Talk:Melania Trump speech plagiarism controversy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Melania Trump speech plagiarism controversy redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

United States: Presidents

	United States portal This redirect 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 Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents.

Length

@Skibumpmc: Can you point to a specific source to verify the claim that "The allegedly plagiarized statements represent about 30 seconds of Melania Trump’s 14 ½ minute speech." (?) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To 2016_Republican_National_Convention

There's rough consensus here that Melania's speech plagiarism doesn't deserve a standalone article. Relevant content should be included in Melania Trump and 2016 Republican National Convention as appropriate. (I've come here because there's a WP:ANRFC asking for formal closure of this discussion.) Deryck C. 09:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This blip on the radar doesn't seem notable for a standalone article. It's also very poorly written and does not give the reader good context regarding the controversy. 166.70.213.246 (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article should be merged, though I think it should be merged into both 2016 Republican National Convention and Melania Trump. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale can be found here. I think the subject meets our our notability standard but I'm in favor of merging since there's no significant benefit to keeping this content in a separate (short) article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I completely disagree. IP: I think the incident is independently notable, and yes, the article has problems. So be bold and fix it! DrFleischman: The fact that you've suggested multiple articles to merge this content shows the need for its own space. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We just had this discussion, a majority of editors in my opinion thought that a split-off was needed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Knowledgekid87 is referring to this discussion: Talk:Melania_Trump#separate_article_needed_on_speech.3F ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2016 Republican National Convention#Melania Trump's speech. And in fact don't merge very much of the vastly over-reported material in this article; the section at the RNC article contains enough detail. This is a one-day-wonder, a very minor sideshow to the convention, not worthy of an article based on either its coverage (covering two or three days at most) or its lasting importance. --MelanieN (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another Believer, thank you for the link the the discussion at the Melania Trump talk page. And it does not appear to be true that "a majority of editors" favored a separate article, at least not now. According to my count, it is four in favor of a separate article (User:Wikimandia, User:Knowledgekid87, User:Another Believer, and User:Buster7) and five against (User:Malik Shabazz, User:Volunteer Marek, User:DE88, User:StarMountain, and User:DrFleischman). Pinging them all to this page for a formal discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the usual "proposed merger" notices to this article and to the RNC article. I'll put something at Talk:Melania Trump also. --MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Although the proposed merge/redirect target is the RNC article, obviously some material about the subject would be retained at Melania Trump as well. --MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There will be a million (possibly an underestimate) of these stories coming out for the rest of the campaign. They get news coverage, but WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT apply. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge info should be in the Melania Trump and the 2016 Republican National Convention articles, given due weight.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge although I am not American and don't know exactly how big a story this is (and I am not a psychic so I don't know the notability in years to come), this is something which can be summarised fully and fairly on Mrs Trump's biography page and the page on the convention '''tAD''' (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus, Merge! I see why this should not be an undue amount of content on Melania's page, but the idea that every little thing that's in the news needs its own article is embarrassing. Reywas92^Talk 20:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dual merge to 2016 Republican National Convention and Melania Trump bio - per above, this can be fully covered there. Neutrality^talk 20:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2016 Republican National Convention#Melania Trump's speech and for obvious reasons this does not need its own page. Just a bunch of editors wanting to add as much information to qualify this article as "stand alone". De88 (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remerge to Melania Trump and merge to 2016 Republican National Convention. This should have remained a redirect and probably never have been forked in the first place, and I'm surprised that such an experienced editor did so; it was extensively discussed per weight on that article, there wasn't really a consensus to do so, and that aside from being a candidates wife, this is about the only thing for which she's received significant coverage (and bolsters her notability per WP:GNG). I don't think there's much concern of WP:RECENTISM, as (while not crystal balling) this will likely continue to be mentioned throughout the campaign in different contexts, and unlikely to be "a blip" in her biography, if only because of the denial of plagiarism. As the campaign goes on, and if he wins the presidency, there's going to more to flesh out her biography. Fact is that if weren't for the campaign, she wouldn't merit an article per any of the notability guidelines. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of this entry is information that came out as the story was developing, and it was written by people who didn't know exactly what was going on. The defense by Jason Miller for example now turn out to be moot, since it was plagiarized. McIver's final story is a credible and mostly benign explanation. I think we should move the small amount of useful information here to the section in the main Melania Trump article, and delete this one. We might have a short "reaction" sentence or two, with all the footnotes for the benefit of anybody who wants to plough through it. (BTW, John F. Kennedy used to plagiarize all the time. The line "a special place in hell" comes from Dante's Inferno. His unattributed classical quotes were a source of great entertainment for those who knew Latin and Greek.) --Nbauman (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps my decision to fork content was premature, but I did so when I felt there was more approval than disapproval, and given the length of the section dedicated to the plagiarism controversy (which outweighed other content within her biography). I still think the incident is independently notable, but clearly others disagree, and that's fine. But, in my defense, there are still ongoing discussions about the appropriate length of the section within the 2016 RNC article and the M. Trump article, so we just need to find the right balance here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its amazing how many editors come out of the woodwork once an article is merged. How about WP:UNDUE being a good reason not to merge this back into a BLP article? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you did the right thing in forking Another Believer - thank you. For BLP purposes it was the right move. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Cases like these are difficult in that it seems like it could be deserving of its own page, but we really don't know how much coverage it is going to receive. This certainly deserves a section on Melania Trump's page and a paragraph for the 2016 RNC, but right now I don't think it's worthy of its own article. In all likelihood, it'll be forgotten in a couple of weeks. Orser67 (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a standalone event that is notable on its own. Many articles exist on speeches at national conventions, and not just from candidates. There is even Clint Eastwood at the 2012 Republican National Convention. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Eastwood was a completely different story, because Eastwood has had a long and storied career and is much more notable for many things other than his 2012 speech. His article is much, much longer than Melania Trump's. See WP:WHENSPLIT. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DrFleischman: The issue is WP:UNDUE when it comes to her BLP, split off articles don't always have to be long as we have WP:STUB. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Four years later and the Clint Eastwood issue is not talked about at all from the big media corporations. The fact that this is a "stand alone" article baffles me. The editors who are begging to keep this article are trying to jam so much information on here to keep it when the majority has said to "merge" the article. No surprise there. They also want to claim this is a "huge" scandal and issue that will impact all of mankind. As if. De88 (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOTTEMPORARY, if something is deemed notable then it doesn't all of a sudden become not notable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2016 Republican National Convention#Melania Trump's speech, per WP:MERGETEST. This occurrence is best explained in the context of the RNC. --Shadow (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and do not merge this into Melania Trump. Just edit that article's existing reference to this article into 2016 Republican National Convention#Melania Trump's speech. --Shadow (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2016 Republican National Convention and mention it in Melania Trump article. It is not notable on its own, and like others are saying, we don't know how much coverage it will receive in the next couple of weeks and even this year. ✉cookiemonster✉ ^𝚨755𝛀 01:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move back to Melania Trump, leave a brief summary (and Wikilink) at 2016 Republican National Convention. Rationale for not having its own article: WP:EVENT, especially WP:LASTING, which says "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect." At this point, I think it's just too soon to tell whether this is or isn't sufficiently notable for its own article. Rationale for moving to Trump's article and not RNC: In my view, readers will look for this at Trump's article and not the RNC article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this event, the extensive plagiarism, will have more historic resonance than the convention itself. For that reason it should have its own article. Another interesting and noteworthy reason to keep is that its the first time since Trump campaign began that they have made a public apology or acknowledged that any mistake "may" have been made. Didn't I see some mention during one of the early Wednesday broadcasts that The RCN claimed it was the most discussed speech in the long history of convention speeches? Another remarkable tidbit is that Donald didn't tweet about it right away. In fact he has barely mentioned it. Merge may win out but eventually an article will be needed to gather the facts, and the multi-faceted history, of this strange occurrence. Buster Seven Talk 04:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC) In an article about the speechwriter, Merideth McIver, the NYT said she "...is suddenly at the center of one of the biggest political stories in the country." Buster Seven Talk[reply]

Probably you should read the wikiarticle Media bias in the United States, specially this section here. Leo Bonilla (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I might suggest you read the article Prejudice and ask that you not prejudge a fellow editor. I may be liberal but I am not biased any more than you are. Buster Seven Talk 00:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Buster Seven Don't take it personal. I'm referring about media coverage, not about any personal thoughts because people are free to believe in whatever they want according to the First Amendment and WP:NOTFORUM. And about your analogy, I think neither of us are biased, we're just giving our respective WP:NPOV. Leo Bonilla (talk) 06:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a big deal, and a huge scandal that will be remembered as much as Joe Biden's. And so, he deserves an entry and this doesn't? I suspect Trump supporters want to pretend it didn't happen, and an entry keeps it alive. But it will be remembered. Archway (talk) 07:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? How does Biden "deserve" an "entry"? Reywas92^Talk 07:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Archway The level of bias you demonstrate is ridiculous. I highly doubt this issue will be remembered in the future. Anti-Trump supporters are forcing this to become some well-known issue so that they could use it against Trump himself. I find no neutrality in your comment and your decision to keep this article is quite absurd considering it happened several days ago with the latest article from a big media company published around 11 to 20 hours ago. Yeah, this issue will be "remembered". I don't see round the clock news reports on this the way an actual "remembered" issue typically fares. De88 (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92 The level of your bias, as a Trump supporter who's convinced he must not let a famous scandal, after far less got entries, to be marked in the history books by hiding it in Melanie's entry -- is more unacceptable to me. I'm not anti-Trump. I'm just stunned how Trump supporters like you are trying to delete this must-written entry. Archway (talk) 04:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archway: I'm a Trump supporter?!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I'm just not a fan of having lots of separate articles for things that could be covered in another. I'm all for including sufficient content about the plagiarism in the convention article. Reywas92^Talk 17:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it seems you are not aware (maybe you are even ignorant) about Wikipedia policies. You are doing personal attacks accusing other editors of being Pro-Trump and not assuming good faith about other opinions from editors and this kind of things are not acceptable. Before you use this talk page again you should get informed about Wikipedia standards like WP:RECENTISM, WP:N, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:SOAP. Consider this a WARNING as if you keep this behavior you can make someone go to the administrators and get blocked. Leo Bonilla (talk) 07:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Check the wikiarticle Media bias in the United States, specially this section here, and then you tell me. Leo Bonilla (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dual Merge: This is more about Melania than Trump candidacy itself... Have you notice the big number of speakers in the RNC apart of Melania, including Ted Cruz??? And nobody will touch that section in question in the RNC 16 wikiarticle (except for WP:VANDALISM), where the speech mention should be as we won't probably remember Melania's words in the future whoever is elected POTUS because America will have more important issues in the future (WP:RECENTISM). And tell me that anyone remembers Clint Eastwood at the 2012 Republican National Convention!!! Leo Bonilla (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"And tell me that anyone remembers Clint Eastwood at the 2012 Republican National Convention!!!" Funny you should ask. That Clint Eastwood speech in 2012 was the subject of a BOOK in November 2013, and was still being written about as recently as January 2016. That's why we have an article about Clint Eastwood at the 2012 Republican National Convention; because it WAS of lasting notability. In contrst, this Melania Trump issue will be forgotten in a week and should not be a standalone article. --MelanieN (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN Good point! And that was because Clint made a good running gag with the empty chair noticing here in this cartoon for the Chicago Tribune. But Melania Trump: mmmmmmmm......????? Leo Bonilla (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But not everything written up in a book is therefore notable in its own right. This one doesn't seem all that big. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to RNC and to Melania per WP:NOTNEWS. This won't be remembered by this time next week, let alone next year. p b p 17:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it. Having a standalone article is a prime example of recentism. In the long run, this is (practically) nothing. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and merge – The facts and drama can be covered in 4 lines, tops. — JFG ^talk 04:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and merged the content into the 2016_Republican_National_Convention based on the consensus reflected here. 166.70.213.246 (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your merger was undone. I have asked for an independent closer at WP:AN/Requests for closure. I would respectfully ask all editors to refrain from being bold and deleting this article until this discussion is closed. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Malik Shabazz Yeah a 16 vote for a "merge" (correction: 18 votes) and a 5 vote for "keep" needs an "outsiders eye". (Personal attack removed) Merge. De88 (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC) Duplicate !vote striken. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@De88: Please be courteous. The discussion has only run four days; seven days is standard. This is leaning strongly toward merge but it is not a snowball situation. --MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Timeline

Would it be helpful to construct a timeline of responses by people associated with Trump's campaign? Much of the coverage about this incident has been about how long it took for the campaign to respond, and noting discrepancies and contradictions between responses. I hesitate spending time on this article if it's just going to be merged... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Might need some help in obtaining "Consensus" here re one new insertion about party affiliation

What was a holy war edit war has calmed down:

We are discussing our difference of opinion regarding this edit on the talk page here.

However, further input is welcome. Thank you.96.59.186.103 (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also need help here

The above request for help concerns the McIver page, but the same disagreement is found right here in this page's article. Please, other editors, weigh in. Not the most important issue, but still newsorthy, as party affiliation in a political role, is usually NOT different, as is the case here. In other words, I think my edit should be put back in. Others, plz weigh in. Thx.96.59.186.103 (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, Another Believer _(Talk), here is my gripe: You admit, right here that my earlier edit was OK - but just needed some cleaning up. But then, right here, you disagree with both yourself and myself. What in the world?? I think that is odd for you to disagree with both of us.96.59.186.103 (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- UPDATE: You and I disagree, but the tie is broken by virtue of the fact that some (even if not total) WP:Consensus was reached on this point in the sister article, here, and thus, since I waited for feedback, and reached some level of consensus, I am giving notice of putting back in that section: Since the speech writer works for a political cause, party affiliation is noteworthy.96.59.186.103 (talk) 05:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

McIver never blamed Melania

McIver never used the word blame. McIver never blamed Melania. Wikipedia must not put words in McIver's mouth, nor let others put words in McIver's mouth. So please delete that sentence in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.234.214 (talk) 02:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, an unregistered editor "Yahoo" making dumb comments, but, hey, I'M an unregistered editor, so I'm not going to make fun of you or insult you (just a little humour, here, OK?).

BUT, with all due respect, you are wrong, and others agree with my view - there is STRONG WP:CONSENSUS to that effect:

173.65.234.214 (talk), can you not read!? With all due respect... it says that McIver "took blame," but then goes on to use the word 'but,' a conjunction which shows CONTRAST, and that would be ... part of the blame is on Ms. Trump, in contrast to part (probably most) on McIver, the speechwriter. Yes, it DID show that there was "shared" blame on both sides. Doy... THIS is why I am not a registered editor, because nonsense runs amok. Use common sense, my friend ... I know you are smarter than that. :) Thus, Buster Seven Talk is correct when he or she says, in the diff, below, that: "Sounds like culpability for Mrs. Trump to me." -- Correct: Blame to be had on both sides, if the reader simply READS the article, hello?. Thx.

If you don't believe me, see this diff, here, which shows consensus for the "shared blame" assessment. Source disagrees with you, and consensus from most others agrees that source places "shared" blame. Overruled on appeal.96.59.186.103 (talk) 05:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful about how you state this kind of ideas WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NOR. Leo Bonilla (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the word blame, McIver never said she blamed Melania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.234.214 (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I might try to reword it to be a literal quote from the news source, if this is a concern of yours. Thank you for your feedback.96.59.147.247 (talk) 01:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite correct that McIver never said blame. One reporter (your source) thought she implied blame. I have tried to insert wording that makes that clear but it has gotten reverted. --MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After reverting your edit, I saw what editors had done at Meredith McIver. I thought the wording there was superior to either version here, so I harmonized the two articles, attributing the word "blame" to the Associated Press. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]