so, in many sources, that the cost of the Trump trips and vacations have vastly exceeded the Obama family's, as has Trump's golfing, though he had regularly complained about Obama's golfing. I've also been reading about how little time Trump actually "works" as opposed to "executive time," which translates to tweeting and watching television, I think. Please don't ask me to defend Obama, because I have no time for that either. Activist (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

That much is widely verified. The only ones I know of who made an issue of Obama's travel were Trump and a few guys on Fox News. Any Obama's home state happens to be 5000 miles from DC. Anyway Melania is not the President, and I believe RS coverage was distinguishing between allowing some relief from the critical and stressful duties of the presidency vs. getting a manicure or a mineral soak. SPECIFICO talk 01:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

It works fine for me. I confirmed that I'm not in a special bubble by verifying my DNS result by using dig to query the appropriate root nameservers and cURL to fetch the base HTML document, which contains the relevant quote. I suspect the problem is on your end, but feel free to follow up on my talk page. Either way, the link is available via archive.is here and by the Internet Archive here. I punched it into Google (logged out, so I couldn't benefit from my past browsing history): site:tampabay.com "Trump's trips versus Obama's". The article is the first result, and Google has it cached.

But my intention wasn't to debate differences in spending habits between the administrations. Rather, I cited the article to suggest that the typical travel expenses of a president or presidential spouse are astronomical; thus, Mrs. Trump's having spent $65,000 of public funds for this trip is likely no more noteworthy than the fact that her family, as the current residents of the White House, is waited on by a staff of government-paid chefs.

As for the remainder: I'm not here to talk about politics, and Wikipedia is not the place to try to make the point you appear to be arguing. Rebbing 01:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

That's both unverified and untrue. Melania is not the president. 10,000 nails are every day clipped in DC. SPECIFICO talk 02:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure you intended to reply to me? If so, what are you saying is both unverified and untrue? Rebbing 02:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

To

the typical travel expenses of a president or presidential spouse are astronomical; thus, Mrs. Trump's having spent $65,000 of public funds for this trip is likely no more noteworthy than the fact that her family, as the current residents of the White House, is waited on by a staff of government-paid chefs.

SPECIFICO talk 02:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. The first bit is simply the opinion that $65,000 for a day trip is shocking; I don't think I need a citation to suggest on a talk page that the proverbial man on the street would have that reaction. The $65,000 figure is supported by the same New York Times piece cited earlier: "[T]the first lady's short trip aboard a C-32A plane cost taxpayers around $64,600 . . . ." For the fact that the first lady is waited on by the White House staff, see, for example, Nina M. Flores, Cristeta Comerford: The White House’s First Woman Executive Chef, Ms. Magazine Blog (Mar. 23, 2015) (noting that the White House chef's duties include "taking care of the [f]irst [f]amily"); we actually have an entire article on the subject: White House Executive Chef. So I ask: which of these things do you maintain is untrue? Rebbing 03:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not true that the $64,000 manicure is no more noteworthy than the fact that the White House is staffed with domestic servants. The $64,000 is discretionary, it's been reported as an egregious misuse of such discretion, and it is waaaay beyond what other first ladies spend for a personal grooming chore. So your comparison is false. SPECIFICO talk 04:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

In regards to the "piqued" thing, it should be "reportedly piqued" or according to someone etc, that was what I was meaning. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN, Galobtter, Snooganssnoogans, Corkythehornetfan, SPECIFICO, and Rebbing:,I don't have a problem with the "reportedly," or citing the NY Times source from two people close to the family. It also follows that the explanation of her absence at Davos and presence at Mar-a-Lago for a pedicure or whatever, for what almost certainly cost the taxpayers way over $100,000, was because of the payout news and was because she could go there in lieu of throwing dishes or going to Camp David or some alternative way to blow off steam, but the fact that national and international press widely paid attention to the specific profligacy was a reason to include it. I should also note that the cost of the Obamas' traditional Christmas vacations (I think they may have been annual) to Hawai'i were loudly proclaimed in the right wing media generally, not just Fox or Rush or Breitbart or Limbaugh or the Washington Times or whatever. Obama also hasn't lived in Hawai'i since he was a teenager and only his half-sister and brother-in-law live there. So the question is, should my original edit to this article go back into it, with the caveats from other editors included and a link to the NY Times article, rather than PEOPLE? Also, thanks to Rebbing for the working link to the illuminating Tampa Bay Tribune article. Activist (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

This sounds OK to me, as long as the best RS is accurately represented. SPECIFICO talk 00:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I still think we should leave it out. Both the expensive trip and the "reportedly furious with Trump" gossip. MelanieN alt (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I likewise remain opposed to including any of this at this point. Rebbing 00:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I strongly feel that it should be left out. It is gossip, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

KeepThe NY Times sourced Melania's wrath and the consequent brief trip to Mar-a-Lago instead of Switzerland to two close family friends. That's not "gossip." That's legitimate sourcing in a reliable source. This original story was about unbridled excess. The $64,000 quoted cost was solely the expense of keeping the (only 7 manufactured) luxury version of the 239-seat plane, airborne, for four hours, for a pedicure, or whatever. The trip was immensely more expensive than that. Activist (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

"Sourced to two friends" is almost the definition of "gossip". --MelanieN alt (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Recent changes to the lede

I have undone several changes to the lede and restored its longstanding version. Changes to the lede always need consensus. Just to point out why I reverted the changes:

• Our lede says "current First Lady and wife of Donald Trump". Someone changed that to "First Lady and current wife of Donald Trump"; that's just nasty.
• There were changes of her nationality, first to "Slovenian-American" and then to just "Slovenian". She's American now, the details of her background are spelled out later.
• She was described as "a model and philanthropist who is the First Lady." She is no longer a model, and philanthropist is not her claim to fame; we describe her first and foremost as the First Lady.

Comments of course are welcome; consensus is required to make any of these changes. --MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN:, @Galobtter:, @Snooganssnoogans:, @Corkythehornetfan:, @SPECIFICO:, @Rebbing:, For some guidance on the hyphenated description I looked first to the Wikipedia articles on the late Rep. Tom Lantos, and then to George Soros. Their nationalities (Hungarian-American) are both hyphenated, in the ledes, in their respective articles. "Former model" also seems an appropriate descriptor, just as Nancy Davis Reagan was an actress (1st line in her lede), and Hillary Clinton as a former senator, Secretary of State, and presidential candidate. Melania was well-known as a nude, swimsuit (including Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition), and high fashion model, eventually client of Trump's own fashion agency. Activist (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm neutral on the first one. I'm not sure "current wife" is nasty, especially since we say "current First Lady". Slovenian-American seems fine to me. Like African-American even for folks whose families have been here several hundred years. I thought she was running a fashion-related business? If that is or most recently was her occupation, then we could say that. I think she's very frequently identified for her modeling career, so former model does not seem undue to me. SPECIFICO talk 22:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN "Current wife" makes it sound like a temporary position. Activist (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Current wife is to distinguish from his former wives. Perhaps third wife sounds better, or do you think that also carries the connotation of being temporary? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

"Former model" somewhere in the lede would be ok. The phrase I removed said that she IS a model who is First Lady. That is inaccurate. And I still say that "current wife", or for that matter "third wife", is just a nasty dig. "Current wife" suggests that her status is temporary, that he might dump her any time. "Third wife" is unnecessary and not something we usually say to describe the current spouse, at least not in the lede. (For example, Nancy Reagan does not say "second wife" in the lede.) Marital history is for the article text. MelanieN alt (talk) 13:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2018

Melania Trump (/məˈlɑːniə/; born Melanija Knavs; [mɛˈlaːnija ˈknaːu̯s], Germanized to Melania Knauss; April 26, 1970) is the current First Lady of the United States and the third wife wife of the 45th U.S. President Donald Trump.[1] 189.216.114.169 (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Slovenian?

I don't see a citation for the idea that she is a citizen of Slovenia. Should be provided. 174.19.159.85 (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2018

Regarding her dad's career. Yugoslavia was a communist country, there were no auto dealerships. Everything was state-owned, if you wanted a car, you had to basically put in a request to the state car company, and you would get a car when one was available. It's pretty absurd to state that someone was an auto-dealer in a communist state. 96.48.174.6 (talk) 08:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done You must submit your request in the form of "please change X to Y", suggesting specific wording backed up by reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Section on birther racism and reaction to husbands (alledged) affairs

Can someone add in two new sections to this profile.

Maybe they need new sections, if not on this page itself?

One - a section on birther racsim - Melania Trump's previous comments etc.

Second - a section on Melania Trump's reaction to the consensual (alledged) affairs that Trump had with Stephanie Clifford and later Karen McDougal. Perhaps this needs to be on a new page - a bit like the Clinton-Lewinksy scandal wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Both suggestions have been proposed and discussed many times, and consensus has been to leave them out. --MelanieN (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Propose adding Trump's alleged cheating on Melania

It has been alleged that Trump had cheated on Melania months after Barron's birth, with pornographic actress Stormy Daniels in 2006 and Playboy model Karen McDougal from 2006 to 2007. Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, denied the existence of an affair between Trump and Daniels, but later acknowledged paying Daniels $130,000 of his own money. The New York Times reported that Melania had been 'blindsided' by the January 2018 reports of Daniels being paid off. The White House has denied the existence of an affair between Trump and McDougal.

References

I propose including the above relevant, notable, cited material for this page within the Marriage section. starship.paint ~ KO 01:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose This article is about Melania not Donald and Stormy Daniels or Karen McDougal. If Melania comments or if further coverage of her occurs then it may warrant a mention. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The proposed addition appears to not comply with the balance provisions of the Biographies of Living Persons policy and the this essay for the reasons stated by Emir of Wikipedia above. Further discussion will be necessary before adding this proposed text, which is outside the bounds of a simple edit request. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Eggishorn: - it was an attempt to get consensus not an edit request. The real edit request is by another user above. starship.paint ~ KO 14:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Starship.paint:I'm sorry, I completely apologize for overlooking that. The two sections appeared as one to my caffeine-deprived brain and I thought this was part of the new user's request. I've struck my reply but I think opening a formal RfC would be a good idea. Again, I apologize for causing you any discomfort you may have felt. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose – Only makes sense on Stormy Daniels page. — JFG ^talk 20:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Leave it out. This is not anything that Melania has done, or said anything about. She has publicly ignored the whole issue in dignified silence, as wives of prominent men often do. This encyclopedia is full of articles about men who cheated on their wives; I very much doubt that the fact is included in the articles about their wives (with rare exceptions like Hillary Clinton where it became a history-making scandal). --MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Leave it out. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Leave it out - This is really kind of important. It would be like victim-shaming to put it in and we consider that sort of thing a BLP violation. She has not spoken or involved herself in any other public events about these allegations. SPECIFICO talk 20:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Please note that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Well-sourced statements that are relevant to a particular article cannot be excluded based purely on a democratic vote. This would make Wikipedia a tyranny of the majority. The purpose of consensus discussions is to bring up rational talking points explaining why something is or isn't relevant to the article, not simply to hold a ballot to determine the most popular point of view. Most of the opposing statements so far have contributed nothing substantial to this discussion. 75.63.209.97 (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
• Leave it out the only way I can see this being relevant to the Melania Trump article is if Donald and Melania get a divorce as a result. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
• Include an internal link as a footnote to one of the Trump controversies pages, whichever one may have the most coverage of the issue. Whether or not Melania herself has commented on her husband's alleged affairs, she is a party to the issue, being married to the man and all. 75.63.209.97 (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

propose change to section on lawsuit

currently reads: ~In February 2017, she sued Daily Mail and General Trust, the owner of The Daily Mail, seeking $150 million in damages over an August 2016 article which falsely alleged that she had worked for an escort service during her modeling days.~ suggest change to preserve neutral POV: ~In February 2017, she sued Daily Mail and General Trust, the owner of The Daily Mail, seeking $150 million in damages over an August 2016 article which alleged that she had worked for an escort service during her modeling days.~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.19.86 (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Melania and her many languages.

Actually she doesn't speak them. Many have listened to her when she speaks a few words in a couple of those languages (French, Italian during their EU visit) and she is at the very beginner's level. After living more than 20 years in US (Redacted) Good day, sir.Ernio48 (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

. It's also unclear what languages you are referring to. Considering she grew up in Slovenia, it doesn't seem particularly plausible that she doesn't speak something besides English particularly Slovene and maybe Serbo-Croatian. Nil Einne (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

She struggles in English, which suggest she does not have a natural talent for learning languages. We have been able to hear that she only speaks basic French. She obviously speaks her mother tongue - Slovene fluently, and will be able to speak and understand and read other Serbo-Croat languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 (talk)

Term label

Anyone know why the term label is showing up as "Assumed office" and not "In role"? CatcherStorm ^talk 23:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree, since First Lady is not a political office, 'assumed office' is not accurate. I'll change it, if anyone objects they can discuss it here later. Civciv5 (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Numbering?

Melania Trump (and her predecessors) should not be numbered, in intro or the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. We base our articles on what Reliable Sources say, and I have never seen a Reliable Source refer to first ladies in this way. Did I understand that there is an RfC somewhere? --MelanieN (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Found it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Government#Numbering First & Second Ladies. --MelanieN (talk) 04:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Criticism or Controversies section

It is notable that the article has no critical content at all. Certainly such content exists. Is this related to some WP policy? Arbalest Mike (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Arbalest Mike: We have WP:Neutral. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I am all for NPOV but I don't think that explains the lack of public/verifiable criticism. It certainly exists in other bios of living persons. Arbalest Mike (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to add it or at least explain what you mean by giving an example. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd want to see any proposed text before it is added. I believe it is more common on BLPs to list individual controversies under a normal section heading in context - rather than to have a separate "controversies" section. You are mistaken that the article "has no critical content at all." For example, we include the "speech controversy" and the lawsuit allegation. As for "criticism" I doubt if such a section is appropriate; we are talking about a human being, not a book or a play. --MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

My suggestion was for a separate category not one for each. I didn't give much thought as to whether it is called Controversy or Criticism and I certainly don't suggest that we include criticism of her clothes, for example. I know that some BLP articles have a "controversies" section and many don't.

Regarding this particular article though, there is a sense of it being "sanitized". It does mention that she dropped out of college in her first year and it does mention that her website was redirected to her husband's. But, the news at the time was that her web site mentioned that she actually graduated from that college and that when it was discovered that she hadn't was when the site was redirected. There are other examples as well. I added this talk page section rather than change the content because I don't know what is appropriate and I don't care enough about it either way. Arbalest Mike (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Be Best

I've created a stub for Be Best, if page watchers care to help expand. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• In my opinion, until there is more to write about the campaign, it can easily and with context be covered here, far better than in a separate article. Atleast some material needs to be here and until it becomes undue here there's no need for a separate article(at-least one sentence needs to be here anyhow) Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • There's plenty of sourcing already, including criticism for multiple reasons. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Health issues

Needs to add in a section on health issues- recent kidney surgery.

And of course, wishing the First Lady a speedy recovery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 (talk) 09:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Need to add in a section on residency, as her official Twitter page lists her as living in New York City now -- see https://twitter.com/MELANIATRUMP 16:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.59.81.123 (talk)

Thanks for the suggestions, but I don't think so. The kidney surgery seems to have been a minor procedure, not interrupting her life to any significant extent, and we were given almost no information about it. As for her Twitter page, she hardly ever uses it - her last tweet was in January - so I'm not surprised she hasn't bothered to update her profile. --MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Reference for her political party

I can't find any public records confirming that she is registered as a member of the Republican Party. Can someone give a reference for that, or should we delete the parts mentioning that she's a Republican? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanblocker (talk • contribs) 02:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Interesting question. One would assume she is a Republican, since she is the First Lady in a Republican administration. And if pressed she would probably say "Republican". But the only thing I could find in a search was this, which indicates that she has never publicly expressed a party preference. I notice, too, that our article contains nothing about her political views. Given this, I think "Republican" should be removed from her infobox, and I will do so. --MelanieN (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

This confirms her political affiliation, not sure if it is worth mentioning though. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I found a video confirming that Melania has voted in the New York primary, which indicates that she has to be a registered Republican by then. https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/melania-trump-casts-her-vote/2016/04/19/8b952cd6-0675-11e6-bfed-ef65dff5970d_video.html?utm_term=.bdc7f91707dc. I will undo the changes made by MelanieN then. Thanks so much for the discussions, I really appreciate it!--Jordanblocker (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

"Disappearance"

So should we add the elephant in the room? This lady has not been seen in public since her so-called "kidney transplant". The fact that "she" tweeted that she is fine and still remains to be unseen is very suspicious. - Jasonbres (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Not really an elephant in the room in my view. Let's wait and see what the sources say keeping in mind WP:NORUSH. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Not yet. This is obviously bizarre and possibly caused by a notable event, but it would be WP:CRYSTAL to speculate what that is in the article at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I am going to flesh out the passage discussing her procedure, and I will attempt to neutrally discuss the fact that the First Lady's public profile was notably decreased at that time. --DavidK93 (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

"Slovene version", "German version"

The article says "she transcribed the Slovene version of her last name 'Knavs' to the German version 'Knauss'". I'm afraid there's no such thing as a "German version" of her name, especially as she was born in Novo Mesto, a southern Slovenian town about as far as you can get from the nearest German-speaking country (Austria). It's just that the 'v' in 'Knavs' is pronounced in Slovene like an English 'w' or 'u' ('K-NOW-SS'), so she changed the spelling to make it easier for Americans to pronounce (since German names with syllables such as 'haus' and 'bauer' are common in the USA and people are used to pronouncing 'au' as 'ow'). Many immigrants to the USA have done the same. The phrase 'Germanized to Melania Knauss' in the opening paragraph is a more accurate description of the name change. The name 'Knavs' may itself be a Slovenian transcription of an original German/Austrian 'Knauss', but that isn't the point here. 213.127.210.95 (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)