Wikipedia

Talk:Mar-a-Lago face#Distinction from Republican makeup

Troll?

[edit]

Has anyone working this Article considered the possibility that the entire idea behind the Article, that people are paying plastic surgeons to make their faces look like Ivana Trump, is nothing more than a troll, intended to illustrate "Trump Derangement Syndrome"? My reason is that, if in fact this thing is noteworthy, the idea that more than a small handful of mentally ill wierdos with the financial means to alter their face's appearance to look like Ivana Trump, then there would be some photographic, meaning image, evidence. Befores and Afters of various people who used to look "X", and now look like Ivana Trump. Further, these people would be named, and there would be 1st person testimonials where the named person, with their new face, would be included in a legitimate Article of encyclopedic interest. But none of that is happening, and yet everyone seems to be ignoring the complete lack of any foundation to this "Article". If people intentionally set-out to undermine any kind of legitimacy and encyclopedic value of Wikipedia, this Article would be the perfect way to do it. Further, I read something the other day about some Federal interest in Wikipedia and whatever objections they might have. Didn't read the article there too much, but noticed Wikipedia has become politicized. I'd like the encyclopedia to BE an encyclopedia. This Article undermines the entire effort IMO, and validates pretty much whatever criticism someone might want to manufacture about it. In short, I think this Article, or rather Wikipedia itself, would be "improved" by it's (this Article's) speedy deletion, and records should be kept, and an investigation made, on any account that was involved in it's creation and sustenance. Because maybe they've done something like this before, or intend to do it again.72.180.111.79 (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check the references. The so-called "Mar-a-Lago face" phenomenon is well-attested. Note also your claim that the article doesn't name names is simply false. There is a short list of eight very-high-publicity names in the article.
Regarding before-and-after pictures which you claim should be findable: they are easy to find with google image search. Here is an article with a pair of Kristi Noem pictures and here is one with Kimberly Guilfoyle, Lara Trump, Laura Loomer, and Matt Gaetz. That they are not included in this article may be because such pictures tend not to be published as part of reliable-source news articles. Or maybe the pictures are simply not public domain.
Regarding your other complaints about this article. You note there are no 1st person testimonials. If you find one in a reliable source, please post it here, we might include such. I decline to engage with your speculation whether the former Congressperson or the Sec. of Homeland Security are "mentally ill weirdos".
Pretty much none of your complaint has merit. -- M.boli (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. This article appears to be a politicized attack and weaponization of Wikipedia and a form of name calling instead of genuinely useful information. Generikuser (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think if this deserves an article, so does the term “libtard” for a fair and equivalent polarized focus on political-cultural linguistics Generikuser (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What context is libtard significant? It was simply a short-lived slur. If it had serious implications in society, and was useful in understanding something about politics or political beliefs, then it could have a page. mar-a-lago face refers more widely to the aesthetics of maga movement as well as being a part of the phenomena of anti-aging and youth as beauty trends. Abs145 (talk) 07:17, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if you're talking about the kind of stereotypical 'lib' that was often referenced in the right wing media ecosystem, you can see that Blue hair has a subsection Fashion > American Politics that describes the association of the 'blue haired liberal' with certain political beliefs, and subsequently is used in a pejorative sense. This could potentially be what you're looking for. Abs145 (talk) 07:26, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So why isn't this a subsection of the plastic surgery article in the same way? It has the same level of social currency (if not way less, as blue haired liberals have been a thing for 20+ years). 75.172.7.208 (talk) 05:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Distinction from Republican makeup

[edit]

Are these topics the same?:

Thoughts on merging? Anne drew (talk · contribs) 15:42, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose. You get Mar-a-Lago face from your plastic surgeon, and then put Republican makeup on it. The two are related, yes, but one's cosmetic surgery and the other's cosmetics. You can take the latter off; undoing the former isn't so easy.
Also, "Mar-a-Lago face" has been discussed in connection with men in Trump's orbit, particuarly Matt Gaetz, as well.
I think that any merger, if there is to be one, should likely wait until such time as there are sources discussing both phenomena at length together.
And lastly, what would we call the merged article? Daniel Case (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Vogue source linked below indicates that they are all one, uniform beauty aesthetic, with different terms used to describe different parts. Mar-a-Lago face became the dominant term, while Republican makeup is more of a meme making fun of one part of it. The overall Republican beauty aesthetic combines both. Viriditas (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the topics should be merged: which article would you say should be merged into which? GnocchiFan (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you agree the topics should be merged? I'd like to know your reasoning. Daniel Case (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The concepts are not different enough to warrant two different articles, imo. (Also, please stop WP:BLUDGEONing every "Merge" vote). – GnocchiFan (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see where you told Viriditas not to do the same to the oppose !votes. Daniel Case (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two wrongs don't make a right. FaviFake (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. The topic is the same and we don’t need two articles about it. In fact, "Republican makeup” is a subtopic of Mar-a-Lago face per the current source. Viriditas (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The wording of the lede of this article does not by itself make the other one a subtopic. If that was how we did this, people could and would be changing ledes willy-nilly to make the mergers they would like to happen happen. Daniel Case (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mar-a-lago face is defined by 1) "excessive filler and botox" 2) "unnaturally smooth skin" 3) "perfect teeth" 4) "and a full face of makeup".[1] This doesn't have to do with what the lead says, it has to do with what all the different definitions used by reliable sources say. The Vogue article says almost the same thing. Viriditas (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find more than once source defining "Mar-a-Lago face" to include makeup? Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel Case's arguments. One is makeup, the other is plastic surgery: they are different things. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 15:32, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do sources link them? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The two topics are linked together.[2] “On 20 January, alongside President Donald Trump and his slew of Big Tech bros, there emerged a uniform look among the women standing tall (in high heels) on the inauguration stage: bouncy blonde blowouts, overdone makeup and ultra-traditional skirt suits… The most prominent beauty label to come out of this year so far is ‘Mar-a-Lago face’... Content creators, having noted this overwork and overdone makeup typical of women understood to be right leaning, are parodying the look on TikTok, posting ‘Republican makeup’…" Viriditas (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's behind your ellipses? Without language explicitly linking the two phenomena, mere mention of both in the same article does not establish a link. Daniel Case (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE. They're different things and to be quite frank, and at something this is becoming incredibly sexist. Sviscusi (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Read the Vogue article linked above in my comment. This has nothing to do with sexism. It’s about shifting beauty standards. Viriditas (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but under the name Republican makeup. An article discussing both would not be too big. They are closely enough related so that it is perfectly reasonable and perhaps helpful to the reader to have them together. And "Republican makeup" is more or less value-neutral while "Mar-A-Lago face" is lowkey insulting, inflammatory, and female body-shaming (even tho "Republican makeup" is intended to be pejorative, it's not that bad; you can certainly envision someone saying "I'm proud of my conservative dress and Republican makeup" straight-up but not "I'm proud of my Mar-A-Lago face" so much except as an asteism (rather than rejecting an insult, transforming it into a badge of honor) which is not the same thing at all). I grant that this would be a somewhat complicated merge.
I know we all (including me) think that these people are up to no good, but that has nothing to do with how we are supposed to operate here. Look inside and ask if this is coloring your opinion on the matter. If you can't acknowledge and correct for that, there are very many other places to contribute.
I don't care how many sources use the phrase Mar-A-Lago face. There are lots of publications describing insulting and inflammatory terms for all sorts of people, places, and things. We don't do that in article titles. In body text we can discuss all sorts of things in more subtle detail. If the article was primarily about the phrase (etymology etc) rather than the phenomenon that'd be different. But it's not. Herostratus (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Exactly I have a feeling that bad faith Redditors wrote this article because it reads like a snarky hit piece. It doesn’t deserve its own article and should be merged Generikuser (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Otherwise things like “blue hair liberals” and “nose ring theory” deserve independent articles as well. Generikuser (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
see comment above on blue hair liberals having a wikipedia subsection: blue hair in american politics. Similarly, i am unclear on who blue hair liberals or nose rings are referencing, but aesthetics related to a political movement is by far more notable than individuals. Abs145 (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another example of changing beauty aesthetics. In US history, "blue hair" ladies once referred to older, conservative women in the mid-20th-century. While there are several different reasons why Marge Simpson has blue hair in The Simpsons, one of which is technical, the other reason is that when the show was originally released in the late 1980s, the idea of Marge having blue hair was reminiscent of the conservatism of June Cleaver from Leave it to Beaver. Over time, people have forgotten about this connection. There are many examples of this in the literature. Here's historian Howard J. Wiarda: "The Republican Party [circa 1980s]...also attracts little blue-haired ladies, mostly widows who look like they are members of the Daughters of the American Revolution, who are similarly big donors and "want to be involved." It is a mark of the low stature of Latin America in Washington policy circles that, when the Republican National Committee (RNC) had such big, blue-haired donors but didn't know what to do with them, they would consistently put them on the Latin America task force. There we would have to listen to them and pay them deference even though what they suggested was mainly ludicrous." Until the 1990s, blue haired women referred to Republicans. Now, whether Marge can be considered conservative or Republican is up for debate, but I grew up at at time with people like Marge Simpson, so I understand the character. They tended to vote Republican, but in a much different sense than we use the term today in the era of Trumpism. The type of Republican someone like Marge Simpson would vote for would be called a blue dog democrat today. Viriditas (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
how is this relevant? blue hair here refers to part of political spectrum, no? Not about the actual aesthetic. 169.233.145.75 (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is entirely relevant. The blue hair aesthetic was associated with conservative women from the 1940s (or so) until the early 1990s, which is about 50 years, give or take. Blue hair on liberals got its start in the US with grunge, particularly when Cobain dyed his hair blue in 1991. While not necessarily a symbol of liberalism per se, this new aesthetic upset conservatives in some way, and by the late 1990s early 2000s (or later?) they began to turn the stereotype on its head, using blue hair to mean liberal instead of conservative. This is not the first time they did this. They did the same thing with “cancel culture”, a cultural touchstone invented by the right, but now associated with the left due to conservative messaging. The discussion here would have us believe these are all types of attacks on political movements, when they are not. Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure add it to the blue hair page then Abs145 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I’m saying is that it deserves a separate, politicized article since this is precedent Generikuser (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Blue rinse brigade" has/had the same connotation in the UK (as mentioned on that article). Terms and connotations change all the time.
To get this back (somewhat) on topic, I agree with what Generikuser is saying - if we have an article on Republican makeup/Mar-a-Lago face, we may as well have one on blue-haired liberal/blue-haired liberal stereotype. These articles are effectively pop culture articles, and targets for indiscriminate collections of trivia or cruft. Best to merge and trim down, at least for now, then see where to go from there. – GnocchiFan (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, I don't think the differences between plastic surgery and makeup necessitate separate articles for what is essentially the same topic: the homogeneous and heavily applied look attributed to Republican women, and Matt Gaetz, which has garnered significant discourse in 2024-2025. 2002crash1 (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to propose that there be an article on Political fashion in the United States and articles such as this one, the proposed merge target Republican makeup, Blue hair in American politics, etc., be merged into the proposed article which will be about the wider topic. This topic has numerous academic papers, and thus theoretically can be broadened and neutralized, rather than specific articles that serve as attack pages of one part of the political spectrum in the United States or another.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 03:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm into that idea as I feel like we could bring forward the theory of aesthetics and body politics into one nice page. I would prefer if we called it Aesthetics of political movements in the US or Fashion of political movements in the US. My only concern is that people may seek to add arbitrary descriptions based on stereotypes or personal anecdote as opposed to clearly established trends. Ofc all edits would be s.t. WP guidelines, but its just something to consider. Abs145 (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're very likely to run into a huge OR buzzsaw if you do ... Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    With as many academic papers exist on the topic of political fashion in the United States, I don't know why there would be a need to add original research content. Moreover, one should be find reliable sources that correlate to documented trends, whether it be about the contents of this article, or content about the wearing of Che Guevara t-shirts by those who self identify with a portion of the American Left, etc. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For instance this reference would be a good edition to such a less-partisan article:
    Kedrowski, Karen M.; Ortbals, Candice D.; Poloni-Staudinger, Lori; Strachan, J. Cherie (15 October 2024). The Palgrave Handbook of Fashion and Politics. Springer Nature. ISBN 978-3-031-57073-5. Retrieved 17 November 2025.
    It would be be relevant regardless of political affiliation, as the source mentions both democrat and republican politicians. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Daniel Case. One article is about surgery and the other about makeup. While related, they are discrete subjects. Additionally, both articles are of sufficient length and with sufficient sourcing to comfortably stand alone. TarnishedPathtalk 09:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @TarnishedPath
    The Mar-a-Lago face article isn't really only about surgery though. It talks almost as much about makeup.
    If the articles are combined, maybe the title should be broadened a little bit? The makeup article mentions "MAGA beauty" as a synonym, which is broader than "makeup", narrower than "republican" and also maybe a bit more fitting for something that is probably more a term used in media discourse than an objective description of how Republicans makeup use. Hanspeter5000 (talk) 08:57, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "It talks almost as much about makeup" There are two inline mentions of "makeup" in the article, and the second is just a in-body reiteration of the passing mention in the lede.
    Whereas there are three references to "surgery" and even more references to "surgeon". Daniel Case (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but under the name Republican makeup – per Herostratus, these aren't distinct enough. FaviFake (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading the replies, I would support a merge into Republican makeup. Disclaimer: I started this discussion. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 21:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Republican makeup. Differentiating here is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. 4meter4 (talk) 03:35, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Republican makeup. I don't see how it isn't the same thing. Both overlap in described aesthetic features, both are associated with republican and MAGA culture, and both are from a critical perspective. The only difference is that one is surgery, and one is makeup, but it has the same outcome in terms of commentary and is too similar to distinguish. jolielover♥talk 13:26, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the lead literally describes Mar-a-Lago face as: including excessive makeup, fake tans, fake eyelashes, dark smoky eyes, and lip augmentation. 4/5 of these are related to makeup, not plastic surgery. This is VERY similar to Republican makeup, which is eyeliner, mascara, rouge and foundation, heavily applied, as to make its use obvious. Absolutely the same thing, just different names; both are fashion trends involving heavy makeup. The former just sometimes has a dab of plastic surgery too. @Daniel Case, TarnishedPath, Lollipoplollipoplollipop, and Sviscusi: would you guys reconsider your votes with this information? jolielover♥talk 17:50, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, for the same reason I said above a long time ago and that the other opposes understand: plastic surgery and makeup routines may be related but are two separate things. You can stop wearing your makeup that way; you're kind of stuck with plastic surgery. The language of the lede of this article is not reflective of the body, which exclusively discusses the plastic surgery trend. Daniel Case (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support the merge. It's a dubious that it's a specific actual trend to begin with and not just a non random sample of a couple of images that a handful of writers think would make for a good gossipy type article. The amount of actual journalism on the subject is incredibly limited. If it's going to be included in Wikipedia, then it should be more limited. Sviscusi (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and would like to see the utmost Mar-a-lago face (Penny Nance) included in the Wiki as prime examples. ~2025-32524-48 (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I agree that there’s a distinction between makeup and plastic surgery, but for this trend I don’t find the term “republican makeup” particularly enlightening and it’s definitely reductive to talk about makeup when we’re talking about a broader aesthetic trend. “MAGA face” seems like a great option for the merged page, as per the Agence France-Presse article cited above me. Justyrofoam (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a remarkably comprehensive article right away, simply from squishing them together. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 04:56, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. While surgical alterations differ from makeup the end goal is one cohesive look/face. Though means by which it is accomplished might differ, the actual phenomena are not different enough to require two separate pages. Fourday (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a source saying the end goal is one cohesive look/face? Because unless we have lots of sources saying that, merging these two articles is based purely on OR. As noted above by some of the other opposes, nothing in the sources suggests we need to treat these two phenomena as related. Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge yes, makeup and plastic surgery are two different things, and one is a bit more permanent than the other, but in this case as jolielover points out they form part of the same aesthetic trend. Some plastic surgery techniques (e.g. lip fillers) can be undone, but that doesn't mean we need a separate article for "reversible Mar-a-Lago face". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge per Daniel Case: Mar-a-Lago face and Republican makeup appear to be seldom (if ever) directly compared in reliable sources, and therefore a merge would be WP:OR. OceanGunfish (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Moved from Talk:Mar-a-Lago_face#Mar-A-Lago_face_vs_Republican_makeup_and_COMMONNAME_vs_traffic

FaviFake (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion on this page here: Talk:Mar-a-Lago face#Distinction from Republican makeup

Food for thought on the merger discussion; I was curious where Mar-A-Lago face or Republican makeup stood versus each other in terms of WP:COMMONNAME.

Traffic stats 90 days for Republican makeup:

https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=1&range=latest-90&pages=Republican_makeup

  • Republican Makeup averages 1,230 visits a day the past month.
  • Republican Makeup from sample window in busiest week (7 days) showed 2190 a day from 11/2 to 11/8.
  • Republican Makeup highest single day was 11/2 at 7192.

Traffic stats 90 days for Mar-A-Lago face:

https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=1&range=latest-90&pages=Mar-a-Lago_face

  • Mar-A-Lago face averages 16,694 visits a day the past month.
  • Mar-A-Lago face from sample window in busiest week (7 days) showed 49,144 a day from 11/2 to 11/8.
  • Mar-A-Lago face highest single day was 11/2 at 204,133.

I was going to do MAGA face (which didn't even exist as a redirect till just now) as well, but unfortunately no traffic is captured in that tool for red links.

Sharing in case that's helpful. Does this kind of data factor into COMMONNAME? It seems like it probably should.

Why would we ever want to move a topic to an unfamiliar or lesser known and used name? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:56, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to this discussion since it seems it was intended as a subsection. FaviFake (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, but very silly

[edit]

Don't get me wrong, I laughed, but this is pretty openly just making fun of the physical appearance of conservatives, it is a political blog post, the article doesn't contain a shred of information about whether this is an actual phenomenon; do conservatives get these cosmetic procedures at a higher rate than liberals? The article doesn't even pretend to be interested in that question, let alone supply the answer. Speculation, hearsay, people who don't like conservatives expressing their dislike of conservatives and calling them ugly. There's a place for snarky posts making fun of the appearance of your political enemies, that place is social media, not the pages of an encyclopedia. 82.132.184.211 (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

see my comments above - its a fact that aesthetics is a field of study and the discourse and imagery of political movements is nothing new. therefore, a homogenous trend or aesthetic of political aligned individuals is just one component of understanding both cultural / gender norms within a political movement, as well as the way aesthetics may influence or convey information. the use of extensive plastic surgery to achieve youth or a certain aesthetic is potentially of interest to those in the field of aesthetics, rhetoric, politics, etc. Abs145 (talk) 07:14, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
also, i don't think finding 'rates of surgery' would prove your point, as its not really a phenomena by the numbers, but instead is very much a visual identification. we don't count how many times each actress wore low-rise jeans in the 2000s to deem low rise jeans as worn at a higher frequency than other jeans in the 2000s (subsequently placing low rise jeans in the Y2K fashion scene). It's more that celebrities and important 'taste makers' or individuals who led fashion trends were seen wearing them - putting them in the canon of early 2000s style. I think folks on this page should cool down and recognize that while the topic is affiliated with political individuals, the idea that fashion trends could be associated with a political group, doesn't mean that the page's creation was an inherently political act.
I feel like we're out here saying that the trend of wearing socks and sandals is some kind of political attack... Abs145 (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But it is a political attack. There's no Real Housewives face article despite that fitting the same criteria because The Huffington Post didn't write a clickbait article.
This article only exists because of the Donald Trump association and that's despite the look of these women being the same look you see in women of a certain age having plastic surgery. You see the same thing in L.A. and NYC. Sviscusi (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"This article only exists because of the..." number of sources that described Mar-A-Lago face as a thing to a degree of WP:SIGCOV, and thus was born an article. See here: Mar-a-Lago face#References. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am beginning to believe Wikipedia has been taken over by redditors and partisans using this site as a snarky attack dog/agitprop and regardless of what individuals may claim this article reeks of bad faith, when I fed it to multiple AIs it registered as that. This is not in the encyclopedia Brittanica or Grokipedia for a reason Generikuser (talk) 07:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot believe you’re citing lack of inclusion in Grokipedia as carrying *any* weight, especially given the topic at hand. Really? ~2025-33663-86 (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
see above comment. I don't think you have a leg to stand on besides feeling that a topic is a notable and therefore is an attack, when notability has nothing to do with content. See WP:GNG. Real Housewives#Confessional interviews describes their make up and hair routine given its importance to the show. it doesn't have a page because there no identifying phrase for their style. again, you say its a political attack because you're not happy with the sources despite most being [[WP:RS].
Identifying commonalities in makeup, hair, and plastic surgery among a group of people is not an attack, these individuals choose to adopt these styles willingly. If you're so frustrated, for e.g. you can see pantsuits has photos mostly of liberal politicians, who commonly aligned with this fashion trend in the 2000s-2010s. Abs145 (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who never comments on anything on wiki, hates trump, and defends wiki on many fronts...holy balls did you guys ever fumble this. 75.172.7.208 (talk) 05:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
looks like we've fallen into a positive debate re: Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. No one is fumbling, sourcing is fine, you have made no attempt to follow WP guidelines for nominating for deletion, and you fail to recognize the very real and well documented literature on aesthetics of political movements. Your political opinions are not welcome - see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Abs145 (talk) 07:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree with the first post. This is a certain look which is not a political statement, though of course at any point in time trends will have some correlation with other social groupings. Lauren Sanchez Bezos doesn't seem to fit the political gloss. The article deserves a more appropriate title and a reference to people from other places and eras, such as the Bogdanoff twins. – SJ + 04:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

note that the bezos assoc with the trump admin is particularly close, and therefore lauren sanchez, an attendee of the inauguration and in appearance at other political events does fit. secondly, your ref to bogdanoff twins is a separate discussion of extreme plastic surgery trends. this page is simply about plastic surgery trends as aesthetic signals among a specific political group with an political ideology and rhetorical style Abs145 (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't address the point that this look has always been a possible outcome for rich people with unfettered access to plastic surgery. Anna Nicole Smith lived and died before trump had a real political career and that's just one example. 75.172.7.208 (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
again if it was always possible for rich individuals why is it not a trend in both political parties in the US where politicians across both parties are very wealthy? Abs145 (talk) 08:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a great question and there's obviously overlap. Except for the IP, I think there is general agreement that this is a real "fashion" trend with conservatives in the inner circle connected to Trump. However, I have argued elsewhere that much of this is a fusion of different beauty standards unique to conservatives: one of the older ones is the use of makeup by certain Christian sects. This was particularly evident in the 1980s with certain televangelists. My own personal opinion is that some of these people were involved in selling makeup in MLMs like Mary Kay. This was very popular around the time of Christians using excessive makeup in the 80s, and it is well known that Mary Kay Ash was a religious Christian ("Mary Kay Ash often shared her personal priorities of faith first, family second and career third").[4] This connection between religion and makeup was well established. This later made its way into the "Fox glam" aesthetic over at Fox News. There's a lot written about this, but the nutshell version is that if you appeared on Fox as a host or guest, they forced you to wear excessive makeup. There's a lot of sources about this and several interesting theories about it (the most popular being that Fox wants women to look like eye candy for male viewers and cares less about the expertise as women, but that's only a small part of it; there's also the theory that they are purposefully dehumanizing women based on studies around makeup use, but that's another discussion). Viriditas (talk) 09:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
just to be clear i see your point absolutely, and think there is a clear distinction between general plastic surgery choices (of, lets say, primarily wealthy americans and increasing brits) and the overall aesthetics of politicians and those individuals who are aligned with a political belief - in this case trumpism. The aesthetic of this current trump-led conservatism seems to me (from research) to be driven by a stronger focus on female bodies and beauty standards, which manifests in a number of trends - including excessive make up and homogenizing plastic surgeries. For men, it is about a 'return' to a traditional look (sharp jaw, clean shave, combed hair, strength). Research suggests political movements do focus on outward perception, and this trend has definitely had predecessors (the fox look, which has been reported on extensively and focused on a certain aesthetic). Abs145 (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mary Kay stands out for me in particular, because as a child, it was my first real exposure to the power of a brand. My initial thought was, why is that woman driving around in a pink Cadillac? It may seem simple, but it was powerful, and that's what is going on with Mar-a-Lago face and Republican makeup. It's essentially a brand for Trump, and Trump is well known for the practice of brand extension. Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection increase

[edit]

It seems like this article is getting a lot of unconstructive editing. Semi protect? The Great Epiphany (talk) 00:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It got posted on reddit. Katzrockso (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mar-A-Lago face vs Republican makeup and COMMONNAME vs traffic

[edit]
Moved to § Discussion -FaviFake (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]