Talk:Lara Trump/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Why is there so little her life here. This needs more. What are her ethnic roots? Is she Polish or Lithuanian? What did she study at the University of North Carolina? What other jobs did she have before 2012? Lots of questions to be answered. 203.131.210.82 (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

This edit substituted a perfectly suitable image with a picture so unflattering it serves only to disparage the subject. For comparison, this is previous photo is the infobox image currently used at commons:Category:Lara Trump. I would go as far as saying this is in violation of the Biographies of Living People policy.

The edit summary claimed to be providing a more current photo, but there are others from the same event by the same photographer that do not portray her pulling a funny face and not as poorly cropped. I propose reverting, or even using one of the many other images available.

Maybe User:Tym2412 did this unintentionally since people should be able to put aside bias, but the political views openly expressed on their user page lead me to believe they are not a fan of the subject. 2601:601:CE80:8640:8593:D900:CD47:8861 (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: while reviewing pending changes, I accepted this change proposed by the IP editor above. I will not comment on the rationale behind the previous change or whether it is indeed a BLP violation, but will say that the photo proposed by the IP editor seems far more suitable for a BLP page. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Weird, because instead of accepting my edit you accepted another IP's, [1]. Let's be honest, the new image is kind of ghastly. I'm nearing 40 years old and get that we do not look as good as we did a few years ago, but why pick an image that accentuates the worst of age? There are so many in between. This is a BLP, not some game. 2601:601:CE80:8640:5DE0:FEFE:7BF7:4B8A (talk) 07:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

If you look at the page history, I accepted your edit and the subsequent edit by the IP editor. It is not the role of pending changes reviewers to adjudicate in content disputes. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

This isn't worth my time: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Lara Trump 2601:601:CE80:8640:5DE0:FEFE:7BF7:4B8A (talk) 08:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Elevated to ANI 2601:601:CE80:8640:5DE0:FEFE:7BF7:4B8A (talk) 09:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the complaint about this image. While I personally think this is the better picture, and I'd prefer it to be on the article, I hardly thing the current image is unflattering. The idea that it's a BLP violation is absurd. — Czello 09:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Completely agree. Deb (talk) 10:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not a BLP violation but it's definitely an unflattering expression. One of confusion, or frustration, or constipation, or something similar. It's also just not a very good image. In addition to the expression being crap, the lighting and sharpness are poor, there's excessive contrast in areas, and it's overall very dark and lacking detail. I'd much rather see a pic like File:Lara Trump (50326964718).jpg or a crop from File:Lara Trump (50327841717).jpg. I do agree, though, that getting rid of File:Lara Trump 06-20-2018 Duluth, MN (cropped).jpg is the right choice. It's an awful photo. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Could you maybe stick to one IP address when editing? Deb (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Could you maybe not confuse me with other editors living rent free in your head just because I’m an IP? 69.174.144.79 (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Why do you consider this to be awful? It seems fine to me (though the others are okay too -- out of the two you listed I'd go for the first). That said, there's nothing wrong with the current picture so... why change it at all. — Czello 11:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems okay to me, and it's more up to date. Why shouldn't we have a perfectly decent up to date image? Canterbury Tail talk 14:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Presumably you're referring to File:Lara_Trump_(50759603658)_(cropped).jpg given that it's the most up-to-date? If so I'd be fine with this being used. — Czello 15:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Lara Trump 06-20-2018 Duluth, MN (cropped).jpg: Washed out and excessive contrast. Her face is so white it looks almost like she’s wearing greasepaint. It’s really just not a good image, either technically or stylistically. File:Lara Trump (50759603658) (cropped).jpg is also a crap image. Her eyes are so overly dark she looks like a skull with empty eye sockets and skin stretched over it. Reminder that a large number of megapixels does not a good image make. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I feel this really is nitpicking -- especially where it concerns the second image. They're both perfectly serviceable, though I agree the first is a little washed-out. There's still zero chance of any of these images being a BLP violation, mind. — Czello 19:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It's very difficult or even impossible to find information on Lara Trump online, especially on her family's history and on her life before marrying into the Trump family. I couldn't find any more reliable site than Ethnicelebs.com, which seemed better than the source used here before. I had good reason to believe it's a reliable source since it's used as a source by, for example, https://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-expecting-fourth-jewish-grandchild-from-son-eric-and-his-wife-lara/

Now both those sources and most but not all of their info have been illogically removed so that the article now has no source at all for the info it still provides about her birth and parents. That makes the article and WP look very unprofessional and unreliable. If current WP policy allows presenting that kind of basic info without any source, i don't see any logical reason why we can't at least add without a source the information about the Slovak origin of the grandfather and the original spelling, which would remove the confusion caused by the current spelling being identical to that of the Alaskan island.

There are many other celebrities who have scrubbed the Internet of info about themselves. What's done in WP articles about them? Can https://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a11457999/lara-trump-eric-trump-wife/ and its source https://www.soundingsonline.com/news/the-most-trusted-old-salt-in-america be used? Is info about Lara not included in any books about any of the Trumps? --Espoo (talk) 08:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Readers should not be left to figure out on their own that Loomer is an Islomophobe and far-right extremist. This edit[2] makes no sense and just obscures why it was notable that Trump would campaign with such a person. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

We must remember MOS:LABEL. This article is meant to describe Trump, not go tagging labels of people she has campaigned with. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

If someone campaigns with an extremist and is covered by multiple RS because of that, then it makes zero sense to exclude that the extremist is an extremist. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm only referring to one adjective in my opinion here, the word Islamophobe.

Loomer herself describes herself as an Islamophobe - it's right there in the references and she says she is proud of being one...I don't understand especially why what the reference actually says has been removed from the article.

MOS:LABEL states

Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.

In-text attributions are being utilized. In my opinion the content removed in this edit especially the descriptive word "Islamophobe" should be restored. Shearonink (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)