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 Pc Retro (talk | contribs) at 21:48, 16 May 2019 (→Removed "first non-native English speak": new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Citzenship status

For someone who the article already makes plain worked in the U.S. illegally before obtaining proper permission, the omission of her history of immigration and U.S. citizenship seems very odd and suspicious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.113.104.20 (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fake Melania

I think the body double conspiracy theory has gotten enough coverage to at least be mentioned somewhere here. Avril Lavigne has hers mentioned.--Pokelova (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

a quick google search suggests multiple verifiable sources (people, vox, esquire, junkee, fox & sky news) that discuss it as a 'conspiracy theory'. It could qualify on it's own as an article so I think a simple section in this article would be warranted, with a mention of the two major 'sightings' of a fake melania (the houston tornado yesterday and the incident in October 2017). Macktheknifeau (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Uh? If this speculation is only mentioned as a "conspiracy theory" (I'd call it a hoax, because even if true, there would not seem to be any cabal conspiring to hide it), there is no reason we should give it a platform. The same nonsense was brought up about Hillary Clinton during her campaign, and I don't see that appearing in her article. Rightfully so. — JFG talk 05:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has entire categories and massive pages dedicated to "conspiracy theories" eg List of conspiracy theories, Antisemitic canard, 9/11_conspiracy_theories etc and articles aren't based on if people feel something should be "given a platform" or not they are based on neutral POV writing from reliable sources. If Pizzagate conspiracy theory can exist as a "platform", then a paragraph on Fake Melania is hardly out of order. I'm not personally interested in writing about it, but it's a topic that can be written about as per normal guidelines. Clinton did have a health scare during the campaign and it was one that was written about by multiple highly mainstream sources, so I wouldn't be surprised if it actually was included in writing about her campaign. On a final note, wouldn't there be some official photographs from the US President's office regarding the "Fake Melania" that could be uploaded here under public domain and compared with the 'real' Melania, and let people reading such an article decide on their own? Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds WP:UNDUE to me. And no, we shouldn’t upload photos for readers to compare. Even assuming photos are not retouched, they are taken under different conditions. O3000 (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Hello editors. I revered a revert made by @Gandydancer:, believing I was within the article's parameters to do so based on "Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)." I did not read the "Enforced BRD: If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit) before reinstating your edit. Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts." I realize I did not take this to the talk page as I should have. I would happily revert my revert (?) to address this issue. I absolutely want to stay within the WP guidelines for editing high profile articles. Any thoughts on this? Thank you. --Kbabej (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for the message. Hopefully a few others will check in as well. I work on several political women's articles and it is pretty much frowned on in them. Gandydancer (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is frowned on in them? The revert? Or the cultural depictions section? --Kbabej (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the copy that I removed is not appropriate for this article and I'd be surprised to see anything similar in any of our other articles. I feel it should be deleted immediately. Since no page watchers have commented I've asked for an opinion from an admin. Gandydancer (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kbabej, are you satisfied with the compromise? I don't really like it but it seems fair to me. Gandydancer (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forked out Cultural depictions of Melania Trump before reading this discussion. I strongly disagree with removal of Plastique's impersonation on RuPaul's Drag Race. I've added this to the new article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at other Cultural depiction articles it is my impression that these articles impose a much looser requirement for importance than the parent article - see the Jackie Kennedy article for example. IOW, what may be included in the Trump Cultural depictrions article may not meet the level of importance to be included in this article. Gandydancer (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenian citizen?

Her citizenship in the infobox is listed as American only.

I wonder if she also has Slovenian citizenship, as Slovenia permits dual nationality in situations where a Slovene naturalizes to another citizenship. Therefore, Melania would not have been required to renounce her Slovenian citizenship when she became a US citizen.

I can't find any sources stating specifically whether she voluntarily gave up her Slovenian citizenship, so should it be assumed that she still has it? In which case, it should be added alongside "American".

--Getbacktothecarpet (talk) 08:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Photo probably "photoshopped"

It looks like her face was made more "beautiful" via image-editing. We have plenty of other photos to choose from. Let's replace it --Distelfinck (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. But, it appears to be an official WH photo, which would seem the appropriate source. O3000 (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That a photo has the blessing of the article subject should have some weight, but there are other considerations as well, like if a photo is untouched or not --Distelfinck (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is taken from White House's website here. Maybe "image-editing" is just makeup and lightning? There is no difference from the official source material and I don't see any point in this conversation. Sebastian James (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "first non-native English speak"

Hannah Van Buren, Martin Van Buren's wife was a native Dutch speaker.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Melania_Trump&oldid=897415847"