Jump to content

Talk:Meredith McIver

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trump speech

[edit]

She is not apparently the sole writer. According to Haberman, Maggie (19 July 2016). "How Melania Trump's Speech Veered Off Course and Caused an Uproar". New York Times. Retrieved 20 July 2016., Scully and John McConnell wrote it and Trump rewrote most of it. Toddst1 (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Toddst1 - I clarified the wording, added a ref, and removed your tags. Brianga (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"In July 2016, McIver contributed to a speech for Melania Trump" - we have no evidence of this except the unsupported claim by McIver, whose story makes little sense. See Naive Melania Plagiarism, Not McIver Error And Excuse Of course, no claim is made that this is RS, but it may be useful. It does a side-by-side highlighted comparison of Melania and Michelle ... and offers evidence that the McIver story looks very much like a cover-up invented over a day. IF the phone conversation happened at all, either Melania read Michelle's text, which twice says "Barack and I", hard to miss, or else she had already changed the text. Yet, much of the text had to be transcribed perfectly. One really has to look at the side-by-side, including a sentence that seems unlikely to have been written by a speechwriter. See also a slightly-annotated slightly-annotated copy of Melania's speechcopy of Melania's speech, showing sections though to have come from Matthew Scully. So far, despite vigorous efforts, nobody has been able to interview McIver or even find her, or even much trace of existence after about 2010, and there was an immediate flurry of odd social media. Again, none of this RS, but it would seem better to delete the flat claim that she contributed. JohnMashey (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

[edit]

Speedy deletion due to "No indication of importance"? Come on, she helped Trump write multiple books and her name is appearing in headlines around the world right now. AfD would be more appropriate for a real deletion discussion, but speedy deletion does not seem justifiable. ----Another Believer (Talk) 18:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: By the time I wrote the above comment, another user removed the tag. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I deleted it; the article makes claims of notability so the CSD was improper. An AFD would also be silly at this point, but can't stop it in circuses like this, most likely.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenSHK: I deleted this edit because the displayed banner did not link to a discussion about this article, so I don't think the nomination was executed properly. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you guys disagree I respect that, all I was saying is that she is a ghost writer for Donald Trump which in itself is not that notable and the only reason she has a page now is that she was trending due to "sppechgate." As evidenced, she only started having a page this week. If she had one for awhile before this issue, I wouldn't really feel the need to think about it. GoldenSHK (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't doubt you are acting in good faith. I'm just jaded from two many AfDs!--Milowent • hasspoken 18:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Milowent: Haha no I understand. I guess we'll let the community decide from here. It was also revealed that she is a registered democrat so there's just been a lot of conspiracy buzz around the notable event of this person, so I thought it might not really meet wikipedia's scholarly standard. Still learning how to be a good editor though. Let's see if the community agrees.

There is nothing notable about this person - she is famous simply because of the speech controversy. Please delete this page.

Having ghost-written several books seems to make her noteworthy. Different point: Anyone interested in encouraging others to become Wikipedia editors? Might want to stop using so many insider initialisms, or make them links to their definitions. (AfDs? Area Forecast Discussion??) Samuel Webster (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

I think this is an image of McIver at Commons. Should it be included? --Another Believer (Talk) 18:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's an incredibly low-quality image, which seems to have been cropped from this image in the sidebar of this press release. I doubt that it is the uploader's own work as claimed... Funcrunch (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re: quality: I agree, but didn't know if something was better than nothing. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just the low quality; the authorship and copyright status are uncertain. I've already nominated it for deletion and the uploader does not disagree. Funcrunch (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thanks for the update. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Think Like a Champion

[edit]

Should Think Like a Champion be added per this source? ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of Life?

[edit]

Beesneezers (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Is there evidence that definitively proves Meredith McIver exists? After doing lengthy searches, I have only found existence via "Meredith McIver" printed on Trump's books. Searches of 1974-2015 do not produce any firm proof she exists; neither articles nor photographs emerge. Furthermore, a Tin Eye reverse image search ends with zero results, while a reverse image search via Google returns with these tiny results with nothing to prove.[reply]

Gaby Wood in The Guardian in 2007 referenced a Donald trump assistant and ghostwriter by this name: "Meredith McIver, one of the assistants who doubles as his ghost writer, scuttles in with a few sheets of paper...." [1] 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"McIver, who lives in the Upper West Side of New York City, according to public records, did not return a call to a number listed for her. She is a registered Democrat, according to voter records."[2]71.188.102.144 (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources re: existence

[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 22:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times and all other Reliable Sources accept her existence. One British newspaper, I think the Guardian, expressed doubt. According to the bulk of Reliable Sources, she exists and her existence has not been questioned. --MelanieN (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snopes concurs re: existence, if more confirmation was desired: [3] 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Registered Democrat

[edit]

An IP editor keeps adding that McIver is a "registered Democrat" per this source. Worth mentioning? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you for being willing to discuss that last edit about the writer being a democrat. OK, yes, not the most important thing, but it is a fact, and it is newsworthy, because she's of a different party than Trump. What is your concern, here? Thx.96.59.186.103 (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also - oops - I think that I accidentally removed your"and was described in 2007 as an "assistant" to him." quote. My bad - it should probably have gone back in, too (and I'm glad that you put it back in). But, with all due respect, party affiliation, if different from the big boss, in a political job, is newsworthy. (But, on the other hand, if your job is burger flipping at McDonald's, being a quarterback, or even being, say, a news anchor, then that's another story: Party affiliation is not important & thus not newsworthy.)96.59.186.103 (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also see you removed my 'Table of Contents.' Again, this is not that important, so I will not complain (although, for the record, I support a Table of Contents, even here & now, as it is a good investment). So, we can maybe discuss that with other editors & maybe get a Community Consensus here, too. However, the party affiliation, really, I think, should be in there, as it is newsworthy.96.59.186.103 (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. But what about the 'blame' issue, where a balanced reporting documents that some blame went to both writer and speaker - as well as our disagreement over the party affiliation issue? Those last 2 issues are unresolved, both on the Ms. Trump article and the writer article. Thank you.96.59.186.103 (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, Another Believer (Talk), here is clarification on my one gripe, above: You admit, right here that my earlier edit about "who was to blame" 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) 00:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I would rather see just the statement from McIver in which she assumes responsibility. I would prefer to leave out the interpretation by one AP reporter that she placed some of the blame on Melania. The IP and I have been discussing this at my talk page, and I wasn't going to remove it again (as I did in another article when it was more strongly stated), but I still don't think it is really supported well by McIver's statement and I would prefer that this article (and the other, related ones) should just say what McIver said. As for "registered Democrat", I think it could be included - in what is after all a political story. --MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um "registered Democrat" does not belong on a three-line biography. That's not who she is and is wholly WP:UNDUE. You can be registered to one party and vote for another party. I registered under one party when I was 18, almost never voted for that party and only last year changed my affiliation to another party because it was a pain to do so. If she were on a committee for a certain party or involved in local politics, then it could be relevant, but this is really a reach. All we know about her is that she is a ghostwriter. —МандичкаYO 😜 02:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • With all due respect, —МандичкаYO, I will break the tie, here: MelanieN (talk) is correct since this is a political job that the speechwriter is doing, thus party affiliation is noteworthy to mention. If the writer were working in a non-political job, then your point would be valid: in that case, it would not matter what party affiliation if the writer were writing for - say - McDonalds. If, on the other hand, the speechwriter were writing speeches for McDonalds while being a board member at, say, Wendys or Burger King or Taco Bell, then this would be noteworthy to mention, as there would be a "conflict of interest." Get it? Thx96.59.186.103 (talk) 06:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no tiebreak because this is not a vote - we discuss enforcing Wikipedia policies here as consensus is determined based on policy, not number of people raising their hands. Additionally, as I mentioned, party registration is irrelevant because you can be registered in one party and yet your political leanings are completely on the other side. She is not a political speechwriter either - she makes her living as a ghostwriter and was, according to the Trump statement and other reports, asked to help with this one speech late in the game. According to their claims, she did not even write the speech, she just polished it and failed to do any checking as to plagiarism as any professional speechwriter would. Including it is WP:UNDUE because it's clear people want this in here as some kind of indication of sabotage on her part. —МандичкаYO 😜 08:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • You stated: "because it's clear people want this in here as some kind of indication of sabotage on her part." This is plainly incorrect: I am not trying to suggest sabotage by her because she's a Democrat. That makes no sense: Even tho she's a Democrat, and Trump is a Republican, the two have been friends for many years, and so this suggestion by you makes no sense. I put it in simply to give perspective in like manner the race, gender, and age of police and people with whom they interact is often put into articles. Just because some police are the same race and colour as the people they end up shooting does not mean that they are automatically innocent, and just because a White police officer shoots a Black person, that does not at all suggest or prove "sabotage" by the white cop because of prejudice! Yet, we include the racial, gender, and even age information, to be complete for the reader. Is this too much to ask here, also? I will agree it is not "very" heavy, so your strongest argument is WP:UNDUE undue weight, but it is still heavy enough to be included, since it is a political rarity for people to work in political groups if they are of different party affiliations. It is newsworthy for an encyclopædia, so it is appropriate here, too, as Wikipedia is, supposedly, an encyclopædia.96.59.186.103 (talk) 10:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

any evidence she was really a ballerina with George Balanchine?

[edit]

If so, she would be likely well-known within the dance community in New York. Is this legit enough that she can actually be described as a ballerina? —МандичкаYO 😜 03:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not clearly see this comment, but I addressed your concern below. Sorry for any confusion. If the source is not a good source and can not be verified, I give reconsider my complaints.96.59.186.103 (talk) 10:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One edit - many issues re User:Wikimandia edit

[edit]

In this diff, right here, you stated in edit comments that: "remove repeated info and challenged info - discuss on talk board."

OK, fine, let's discuss it. Here is what you removed:

My problems with your edit?

  • 1. McIver is a staff writer for the Trump organisation.
  • 2. She is an author.
  • 3. There is what appears to be an independent newsworthy source to verify the claim that she was a ballerina, and:
  • 4. She is a registered democrat, and, for reasons in the 'talk' pages here (immediately above) and in similar talk pages, there is some (even if not complete) WP:Consensus that party affiliation (like the race and skin colour of, say, police officers and their victims) is noteworthy.

So, you deleted four things, and if some of it was repeated, I will not raise objection, but what is "repeated" and what is "challenged." Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. (That is an American idiom meaning to not throw out all the barrel of apples just because of one bad apple. Or, in your case, don't delete the entire section when only 1 or 2 parts may be bad.)

In other words, your edit may be good, but please justify each element of your deletion. Thank you, in advance.

96.59.186.103 (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Jane, Emily (2014-01-02). "Is a Ballerina to Blame for Melania Trump's Plagiarized Speech?". Vanity Fair. Retrieved 2016-07-20.
  2. ^ Otis, Ginger Adams (2016-07-20). "Donald Trump staff writer Meredith McIver who apologized for Melania's plagiarism scandal is a registered Democrat". New York Daily News. Retrieved 2016-07-20.

repeated information

[edit]

An IP, as a way of sticking in that McIver has been reported as a registered Democrat, is inserting the former lede for the biography at the end of the section about the plagiarism controversy. Apparently it needs to be explained that we do not just stick a summary of the person randomly in the article. I have now removed it twice. —МандичкаYO 😜 13:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have indicated that I would be OK with mentioning her political affiliation, but I don't see a good place in the article where it is relevant, so I think it should be left out. --MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You may have a point about the placement, but please see the section immediately above, —МандичкаYO and MelanieN (talk) - The deletion by —МандичкаYO removed four (4) things, and surely he/she did not mean to remove all of them. Maybe 1 or 2 need to be removed or moved around. Can we revisit this issue?96.59.147.247 (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieN: I'm glad for your opinion but that is still disputed. It's extremely undue and BLP as you know must must take care. This bio is nearly non-existent in content, adding that factoid in makes no sense. I am happy to do a RFC to get more neutral eyes here. 96.59.147.247 yes I DID mean to delete those things. I have no idea why you are reinserting the lede. We already know this person is a ghostwriter, former ballerina and employee of the Trump Organization as it says so clearly at the top. There is no point in adding that sentence in again later. That is not how bios are written. —МандичкаYO 😜 03:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikimandia:, I agree that information should not be repeated if it's in there one in an appropriate spot, like in the 'lede,' as you call it. But, gladly, I did check, and it seems that those four (4) things (e.g., #1: staff writer for The Trump Organization, #2: author, #3: former ballerina, and #4: a registered Democrat} are only mentioned once, in this case, in the very beginning of the article. So, I'm not sure if it was repeated earlier, but it seems OK now. Thank you for your feedback. However, with regard to a disputed claim, where you are asking MelanieN about it, I am not sure what you say is disputed. If it is disputed and can not be verified with a documented source, maybe we need to look at it and discuss it in talk.96.59.147.247 (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know I said this already somewhere, but now I can't find it so I will repeat: putting the party affiliation in the lede sentence is NOT appropriate, and I can't imagine where 96.59.147.247 got the idea that there is "consensus" to put it there. The lede sentence is where you define what the person IS: author, politician, physician, professor, football player, whatever. That is NOT a place to put side information like their party affiliation. Even for politicians, their party affiliation is usually given later in that first paragraph. So when I said above "I don't see a good place in the article where it is relevant so I think it should be left out," I meant it. In thinking about it further: the Daily News stated that she is a registered Democrat. They didn't say anything about why they think it is relevant, they just said it - and I don't think anybody else has mentioned it at all. For most non-politicians, it would be irrelevant to mention their party registration. So let me make it very clear: I think it should NOT be included. Definitely not in the lede, and there is no context for putting it anywhere else. So I am going to remove it from the lede. Do not restore, it anywhere in the article, unless you get consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remarkable discussion here

[edit]

I'm here because I noticed my edits had been reversed. I'll accept that they were "disruptive" and won't bother again.

Disruptive though it may again be, I feel it imperative to mention that what I see is discussion along three veins:

1. Jesus is real because it says so in the bible 2. Jesus is real because I talked to someone who read it in the bible 3. Jesus is real because I read something he said/did

Rather circular and entirely closed - no entry point for questions such as, "Do you suppose we should mention that Maggie Haberman's reporting (like everyone's, including Snopes) never included speaking to her?" or even "Isn't it odd that there's just that one poorly photoshopped image?"

Disappointing as I value Wikipedia and this is, frankly, a very different "quality assurance" standard than I assumed the community held. Cpryde (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)cpryde[reply]

  • @Cpryde: I am skeptical myself, and the 2016 deletion debate closed as no consensus. However, Wikipedia is based on what reputable media sources say. Sources like Slate state that Ms. McIver is a real person. Talk page threads above point out enough circumstantial evidence to convince enough editors to keep the page as it is. The best way to change it is to find new reliably-sourced evidence. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meredith_McIver&oldid=1241114413"