Misplaced Pages

Talk:Melania Trump: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:17, 24 June 2018 editPackMecEng (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers11,511 editsm →Melania jacket: typo← Previous edit Revision as of 23:25, 24 June 2018 edit undoAtsme (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers42,804 edits →Melania jacket: explain speculation, add BBC sourceNext edit →
Line 138: Line 138:
:::''and visiting the site of the Trump Administration's child abuse.'' That is the sad truth. ] (]) 23:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)c :::''and visiting the site of the Trump Administration's child abuse.'' That is the sad truth. ] (]) 23:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)c
::::None of what I said was incorrect, so what do you mean? ] (]) 23:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC) ::::None of what I said was incorrect, so what do you mean? ] (]) 23:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

If you don't believe the media hype about the jacket is anything more than speculation and political spin - read the - and go ahead, pick one that supports your POV. ] That is basically what is happening when we include speculation by media. Do you really believe it has long lasting encyclopedic value - a one time event, nonetheless - and with mid-term elections around the corner? <sup>]]]</sup> 23:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:25, 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.
Article policies
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:

  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
  • Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page

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.

Further information
Enforcement procedures:
  • Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
  • Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
  • Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
  • In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
  • Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
  • Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
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.
WikiProject iconBiography: Arts and Entertainment
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).

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 iconFashion Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconNew York City Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSlovenia Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovenia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Slovenia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SloveniaWikipedia:WikiProject SloveniaTemplate:WikiProject SloveniaSlovenia
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Slovenia to-do list:

Here are some tasks you can do (watch):

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconWomen
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCatholicism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconMelania Trump is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Catholicism task list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Template:Friendly search suggestions

Media mentionThis 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.
Article policies
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 
WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages

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)

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)

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:

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)
I'm just mentioning what that RS says as it relates to this topic, and there are plenty more on that subject in relation to other topics, but that would indeed get us into NOTAFORUM territory. Not going there, but maybe you should on your own time. Get informed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:51, 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 $540 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)
Ummm....actually she put it back on, in 81 degrees, where no jacket was necessary or comfortable. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
RS please? Gandydancer (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Gandydancer, fair enough. Myriad RS mention this, so here's just one, not by just any journalist, but by The Editors: Melania Trump Put the Jacket Back On. She’s Not Tone-Deaf, Just Plain Awful. This isn't an accident. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Well I didn't find the sneakers episode at Michelle's article so I'd suggest that anyone that want's Melania's dumb choice of clothing in this article add the sneaker information to Michelle's first. Gandydancer (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to see the policy basis for that suggestion. I'm fairly certain it isn't in WP:NPOV. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I was being facetious. Gandydancer (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. We do have a policy against that argument. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Um, that's an essay, not a policy, and it isn't clearly against the argument ("These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid."). ―Mandruss ☎ 16:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Good point. Striking It's still a bad argument. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Well I had no idea that anyone would think I was serious about adding the sneakers incident to Michelle's page. Since it seems that I need to clarify that, I do not suggest that an editor add it to her page. Gandydancer (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. One can never know on these articles. I've seen lots of whataboutisms and other irrelevant arguments, all designed to keep anything negative out of Trump-related articles, no matter how well-sourced. One of the most stupid is the "we should just document the facts" argument. No, that's not how it works here. This is Misplaced Pages, not Factopedia or Truthopedia. We document literally everything that can squeeze under the "sum total of human knowledge" umbrella, as long as its found in multiple RS for more than a couple days, true or not. That includes nearly all facts, opinions, suppositions, speculations, conspiracy theories, quackeries, scams, history, religion, events and non-events, etc. All of that is potential content. Some may not make it, but it should be considered. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
You certainly don't need to inform me of all that. Perhaps more than any other editor I have edited more of this sort of information into the Trump parent/child separation article. And even though I am arguing against it, it would not disturb me in the least to see it included. Gandydancer (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Let's not forget about WP:NOTEVERYTHING Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Misplaced Pages article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject --Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Very true. I don't think anyone's seeking exhaustive detail about this, just short mention, with context. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for opening a discussion. I stand by my removal, and my opinion that this is "trivia" and the coverage is "a flash in the pan." Google it and you find (1) actual reporting that is 2-3 days old, and (2) celebrity reaction that is 1-2 days old, and (3) speculation by the usual suspects that wearing it was part of some sinister Administration plan, either to make suckers out of the press or to carry out some design of Putin’s. I firmly believe the press and everyone else will have moved on within the week. And a story which survives for less than a week is the very definition of trivial WP:NOTNEWS. If it is still a significant news story a week from now (any takers on that bet?), we can add it then. --MelanieN (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

As I said on MelanieN's talk page, I take an intermediate stance here. I do not think that we should include any content suggesting that she wore the jacket as an elaborate chess move from Putin's playbook. On the other hand, it is indisputable that she chose to wear that particular inexpensive jacket that contained a provocative message in the context of that particular trip, and that simple fact was covered by many, many reliable sources from a broad international spectrum. I cannot see how briefly mentioning that fact and the wording on the jacket, referenced to one or two high quality mainstream news sources, and perhaps a high quality fashion source, would be anything other than an improvement to her biography.
I notice that the trip to the detention facility is mentioned in the article, and the reference for that trip mentions the slogan on the jacket. It is striking to me that several editors on both sides of the political divide have taken hardened, entrenched views that indicate a battleground mentality. Battling about the header? Bringing up Peter Strzok, who has absolutely nothing to do with this matter? Stating that this incident is "pure clickbait POV spin" without citing a reliable source for that conclusion? Talking on this talk page about an editor's personal conclusions about the "caving-in of the entire Russian collusion argument", as if an editor's opinion about that has anything whatsoever to do with this topic? Hint - it has zero relevance. Where are the efforts here at compromise and building consensus? This conversation just another ugly example of the toxic battleground mentality of too many editors who are heavily involved with contemporary U.S. politics. It has to stop. Cullen Let's discuss it 17:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
You are most welcome, Melanie, although in general I think the reverting editor should state a solid reason for their edit. We just recently added article content about how Melania and Ivanka influenced Trump to soften his policy with respect to child abuse. Under the circumstances, and since RS connect that likely false narrative to this event, I think it requires more than dismissive comments like "trivia" or "nonsense" which really don't get to the nexus of the event or the RS discussion of it. SPECIFICO talk 17:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Cullen, I don't see this discussion as ugly or toxic at all. I have many years of experience in the consensus method for reaching a conclusion and I have faith that it usually ends in something that most editors can live with. In the beginning people do just what we are doing here, brainstorming the different opinions. It is not toxic and should not be seen as such. This is the only way to begin to reach consensus - compromise will come later. My mind is still wide open and I believe that to be true of others as well. Gandydancer (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I support the removal as trivia and do not think we should add speculation on the motive or lack of motive for wearing a jacket while boarding a plane. PackMecEng (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

plane...and visiting the site of the Trump Administration's child abuse.
So, why not? SPECIFICO talk 22:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
She only wore it getting onto the plane to the center, she did not wear it while visiting the center. Might be different if she wore it while there maybe, but who knows. PackMecEng (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
and visiting the site of the Trump Administration's child abuse. That is the sad truth. Gandydancer (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)c
None of what I said was incorrect, so what do you mean? PackMecEng (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

If you don't believe the media hype about the jacket is anything more than speculation and political spin - read the BBC report - and go ahead, pick one that supports your POV. mm That is basically what is happening when we include speculation by media. Do you really believe it has long lasting encyclopedic value - a one time event, nonetheless - and with mid-term elections around the corner? 23:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Categories: