Revision as of 16:20, 24 June 2018 editAtsme (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers42,813 edits →Melania jacket: disagree - it's POV spin← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:21, 24 June 2018 edit undoGandydancer (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers28,205 edits →Melania jacketNext edit → | ||
Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
:: ]: "Here's the thing: The jacket decisions made by the first lady aren't as big or as important a story as the crisis along the border. But that doesn't mean it's not a story. It is. She is the first lady of the United States. What she says, does and, yes, wears, matters. Disagree? Ask yourself whether the media would have (and should have) covered Michelle Obama wearing the exact same jacket. The answer is: ''Of course.''" -- ] (]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u> 16:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC) | :: ]: "Here's the thing: The jacket decisions made by the first lady aren't as big or as important a story as the crisis along the border. But that doesn't mean it's not a story. It is. She is the first lady of the United States. What she says, does and, yes, wears, matters. Disagree? Ask yourself whether the media would have (and should have) covered Michelle Obama wearing the exact same jacket. The answer is: ''Of course.''" -- ] (]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u> 16:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC) | ||
:::Sorry BR - this is pure clickbait POV spin about an article of clothing, and whatever else media is trying to make of it to distract from important issues and what appears to be the caving-in of the entire Russian collusion argument that you have spent so much time trying to establish - the jacket story doesn't belong in this article, and what the biased media tries to make it seem doesn't belong, either. Again - POV spin and noncompliant with NPOV. Editors have that discretion and should exercise it for the sake of the project. <sup>]]]</sup> 16:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC) | :::Sorry BR - this is pure clickbait POV spin about an article of clothing, and whatever else media is trying to make of it to distract from important issues and what appears to be the caving-in of the entire Russian collusion argument that you have spent so much time trying to establish - the jacket story doesn't belong in this article, and what the biased media tries to make it seem doesn't belong, either. Again - POV spin and noncompliant with NPOV. Editors have that discretion and should exercise it for the sake of the project. <sup>]]]</sup> 16:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC) | ||
::::She wore the jacket when she boarded the plane and was not wearing it when she got off. IMO she was not making a statement but rather doing a real dumb thing and you'd think that her staff would have told her that but they must be just as clueless as she is. Remember for example when Michelle Obama wore the $450 sneakers to an event about feeding poor people, which is, of course (I'd guess) not in her article (and if it is I'll eat humble pie). ] (]) 16:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:21, 24 June 2018
Skip to table of contents |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Melania Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Template:WikiProject Donald Trump Please add the quality rating to the{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. |
Template:Friendly search suggestions
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Melania Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
There is a request, submitted by Lionsdude148, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages. The rationale behind the request is: "Important". |
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 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 Misplaced Pages (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)
Melania jacket
The reference to Melania's jacket has been removed without any rationale other than "nonsense". In light of the substantial and significant press coverage and public comment of this -- particularly to the extent it negates the previous narrative that Melania was in some way acting as a POTUS conscience urging him to cease and desist separations -- it's clear this cannot be dismissed as "nonsense".
This edit should be undone and the mention of the jacket restored. SPECIFICO talk 02:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Definitely trivia and nonsense, just as MelanieN stated when she rightly reverted it. Just because media now focuses on nonsense in regard to the Trump's that doesn't mean we have to include it. This is still an encyclopedia. It should read like one. This kind of content keeps that from happening. Such nonsense falls under WP:FART. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- The header is a lie. MelanieN did explain the removal. I removed "unexplained", SPECIFICO put it back in. Can't imagine why anyone would want to keep a header that's untrue. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- I changed to "Melania jacket" per WP:TALKNEW bullet 4. There is no need for anything more than the minimum required to distinguish the topic from others, and to insist on more is the opposite of neutrality. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Unless anyone has a valid, policy-based explanation as to why this article should expunge mention of the widely-discussed jacket and its relationship to the also widely-covered RS discussion of her stance on these border events, it will be reinserted. Deflection to an edti-war over a header does not provide a valid rationale for removal and "nonsense" is not a reasoned basis for anything other than "nonsense". SPECIFICO talk 15:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- It appears you are upset, SPECIFICO, but I can't figure out why. You put up a dishonest, inaccurate, deceitful header and it was rightly changed by not one, but two editors. As to the existence of the content in the article, I think the onus is actually on you to show why it belongs, per policy. That's what the discussion should be based on. Then, we can proceed toward consensus in a reasonable fashion - which is the correct way to approach the subject, wouldn't you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winkelvi (talk • contribs) 15:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO: 1. Please don't edit war to make a heading non-neutral (the second time you've done that in my memory)—violating both WP:TALKNEW and WP:EW—and then cry "deflection" over the edit war of your making. 2. Melanie's revert rationale was clearly a WP:WEIGHT argument and experienced editors such as yourself shouldn't need the shortcut link to see the policy basis. She said far more than "nonsense", so please refrain from strawmanning to WP:WIN. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- One revert is not an edit war. Next false disparagement from you will be prosecuted. SPECIFICO talk 15:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Edit warring is never one-sided, thus you can't say there was an edit war while claiming you weren't a part of it. Don't forget to notify me. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- One revert is not an edit war. Next false disparagement from you will be prosecuted. SPECIFICO talk 15:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Unless anyone has a valid, policy-based explanation as to why this article should expunge mention of the widely-discussed jacket and its relationship to the also widely-covered RS discussion of her stance on these border events, it will be reinserted. Deflection to an edti-war over a header does not provide a valid rationale for removal and "nonsense" is not a reasoned basis for anything other than "nonsense". SPECIFICO talk 15:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- I changed to "Melania jacket" per WP:TALKNEW bullet 4. There is no need for anything more than the minimum required to distinguish the topic from others, and to insist on more is the opposite of neutrality. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
The content was removed and described as "trivia". When massive media attention is triggered, it ceases to be "trivia". That jacket choice was no "accident", and it garnered quite a bit of attention, and of an unfortunate type which was triggered by that choice. The media was gaslighted. This article is rather insightful:
- Journalist Liz Plank Believes the Media Was Baited by Melania Trump's Zara Jacket. "The FLOTUS office saying they're confused about why the media is covering the jacket is gaslighting 101."
This fits the gaslighting pattern we've been seeing from the White House. None of this happens by "accident".
Right now it's a subject of discussion on This Week, with George Stephanopoulos, with comments that it was a deliberate message, not an accident, and notable deviation from normal practice for Melania (which says a lot), used "like a sandwich board", but with uncertainty as to whom it was directed. It's a very notable event, and it should be mentioned, with some of the commentary and opinions. A paragraph should do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Any talk here of gaslighting by the WH is pure speculation and OR. Further speculation and discussion of same will get it collapsed as a WP:NOTAFORUM vio. Plus, it's purely a waste of time since it has no encyclopedic value and has no chance of becoming content-worthy. In other words, it's tabloid trash. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - and I highly recommend WP:Editorial discretion. WP should not follow the spin of clickbait media, and I agree with Melanie that this material is better left out. It is pure speculation based entirely on POV, and it doesn't matter how many biased sources are publishing the same spin. It's spin based on speculation, and ironically, the discussion here now based on what media has done may well be the reason she wore it. Media should be focusing on what is going on with the FBI, not what FLOTUS is wearing - before this one they focused on her high heels. Pah-lease, WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and as such we should be focusing on encyclopedic material such as what is happening within the FBI, for Pete's sake. It's huge and weighs heavily on so many things. Strzok was just stripped of his FBI clearances and escorted off the property, and later issued a subpoena. Where is the media frenzy about that? Instead, they're busy focusing on their own POV spin about a designer jacket worn by FLOTUS. Sad. 16:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- She sent a message, so it was HER clickbait. The media reported on it. We document it. That's our job.
- Chris Cillizza: "Here's the thing: The jacket decisions made by the first lady aren't as big or as important a story as the crisis along the border. But that doesn't mean it's not a story. It is. She is the first lady of the United States. What she says, does and, yes, wears, matters. Disagree? Ask yourself whether the media would have (and should have) covered Michelle Obama wearing the exact same jacket. The answer is: Of course." -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry BR - this is pure clickbait POV spin about an article of clothing, and whatever else media is trying to make of it to distract from important issues and what appears to be the caving-in of the entire Russian collusion argument that you have spent so much time trying to establish - the jacket story doesn't belong in this article, and what the biased media tries to make it seem doesn't belong, either. Again - POV spin and noncompliant with NPOV. Editors have that discretion and should exercise it for the sake of the project. 16:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- She wore the jacket when she boarded the plane and was not wearing it when she got off. IMO she was not making a statement but rather doing a real dumb thing and you'd think that her staff would have told her that but they must be just as clueless as she is. Remember for example when Michelle Obama wore the $450 sneakers to an event about feeding poor people, which is, of course (I'd guess) not in her article (and if it is I'll eat humble pie). Gandydancer (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry BR - this is pure clickbait POV spin about an article of clothing, and whatever else media is trying to make of it to distract from important issues and what appears to be the caving-in of the entire Russian collusion argument that you have spent so much time trying to establish - the jacket story doesn't belong in this article, and what the biased media tries to make it seem doesn't belong, either. Again - POV spin and noncompliant with NPOV. Editors have that discretion and should exercise it for the sake of the project. 16:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class biography articles
- C-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Low-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Arts and entertainment work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class fashion articles
- Low-importance fashion articles
- C-Class New York City articles
- Mid-importance New York City articles
- WikiProject New York City articles
- C-Class Slovenia articles
- Mid-importance Slovenia articles
- All WikiProject Slovenia pages
- C-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- C-Class WikiProject Women articles
- All WikiProject Women-related pages
- WikiProject Women articles
- C-Class Catholicism articles
- Low-importance Catholicism articles
- WikiProject Catholicism articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
- Spoken Misplaced Pages requests