Talk:Melania Trump/Archive 5

RfC about Melania Trump's lawsuit
Should any mention of the libel suit for defamation, if it's added, be commingled with and made directly relevant to commentary about Trump's planned business? --04:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC) (rephrased per requests. --Light show (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC))

Survey

 * No: They are separate issues and the sources make that clear. --Light show (talk) 04:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course it is. More to the point, I object to this RfC, following immediately on the heels of a previous month-long RfC, which was closed with a conclusive consensus that the material should be included in the article. We have been discussing the wording to be used in that material; that discussion appears to be close to reaching consensus. But it is a consensus that User:Light show disagrees with. So Light show, who has carried on a months-long crusade against that idea, has now opened this second RfC in what is clearly an attempt to prolong the process and keep the material out of the article by any means necessary. I request speedy closure of this RfC as a bad faith attempt to game the process. --MelanieN (talk) 06:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I now understand that this new RfC is about an attempt to change the consensus wording #5, AFTER it has been inserted into the article. But the RfC as stated here leaves it completely unclear what change in the wording is being suggested. Clarification is needed to make this RfC meaningful. After Light show explains, "in the form of a simple yes/no question" as they promised, what change they want to make to make in the chosen wording, I will then be able to respond with a yes/no answer. --MelanieN (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it's irrelevant. The conjectured ethics issues are explicitly predicated on Ms. Trump's lawsuit, and discussing them together is appropriate and consistent with NOR and BLP. Rebb  ing  12:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment This RfC is so opaque that I question whether it was instituted in good faith. It is absolutely impossible to respond to such a poorly drafted RfC. Coretheapple (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC) I guess the word I'm searching for is abort this nonsense. Coretheapple (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Abort – This RfC as formulated wouldn't help write an appropriate text as mandated by the previous RfC outcome. — JFG talk 15:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Abort This RfC is invalid because it does not suggest any proposed wording - just a vague question whose application to the article is impossible to divine. In addition, the proposer Light show has become WP:TENDENTIOUS in the "Discussion" section, refusing to answer valid questions, constantly changing the subject, and accusing other editors of various things. I have tried hard to assume good faith and to engage with Light show, but that assumption has become impossible to maintain. I reaffirm my earlier comment (which I struck out earlier) that this is not a good faith RfC and it should be terminated. Somebody please close this malformed RfC down, and consider whether it is time to report Light show for tendentious editing. --MelanieN (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Close and disregard this invalid and disruptive "RfC" and proceed with implementing the wording agreed on above following weeks of discussion and consensus. --Tataral (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * A CBS article, for one, states, Outside of the context of the litigation, however, the claim raises real ethical questions about profiting from being first lady. That implies they are separate issues and should be treated as such. The lawsuit has also been revised to claim defamation as a personal injury only, with no mention of potential lost business income. Therefore the ethics question is no longer relevant to the current lawsuit. --Light show (talk) 04:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Re: MelanieN's strong desire to include the defamatory material, it's worth noting that it might put WP at risk, according to some legal experts:
 * "If defamation is repeated without privilege and without permission, the person who repeated the statement and caused the harm is liable. “A false statement is not less libelous because it is the repetition of rumor or gossip or of statements or allegations that others have made concerning the matter.” In fact, each repetition of a defamatory statement may be considered a separate publication and, therefore, a separate cause of action even if the source is identified."

--Light show (talk) 07:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And from another source, even linking to it is an issue: :"The law for republishing a defamation goes back hundreds of years in English common law, and many courts have affirmed that hyperlinking to a lie is republishing the lie. Further, if the act of hyperlinking can be shown to be malicious, criminal libel penalties (including prison) can be levied."


 * There are so many things wrong with this comment.The Free Speech Clause isn't my forte, but Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act clearly protects Wikipedia (but not individual editors) under these circumstances. See Chi. Lawyers’ Comm. for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc., 519 F.3d 666, 671–72 (7th Cir. 2008).Publishing a libelous statement while acknowledging that it is false is not libel. Here, it is likely both factually incorrect and libelous to claim that Ms. Trump worked as a prostitute. It is beyond dispute (and, thus, not libel) to claim that the Daily Mail reported that Ms. Trump worked for an escort agency, that the Daily Mail retracted its story, and that Ms. Trump is suing the Daily Mail for defamation.Threatening others with incarceration is likely a violation of the policy against legal threats; I have seen editors blocked for less. I suggest you strike out () your second quote. Rebb  ing  12:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That free speech veil could easily be seen through. Had the defamation come from a known reliable source, like the NY Times, then you might be right. But repeating such material from a widely recognized unreliable source may offer little excuse; DM is a tabloid that has been sued for defamation numerous times by famous people. It's blacklisted by WP; we may even have a "duty" to actively avoid repeating their defamatory statements, even if they retracted them. And there are limits to free speech rights, such as pornography (obscenity), child pornography, “fighting words,” and incitement to imminent violence, among them.--Light show (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You're still not grasping the distinction between a defamatory statement and a statement about a defamatory statement. To illustrate:


 * This claim, standing alone, is likely false and defamatory:




 * But this statement about the defamatory statement is both true and not defamatory:




 * If your legal theory were correct, it would be tortious for anyone to republish Ms. Trump's complaint verbatim—an absurd result. Rebb  ing  17:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You didn't understand what I wrote. --Light show (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I will repeat here what I said above, in the discussion that appears ready to be closed by the insertion of Proposal #5 into the article. The question posed in this new RfC does not make clear what change Light show is proposing to make in the wording. 1) In what they said just before posting this RfC, they suggested the issue was whether to include the First Lady / ethics issue in this paragraph, or whether it should be removed as dealing with a separate issue. 2) In their second contribution to this RfC discussion, they suggested it was about whether to remove "the defamatory material," by which I assume they mean replacing the word "escort" with a more general description as I suggested in 5-A. 3) Maybe there is some other change they are proposing, which I have not been able to divine. Light show, please clarify exactly what change in wording you are proposing, as a yes/no alternative, and we will then be able to respond to this RfC. --MelanieN (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You'll first need state whether you've had any prior discussions with me under another username. Same for Rebbing. Years ago two female editors have similarly attacked my attempts to keep a bio neutral and stick to guidelines, and they used the exact same methods: claiming bad faith, claiming an agenda, mind-reading, and threatening me with being blocked. --Light show (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Huh? You refuse to answer an honest question, posed here by several people, until I defend myself against an accusation of being a sock? And where in the world did I claim mind reading, or threaten you with being blocked? This thread gets weirder by the minute. Well, my only other username is User:MelanieN alt, and as far as I know I never crossed paths with you before this page. --MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Using a public forum to claim that I have "opened this second RfC in what is clearly an attempt to prolong the process and keep the material out of the article by any means necessary," is a violation of guidelines to AGF. Trying to lock me out of this discussion, ie. "unless someone other than Light show objects," is not allowed. And your supporting co-editor has the gall to write in the same paragraph that repeating defamation is OK because of free speech, yet my quoting from a legal citation can be twisted to "threatening others with incarceration is likely a violation. I have seen editors blocked for less. I suggest you strike out your second quote." --Light show (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You might notice that I struck the accusation of bad faith, after re-evaluating what you were trying to do here. "Unless someone other than Light show objects" was because your objection was already on record for purposes of determining consensus - as were four supports. (Another person has now objected, so I have not added the material yet; instead I am attempting to agree upon a wording with them.) I am not responsible for what other editors write, even if they happen to agree with me. For that matter, accusing another editor of being a sock without evidence is a WP:Personal attack, but I responded to that accusation in an attempt to move past your "first you need to state" demand and get back to the point. So now will you please explain exactly what you are requesting with this RfC - that is, what wording are you trying to change in the material proposed to be added to the article? As several people have pointed out, this RfC is completely unclear on that point. --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't accuse you of being a sock. I myself changed my username years ago; any editor can change their username by simply asking an admin. And you, as an admin, know that. But once again you've twisted that as a pretext to violate AGF by calling it a personal attack. I consider the odds of being attacked again by two female editors using the same underhanded methods as pretty low. And Rebbing hasn't yet commented to that question. If there are any neutral editors who ask me something, I'll reply to them gladly. --Light show (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, good. Please reply to Coretheapple's request for clarification below. --MelanieN (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * An editor who questions my good faith is implying bad faith. Anyone else?--Light show (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That does it. You are not operating here in good faith and I do not intend to engage with you any longer. I was right the first time - when I accused you of filing and maintaining this RfC in bad faith. --MelanieN (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to say that whether Melanie withdrew the bad faith accusation or not, my assumption of good faith is being stretched to the breaking point and beyond. We need to see an end to the filibuster and relentless wikilawyering. Coretheapple (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with MelanieN that the RfC originator must clarify. If we are engaged in a disruptive, nitpicky, unecessary or "IDIDNTHEARTHAT" exercise then the next step is AE. Enough. Coretheapple (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Given consensus on the inserted text, and remarks of most editors here, would you agree to close this RfC and move on? — JFG talk 21:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The Daily Mail lawsuit
Consensus was reached on this page to include information about the lawsuit she filed against the Daily Mail, including a brief mention of the original allegations that are the subject of the lawsuit, and the fact that those allegations were retracted. We are now tasked with coming up with a wording for this section and a decision of where to include it in the article. I had started a section here at the bottom of the page to discuss it, but I now see that Winged Godric is continuing the discussion above and that is probably a better course. Please go to Talk:Melania Trump and disregard this section. --MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

That the First Lady of the United States took to the public stage to promote birther conspiracies is notable enough for inclusion
This was removed with the justification that it was "needless smear". Just to be clear, this individual took to the public stage to delegitimize the first black US president with a racist conspiracy theory, and it's "smearing" her to make note of this? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thinkprogress and TeenVogue are not reliable independent sources, and the Independent is a transcript, i.e., primary source. Can you find independent reliable sourcing about this? In any case, it would not belong in the "2016 presidential campaign" section since it was in 2011. --MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There is WaPo, New Yorker and Daily Beast, but I concede that this has not gotten the kind of extensive attention that things ssociated with DJT tend to get. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Regardless of sourcing, this looks like a needless smear that some bored journalist dug out for clickbait this week -- it will be gone and forgotten next week, therefore it is not WP:ENCyclopedic. And on top of that you call the article subject racist? Please remember that WP:BLP also applies to Talk pages. — JFG talk 18:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think one sentence is perfectly fine. This is clearly not a minor statement for a first-lady-to-be and the sourcing is adequate. If she was still just a model, that would be different. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Concur. For the first-lady-to-be to accuse a sitting president, on national television, of possibly being illegitimate to the office, is a pertinent historical fact. Sourcing by The Washington Post, The New Yorker etc. clearly demonstrates WP:RS notability. It's her own words, and one cannot "smear" oneself. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The comments were made in April 2011 on an entertainment talk show which was poking fun at Donald Trump on the then-current hot story of the day; it's not a political stance, even less a racist one. "Historically significant"? Give me a break… The 2015 Daily Beast article even precedes Melania's quote with In one of the few instances she has discussed politics publicly. Going back to the transcript, we can see the light-hearted full conversation. Trump-bashing was already in vogue apparently: Donald is very happy with his lovely wife, "insert name here". I joke. Donald`s wife`s name is Melania, which is Slovenian for "get that wrinkled penis off of me". ROFLMAO (not). To which she answers You know that the jokes would be dirty and nasty and very bad. So it's one ear in, one ear out, and you just laugh. Then the talk show host brings the birth certificate issue into the conversation: Well, what is this with the birth certificate obsession? Did he ask to see yours when you met him? and Melania replies I need to put mine anyway because if you want to become American citizen you need to put the birth certificate. I have a birth certificate from Slovenia. And do you want to see President Obama birth certificate or not?, then they argue back and forth for a while and switch to promoting Melania's jewelry line. Really, not a significant event in her life, therefore WP:UNDUE in her bio. — JFG talk 22:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The plain-vanilla sentence does not say her comment was "racist", so I find it telling that you interpret it that way. And I think your comment "Trump-bashing was already in vogue apparently" suggests you are approaching this not from the stance of an objective, pertinent statement but as a Trump supporter, which suggests an inherent bias. Your own earlier use of "smear" when it was something she herself said that concerns a major claim also suggests political bias. So I would say it's not an issue of WP:UNDUE but of whitewashing if one believes her support for a high-profile, discredited conspiracy theory is not pertinent.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Your WP:ASPERSIONS about my motives or my political views are unfounded and uncalled for. Please focus on contents not contributors. The "racist" characterization was introduced by when defending his edit above; I just commented this was inappropriate even for a Talk page, especially as none of the sources make that claim about Ms. Trump's comments. Trump-bashing has been a national sport for decades, well before he turned to politics; there's nothing partisan about mentioning this as a fact; it seems Mr. Trump revels in being criticized, so it's good for both sides I suppose. Finally the journalist's intent to smear and clickbait by digging out this 2011 TV clip is plain obvious; it's also not partisan to point this out, and refrain from including it in an encyclopedic work. — JFG talk 22:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I apologize for not looking more closely at where the "racist" comment originated.
 * That said, your calling this plain and pertinent factual statement a "smear" does nothing to indicate anything other than partisanship. You can't deny she said it. You can't deny the birther conspiracy is a pertinent historical issue. So you simply yell "smear!" and another editor says, "Oh, the Pulitzer Prize-winning New Yorker isn't journalism." I get it. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your apology. The smear component is in the Teen Vogue journalist's unearthing of this old story for clickbait. Then other media jumped on it, obviously, everybody needs to sell paper or electrons. Wikipedia doesn't. — JFG talk 23:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * And denigrating the source as just "an entertainment news show" as if that changes Melania Trump's own words is a common tactic when one cannot argue against the comment. Here is the passage:
 * MELANIA: ...do you want to see President Obama birth certificate or not?
 * BEHAR: I’ve seen it.
 * MELANIA: It’s not a birth certificate. [emphasis mine]
 * BEHAR: Well, it’s a certificate of live birth, which they give.
 * The fact that the future first lady buys into this discredited conspiracy theory is remarkable and historically pertinent. She has the ear of the president like no one else does.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What's denigrating in calling an entertainment talk show what it is? They're fun to watch, probably fun to host and fun to attend. Melania Trump was not interviewed by a political journalist, therefore taking her words too seriously is disingenuous. She probably believed there was something fishy about Obama's records, well so did half of America at the time, and it was good for audience. Just a bit later, the White House released the long-form certificate and everybody forgot about the whole story until Donald Trump accused Ted Cruz of not being natural-born; yeah it seems like an obsession for him — JFG talk 23:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Per the only RS, IMO, the WaPo article merely said that she "defended her husband on TV, saying he was “brilliant” and had a “genius’s mind.” It's a stretch to now turn it into her personal platform. The Daily Beast is just an opinion website. And simply telling an interviewer, I have a birth certificate from Slovenia, and do you want to see President Obama birth certificate or not?, is far from an encyclopedic improvement, IMO. --Light show (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * If The New Yorker, one of the most acclaimed magazines in the world, is not what you consider RS, I am flabbergasted. What rationale would one have for not considering The New Yorker a reliable source? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It's a relative comment, implying that for a political and very non-neutral subject, relying on The New Yorker as a source is a poor choice: The New Yorker is an American magazine of reportage, commentary, criticism, essays, fiction, satire, cartoons, and poetry. In other words, being a good writer is more important for them than being a reliable journalist. --Light show (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * That is simply false: The New Yorker just won three Pulitzer Prizes, including one for what was very much a reportorial story on the Pacific Northwest environment. And in this case, the magazine is simply verifying what was said on air. There can be no possible objection to The New Yorker as RS for that, and so it's clear what we're dealing with here. For shame.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * False or not, anyone cherry-picking a few husband supporting words from a 4,000-word article entitled, The Model American: Melania Trump is the exception to her husband’s nativist politics, which was mostly complimentary, is misusing the source. Misdirected shame, IMO.--Light show (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It's "misusing the source" because it used something that wasn't complimentary. Wow. You people are well-organized but your arguments are transparent. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * But the cherry picking was not transparent. --Light show (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Didn't say it was. I said your argument was transparent. It's not "cherry picking" simply because it wasn't positive. You can't deny she said it. You can't deny the birther issue is a pertinent historical issue. So you slap labels: "Smear!" "Cherry picking!" Who you people are and what you're doing is what's transparent. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of us just want to keep the article about her neutral, so I'm glad you see that as transparent. --Light show (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

You are again casting aspersions on your fellow editors. Please strike your comment "You people are well-organized" which can be construed as a WP:Personal attack. For the record, I am not "organized" with anybody here, just trying to maintain neutrality and encyclopedic decorum on a high-profile BLP. — JFG talk 23:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Additional sources: NYT: "She has echoed his doubts about President Obama’s place of birth" + Houston Chronicle: "The first lady supported her husbands birther theories that claimed former President Obama was not born in the U.S. in a 2011 clip unearthed by Teen Vogue.". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, nobody denies she said what she said. Here is precisely the problem: all sources refer to a 2011 clip unearthed by Teen Vogue, and as explained above this utterance was part of a light-hearted conversation prompted by the talk show host about the hot topic of the day which happened to be the birther theory. It is clickbait from the Teen Vogue journalist, it is not part of a pattern of behaviour or comments by Ms. Trump, and therefore it is undue weight for an encyclopedic biography. — JFG talk 23:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Coverage in WaPo, NYT, New Yorker and Daily Beast predate the Teen Vogue "unearthing" in Jan 2017. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * And again with denigrating sources when one can't deny what was said. Teen Vogue is a Conde Nast publication with high standards, and labeling something "clickbait" because it presents something you don't like is not honest debate. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's still clickbait whether I like it or not. To tell you the truth, I like it, because it's entertaining. Doesn't make it encyclopedic. — JFG talk 23:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's only your opinion that it's clickbait. Stating your opinion as fact ... well, we've seen the kind of a person who does that. Another opinion would be that it's a verbatim quote by an important political figure. And for you to believe that a future First Lady espousing a major conspiracy theory is not historically pertinent and is simply "entertainment" would be remarkable to me if I didn't have a pretty good idea of where you're coming from. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, "clickbait" is my opinion and you are free to disagree. Now I am also free to disagree with your opinion about the seriousness of this affair. You write: "it's a verbatim quote", yes nobody denies that, "by an important political figure", no she was just the wife of a brash real estate mogul back then (still is essentially that, as most sources have noted that she was notably far removed from Trump's campaign, compared to all the prior future first ladies in history, and even today she stays as far as possible from the White House and from political discourse). And commenting on the scandal of the day that had been stirred up by her husband, what did you expect her to say? "Oh no, Donald is full of shit, everybody knows this." No, this 30-second excerpt of an entertainment-cum-self-promotion program is evidently not a historical event. And you have no idea where I'm coming from; please stop with the personal innuendo. — JFG talk 23:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, having to cite from a teeny-bopper magazine aimed at girls too young to even vote, is a bit pathetic.--Light show (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * what did you expect her to say? "No comment"? "That's Donald doing his thing"? "I don't really get why he's so hung up on the birth cert"? Lots of options. just the wife of a brash real estate mogul back then (still is essentially that) OK, but we need to write stuff about her. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The replies you suggest would have been well-inspired indeed. What do you mean by "we need to write things about her"? As long as we write encyclopedically-relevant things, sure we do; I don't think this incident rises to this level. — JFG talk 01:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this encyclopedic? This sort of shit takes up at least a quarter of the article. In comparison, her comments on birtherism are much more important and interesting. They are in fact prettyinteresting and, to some, instructive. You have to come to terms with the fact that Wikipedia is not — and probably shouldn't be — Encyclopaedia Britannica, or the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. The latter would read: "Melania Trump was a model and wife of president Donald Trump in the era of Miley Cyrus and resurgent American Nativism. The END." (An allusion to the anecdote: "Leonid Brezhnev was a prominent statesman during the era of Alla Pugacheva.") Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh I'd love to mercilessly trim the mini-Donald tabloid cutesy too! — JFG talk 07:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ — JFG talk 09:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Should I create a RfC or is there enough support here to go ahead and include a sentence on this sourced to WaPo, NYT, Chron and the New Yorker? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The discussion above still looks rather polarized, with 3 editors supporting the inclusion, 2 opposing it and 1 neutral. A formal RfC sounds reasonable at this point, to gather wider input. — JFG talk 14:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like 4 in favor (if User:MelanieN finds the coverage by NYT, WAPO, Chron and NYorker sufficient), 5 if User:Volunteer Marek who has restored this content also supports, with 2 against. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I counted MelanieN as neutral until she expresses herself. You're right about Marek. But however we count people, WP is not a democracy. As we stand, opponents haven't convinced supporters, and supporters haven't convinced opponents. — JFG talk 14:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you all, but I oppose including this. It was a one-time comment, responding to a question. It got virtually no coverage at the time but was dug up out of the archives, five years later, because of her position. I don't see her trumpeting the idea, or pushing it. She was asked a question about something her husband says, and in response she echoed one of his talking points. I would leave it out. --MelanieN (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I would leave out this "material" as well, unless there is more to the story than has been presented so far. --Malerooster (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * RE "opponents haven't convinced supporters, and supporters haven't convinced opponents" and that we do not vote-count. You're correct that discussions hinge on the quality of the arguments pro and con. So I need to say this:


 * Those against including the comment denigrated The Joy Behar Show, on which the comments inarguably were made, and The New Yorker, which reported the exchange. By Wikipedia standards, The Joy Behar Show is a reliable source for verbatim comments by interviewed guests, as much as any other talk show. The proof is that no one here has an iota of doubt that Melania Trump made that comment. And The New Yorker is a Pulitzer Prize-winner and one of the most respected magazines in the world. So those falsely denigrating those sources were in essence yelling, "Fake news!" If you're falsely claiming "fake news," then you're conceding you can't argue with the facts themselves.


 * Second: Those saying "Well, she didn't mean it — what else could she say?" are practicing dishonest Sean Spicer obfuscation: "Wire tapping doesn't mean wire tapping." And on a purely Wikipedian level, that's not an argument: It's only one's POV opinion, and another POV opinion would be just the opposite, that there are a lot of things she could have said or she could even have just sidestepped the question. If you're not a mind-reader and you're claiming, "Well, she didn't mean that," then you're conceding you can't argue that she said it.


 * Wikipedia is the last place on earth where Trumpian false claims of "fake news" and "wire tapping doesn't mean wire tapping" should be. As someone said, facts are not a liberal conspiracy. If the opponents have to rely on these kinds of arguments, then they're not making valid points and the comment should go back in.


 * The only real question, free of all this smokescreening, is: Is it significant that a future first lady, during a campaign, expressed support for a discredited conspiracy theory? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Methinks you are introducing an admirable double-strawman argument here:
 * Nobody has yelled "fake news", you're the only one bringing up this bizarre idea. From the transcript and the video, it is clear that both Melania and Joy Behar made their comments in a light-hearted way, as was fitting in the context of this entertainment program; saying that is not disparaging, it's simply stating that this segment can't be compared to a serious political interview — I'm sure Joy would agree.
 * Nobody said "she didn't mean it", I even wrote above She probably believed there was something fishy about Obama's records, well so did half of America at the time, and it was good for audience.
 * So I totally agree with you that she said it and she meant it. But to your "only real question" at the end, the answer is "no, it is not significant", and coverage of this brief video snippet has not reached any significant level either. — JFG talk 23:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I respect your calm and reasonable answer, and I'm glad we agree on the background issues. I will say that calling The Joy Behar Show and, remarkably, The New Yorker non-RS sources does seem like calling them "fake news." As for "What did you expect her to say? "Oh no, Donald is full of shit, everybody knows this.", that's very much saying "she didn't mean it." But all that aside, I'm glad we're down to the real question, and I'm interested in editors' comments about that question. I've given reasons why I believe the comment is significant. I'm not sure I understand your reason as to why you believe "the answer is 'no, it is not significant'". That's an opinion, which is fine, but it's not a reason.  --Tenebrae (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Tenebrae, I don't know who you think you are talking about, when you claim that those who oppose including this call it "fake news" or denigrate the sources. I haven't said anything like that, and I haven't seen anyone else say it. Please try to address the real arguments, not ones you are making up. Nobody denies that she said it, a fact which is reported by reliable sources. That's not the question. The question is clearly defined by the title of this section: whether the fact that she said such a thing "is notable enough for inclusion". That is what is at issue here. IMO it is not notable enough, based on the weight or amount of coverage by Reliable Sources. Coverage at the time she said it: pretty much nothing. Coverage now that she herself is so prominent: minimal. We have the Independent (a transcript), ThinkProgress (a partisan blog), and TeenVogue (a fluff magazine, not real journalism) . (Doing some research, I find that Teen Vogue has occasionally tackled serious political subjects of late, although it still spends most of its ink on style and celebrities.) Her comment is also mentioned in passing in profiles of her in the Washington Post, New Yorker Magazine, Houston Chronicle, and New York Times; those are the Independent Reliable Sources we need, but they do not focus much attention on this aspect of her. In addition I found a story at Daily Kos, a partisan blog. So that's four passing mentions in mainstream sources; a few actual stories on partisan blogs; and one in a fluff magazine. And every one of these reports is based on a few sentences in a single interview, in which she was responding to questions. As far as I could find that was the ONLY time she ever said anything on the subject of Obama's birth. She never volunteered anything on the subject; that is one reason to exclude it. The other, more important reason is that as far as I could find there has never been a major story about this comment of hers in any major, independent, mainstream source. Coverage is what makes something notable enough to include; that is policy. Coverage is insufficient, by a mile, to merit inclusion of this comment. --MelanieN (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * --Please don't put up strawmans'! On the matter of inclusion I echo pretty much what has already said on the matter.Cheers!  Winged Blades Godric 03:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I haven't put up any straw men: Editors were claiming that The Joy Behar Show talk show and, incredibly, The New Yorker were not reliable sources. If editors are claiming, remarkably, that those are not reliable sources, then they're saying that what was being reported was fake news. One doesn't have to use those exact two words when claiming that actual news sources are not reporting something real.


 * That said, I reiterate what I said before: that we have agreement on all these background factual issues and now the question is solely one of notability. I can't fathom why a future first lady supporting a crazy conspiracy theory isn't considerable notable. If Michelle Obama had said she supported Barack Obama's claim that UFOs are real or that Hillary Clinton had that Foster guy killed, I'm quite sure you'd support inclusion. I certainly would. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Poorly sourced education details
After checking the sources questioning her degrees, none of the three support the commentary. The Politico one was a brief repeat from a Twitter post. Another cite in the Cleveland Plain Dealer is citing a non-existent third-party bio source. While The Telegraph cite only refers to "questions raised." In effect, the only support that there were any false claims, is based on innuendo, or a synthesis of comments, violating BLP guidelines: ie. Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. I'm removing the material until more accurate sources can be found. --Light show (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

New official portrait released
The White House has released her first official portrait as FLOTUS. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/flotus.png --Bigeyedbeansfromvenus (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I already uploaded TexasMan34 (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think we can use this. Whitehouse.gov doesn't give any information about its creator, and the metadata cites "MAHAUX PHOTOGRAPHY" as the rights-holder. The copyright exception for federal government works only applies when a federal employee produces something in the course of his official duties. A photograph produced by a private firm and licensed to the White House isn't in the public domain. Rebb  ing  16:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * But if it's released as an (or the) official White House image wouldn't that count as free use on this page? If so this should replace the infobox image. Randy Kryn 17:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * By "free use," do you mean fair use? Because our non-free content policy doesn't allow fair use images when free equivalents are available. (In practice, it forbids fair use photographs of living persons altogether.) Rebb  ing  17:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, fair use, thanks. The policy may cover this, but maybe an exception to the policy would be in order since this now seems to be the official White House photograph of the US First Lady. As the official photograph it will be used "everywhere", so maybe it's a question of who really owns the copyright of an official photograph. Maybe too early to replace the infobox image with it, but this seems an unusual case and one that maybe should be discussed further to see if there's wiggle-room for Wikipedia usage. Randy Kryn 17:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd love to be corrected, but I'm almost certain that copyright doesn't work like that. The fact that the White House may have obtained a license to distribute this photograph and use it as an "official" portrait doesn't extinguish the copyright owner's rights and turn it into a public domain image. Our non-free content criteria, which are more restrictive than copyright law, contain no exception for cases like this. Rebb  ing  18:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Her Twitter account says this is the "Official Portrait of First Lady". On the Photographer's website, a press release is titled 'La photographe belge de Donald Trump le trouve "formidable"', which translates to 'The Belgian photographer of Donald Trump finds it "formidable"' (see Google Translate). He has done photographs for the Trump family before, so I'm guessing he is working for the Administration. People.com and ABC News have reported he is with the White House. Therefore, I am going to say it is in the Public Domain by the US Government. Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 18:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My real-life specialty is habeas, not copyright law, but I'm pretty sure you're mistaken. The copyright exception for works of the federal government given at 17 U.S.C. § 105 applies only to "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties." Id. § 101. Therefore, I'm going to say that a work produced by a private photographer employed by the Trump family is not guaranteed to be in the public domain. Rebb  ing  18:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I wonder how we'd deal with a private photographer who retained copyright to the image but had been hired by the White House, rather than directly by the Trump family. Would their copyright be void, if as a contractor they were an employee of the US Government? UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not confused. I know the rules. That was just a press release saying he's a Trump photographer who has done work with his family before. For all we know, either Regine Mahaux is working for the Government, or they have released all rights to the United States Government. You could go further and contact The White House and see if they'll provide you with an answer... Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 21:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you are confused. We don't make guesses like that; and a press release saying that Mr. Mahaux has worked for the Trumps doesn't prove that he's an employee or officer of the federal government itself, as is required for that exception. However, it's been pointed out in this Commons deletion discussion that the White House asserts that, unless otherwise specified, all works appearing on its website are licensed under a Creative Commons license (CC-by-3.0-US). There was no licensing information mentioned alongside this photograph, so I'm satisfied we're free to use it under the blanket license. Rebb  ing  22:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It would also be nice if we had a head and shoulders portrait for the lead, something like this one, but cropped. --Light show (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Rebbing and others - the whitehouse site has a stated copyright policy that everything is available for use. That was enough for the image at Donald Trump, it should be enough for her.   There seems no evidence to doubt it.  And given the number of media and other sites noting it think nobody doubts it's a legitimate image or that it is not widely being portrayed as public domain, yes ?    I think this is simply add the background information that goes with the image some to mention the location and photographer from CNN, and then put it up.  Markbassett (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you pinged me over this. I already mentioned that blanket license and withdrew my objection; earlier this evening, I updated the image description to reflect the proper license (CC-by-3.0-US, not public domain); and the photograph was added to the article about an hour ago. Rebb  ing  00:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Rebbing - why I addressed you was since it was indented to your post of much higher vs the immediately above material was all indented as if about the Twitter account, and I was inputting my own view to your earlier question. At the time I posted the image was the earlier one, having been reverted out again and also being up in a deletion discussion at wikimedia.    Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Everything you said had already been addressed before you graced us with your comment: I pointed out (diff) that the White House has a licensing statement that, unless specified, third-party images are available under a Creative Commons license. I agreed (diff) that we were free to use the image. The licensing and authorial information was already shown on the image (diff). Lastly, no, it hadn't been reverted: the infobox picture had been changed to the White House photograph 35 minutes before your comment and remained so for nearly two hours afterwards.
 * I don't know why you feel compelled to regurgitate what others have already said or done as though you were pointing out something new, but I would greatly appreciate it if you would avoid pinging me or otherwise involving me when you do it. Thanks. Rebb  ing  17:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 April 2017
Change current photo to her official photo that was released 3 April 2017 via White House website as seen here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/first-lady-melania-trump

Uploaded to Commons here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Melania Trump official portrait.jpg Nono1995 (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The image is copyrighted and not free for us to use. Please see the discussion above. Rebb  ing  17:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Rebbing - please show some WP:V support that claim. I see only the whitehouse.gov site copyright policy saying all images are available, which was enough for the Donald Trump image, and reporting of it as 'official' which would seem to require it be in public domain.  Even see some details of it being taken in the white house.  e.g. CNN story Markbassett (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This is already being discussed elsewhere—both above and in the Commons deletion discussion. At the time that I responded to this request, the Commons description claimed, without any proof, that this photograph was the work of a federal government employee or officer—a dubious claim. It's since been pointed out that this image is likely licensed under a Creative Commons license. Also, the verifiability policy applies to articles, not talk pages. If you want to ask someone to back something up, plain English will do just fine: "Please show some evidence for that claim." Rebb  ing  00:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Rebbing If you insist, here it is asked with that phrasing: Please show some evidence for that claim, where above saying "The image is copyrighted", or otherwise indicate why you said that.  Cheers.  Markbassett (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * There is a presumption that creative works are copyrighted—that's why we require uploaders to provide licensing for us to use them. It had been suggested that this photograph was created by an employee of the federal government, but the EXIF information corresponds to a private celebrity photographer, and no evidence has been put forward to show that he was hired (as opposed to contracted) by the federal government. Therefore, it's reasonable to believe that the photograph is not exempt from copyright. At the time of my first comment in this thread, no one had shown any evidence that a license existed for us to use this photograph. Since then, an apparent license has been brought forward that allows us to use the image.
 * All of this is moot and has already been discussed elsewhere; I have no idea why you insist on pinging me to ask me to repeat it to you. Rebb  ing  17:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Rebbing - Thank you for the response.  As to why I asked it -- Because the response to my prior ask why this was asserted copyrighted did not say why you said that, it spoke to otherwise determined and said if I want to get the support to ask it with that specific phrasing.  Being still short on what cause or support against it being creative commons might exist, I followed your request.  Again thank you for the response.  Markbassett (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Poll: should we use the White House portrait or the inauguration picture?
Some editors have changed the subject's picture to a recently-released White House portrait. Some other editors have challenged this edit. Per the DS/1RR process, we should have a discussion where proponents of the change should obtain consensus before applying the new picture. So I'm opening a quick poll: please say "Inauguration" or "White House" with a brief rationale. — JFG talk 02:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Inauguration – Clearer view of her face, no airbrushing, more natural pose, no distracting background. — JFG talk 02:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * White House portrait, but the one uploaded by Gage. Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 02:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nozell or inauguration: The airbrushing in the official photograph is significant, rendering the image a poorer representation of the subject than most of the other images we've considered. We shouldn't let the image's "official" status decide this issue: this article is part of an encyclopedia, not a social media campaign. Rebb  ing  03:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nozell candid: But it should be cropped to the bottom of her hairline, keeping the same 8x10 ratio (example). She's also looking into the article, which is important; it's a relaxed candid; it has no distracting background; it's overall brighter. I'd be happy to add a cropped one. --Light show (talk) 03:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: Can someone, maybe the the uploader, add a cropped Nozell image, which might be useful somewhere in the article? --Light show (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Official portrait as always. The same thing has been discussed to death at Talk:Hillary Clinton. --Pudeo (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's local consensus, and the circumstances are different: Ms. Clinton's official picture is a traditional portrait that fairly represents her appearance. Rebb  ing  12:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So have you analyzed how much of it is airbrush and how much just extensive make-up? IMO discussing this is just silly. --Pudeo (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think demanding quantification of reasonable subjective judgments is silly, but, to answer you, I have: I compared the photograph against other recent photographs in which it's presumable that her makeup was professionally done, particularly those from her husband's inauguration. My understanding of what makeup can and cannot do is derived from works including (1999) and  (2008), the Reddit /r/MakeupAddiction, various YouTube videos, and personal experience. If makeup could make a forty-six-year-old woman look twenty, surely, we would see evidence of it: candid red-carpet photographs, for instance.  Rebb  ing  14:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Official Portrait. All things being equal, that's the standard practice for FLOTUS, near as I can tell. The other pictures may find a home elsewhere in the article, of course, but the main photo should be the official one. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * White House. My main concern is that it does seem airbrushed (she's 19 again!) but in mentioning it I was reminded that since women use make-up as a reality-airbrush anyway, then any photo can be called into question as 'not the real thing'. And I like the composition and the background which, along with her long fingers, gives a modern-art spidey touch to the usually drab official pictures. Randy Kryn 13:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Official Portrait - the practice has been repeatedly stated many places to use the official portrait (photo) that US government makes for Presidents, Cabinet Secretaries, Congressmen, Justices, and other high level officials upon their entry to the office. It is also visible at all recent  FLOTUS articles.  (Except Hillary Clinton, where the later 2009 portrait for Secretary of State is used.)  Markbassett (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Official portrait. It's the consensus, even if de facto, and the official portraits, including this one, are nearly always must better than other images. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Official portrait The official portrait is airbrushed almost beyond recognition, but the other photos aren't great. If a new unofficial portrait-like photo gets uploaded I'd be open to reconsider given the ridiculous extent of retouching, but for now the official portrait is the best we've got. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Libel lawsuit settled
Daily Mail has lost the lawsuit and has had to issue both an apology and a retraction, in addition to paying undisclosed damages. Janieflipyoda (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Done (diff). Rebb  ing  17:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * That is not exactly true. Yugoslavia was not so hard on religion, as other communist countries. And Slovenia had even more religious "liberties", then other republics within Yugoslavia. Only reason why she might not have been christened, would be Party membership of hers parents.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.76.158.162 (talk) 11:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Champion: I see that you've removed the Catholic category. This is someone who recited the Lord's prayer at an event--clearly a woman of faith. Right now there is nothing about Christianity in her article and I find that very troubling.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't currently discuss or cite Ms. Trump's Christianity, so Champion's removal of those categories was appropriate. See WP:CAT § Articles ("It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories."). We're all volunteers. If there's something you find lacking, step up! Do the research and propose (or make) the changes you would like to see made. Rebb  ing  17:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The content was redacted. Yes, we need to restore it.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not appropriate to restore information from a dubious source. Do your own research with good sources and add it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.165.22 (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * According to Bojan Pozar: Melania Trump, p. 112, Melanija was baptized in Raka (where her mother came from) on 14 June 1970. Pozar gives further details and also comments on incorrect reports in the Daily Mail. − Fine book BTW. --Klaus Frisch (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Is that an e-book? I don't know if we can cite e-books--I've never done it--is there a policy? If it's self-published, we can't.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it is published by a Slovenian publisher and available in a printed version or on Amazon Kindle. Just take a look at Amazon for further details. --Klaus Frisch (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I did--I can only find the Kindle editions on Amazon. Can you please provide a link to the printed version?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I just bought it from amzon.de. There is no "look inside", if that's what you want. --Klaus Frisch (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't find it on Amazon.com, can you?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, and in this case even with look inside. :-) --Klaus Frisch (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Good find. (It looks like the author should have an article by the way.) If you are able to cite this properly with page numbers, please add the info with the citation template. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am currently not allowed to edit the article, that's why I posted it here. And I am not used to templates. Incidentally, I have just installed a printer/scanner (I didn't have one for a couple of years). Would you like to have a copy of the relevant page? --Klaus Frisch (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

New Vanity Fair report on Melania Trump
Here is a very detailed report that should have lots of useful facts for this article and those interested in Mrs. Trump: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/donald-melania-trump-marriage -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * For a minute I thought there may be something new to glean from there, alas I can provide a short summary of this slanderous treatment:

"B-rate model turned gold digger bides her time at Trump Tower, neglected and cheated upon by a narcissistic husband who forced her to repeat his birther claims. Stiff and vapid, she finds solace in motherhood, dropping off her son at the most expensive school she could bribe. Her rare appearances on the campaign trail were disastrous, and she can't grasp what being First Lady is about: she really doesn't care, and Ivanka must fill the vacuum. She makes money by suing the press while taxpayers must foot the bill for her protection. Oh Michelle, we miss you so much!"
 * Hope this will spare my fellow editors the time to read such junk. — JFG talk 20:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

You mean your fellow objective, unbiased and NPOV editors? Wikipedia is as credible as editors like you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.60 (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Illegal modelling work by Mrs. Trump
Recently, there've been rumblings that Melania Trump may have worked illegally under a visitor visa. Is this of encyclopedic relevance? Especially since it could lead to a serving FLOTUS being deported, which would be of encyclopedic relevance. Ellenor2000 (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So far this is just rumors and speculation. At this point there is nowhere near the degree and quality of coverage to be added. This almost amounts to an extraordinary item which would require extraordinary coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Understood. Ellenor2000 (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Tribute beer
In May of 2017, The Bull & Bush Brewery in Denver, CO released a tribute beer brewed in honor of Melania Trump. Known as ″Melania's Gold: A Tribute to the First Lady″, it is a strong pale ale utilizing Slovenian hops and buckwheat. 174.51.68.54 (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.
 * In my opinion, this isn't the sort of information that belongs in the article. Thoughts, anyone? Rebb  ing  16:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Exclude – sounds gratuitously promotional for a local business. — JFG talk 19:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Knav or Knavs
The article linked to at footnote 2 gives her birthname as Knav. The article linked to at footnote 3 gives Knavs. Is there a definitive source for one? I realize her father's name is given as Knavs - does that count? or is the logical deduction that hers was the same, original research? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)