Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

New pics

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.

---

(non-admin closure)

Pic A: Donald Trump in Phoenix on August 31, 2016

Gage Skidmore has kindly donated some new pics dated yesterday, including the one at right. You can see some more here. I like the one at right best. The flag is tiny, but it's there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Not the one you posted; he's squinting. Maybe this one.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

So he's squinting a little bit. Is that a sin? Lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, pride, and squinting? Anyway, there are more on Flickr from this event, so feel free to upload any you like.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

This is the best one you've uploaded. Anyway, I'm currently discouraged (see your talkpage), so I won't look at Flickr, etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

There's currently another similar discussion ongoing over at the 2016 Presidential election article, if more people could weigh in there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016#New_Trump_photos Calibrador (talk) 05:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I like this one better : it could actually replace the current one in the infobox. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed it should be updated. ^{Snake bgd} 19:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Pic B: August 31, 2016

Any objection if I install the one at right for the time being? It's clearly better than the present top image. Putting at the top now won't block consideration of other pictures.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The picture to the right is pretty blurry, isn't it? Graham (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should use either of these pictures. Can't we find one where his eyes are open? The one currently in the article infobox is better than either of these. --MelanieN (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Pic C: How about this one?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Of the 3, I prefer "How about this one?" by Ayw. Buster Seven Talk 20:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this one is pretty good. --MelanieN (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The existing photo is better than any of these. In (1) he looks like he has a stick up his ass, in (2) you can’t see his eyes and there’s too much emphasis on the bouffant comb-over, and in (3) much as I like the clarity of the pigginess of the eyes, and also the sticky-out ear that gives the overall impression, together with the hairdo, of a hamster sitting a wingnut, the fact is he’s smirking, and a smirk is inappropriate in a photograph of someone running for president. Writegeist (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this third photo is by far the best one, and leagues better than the current photo. Calibrador (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Pic D

@Jean-Jacques Georges, Buster7, and Calibrador: Arguments like "I just don't like it" or "I just like it" usually carry no weight. Please use reasons based on sources, policies, and common sense. (WP:CON.)

For these four reasons, I feel that Skidmore's 2013 pic (right) is a better photo:

√ Eyes open.

√ Not smirking.

√ Muted field (same field as in the photo on the right at "About Donald J. Trump").

thumb|√ Inspirational pose (mirroring the 2006 Obama image).

As we know, Obama won, Clinton didn't — and to my recollection, she was smiling all the way. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

All the 2016 photos are fine, but I still prefer the one on the left, since it makes him look somewhat "dignified". It seems rather difficult to have a photo of Trump where he isn't making a funny face, so I'd say this is the best we have for now. Anyway, they are all far better and more neutral than the current "grumpy" photo. The 2016 "smiling" photo could also be used here, but I think it would be more suitable in the United States presidential election, 2016 article. The pose on the 2013 photo may be "inspirational", but IMHO the image - although technically fine - is not very flattering. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with everything Jean-Jacques Georges has stated about the left image, and would also add that the backdrop of the American flags also gives the photo a more Presidential professional look, something that is desired for a Presidential candidate. He's looking forward, has a smile, and is standing up straight rather than hunched over. It is superior in every way to the status quo photo from more than a year ago. Calibrador (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

These endless discussions about a better Trump photo call to mind the expression about polishing a turd.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

That's the point of neutrality : even if we do think that a person is a turd, we should not be trying to make him look like one. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support the current photo already in the infobox. It still works fine. As well, consensus needs to be built here, not forced, therefore I have reverted back to the long-standing consensus photo that was prematurely replaced before this discussion was allowed to run its course. The recent suggestions for photos show him with a smirk, as others have noted at the 2016 presidential election article talk page, and are not better than what we already have. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 12:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the photo with caption "How about this one?" is a big improvement. You really see a smirk? I don't. I think he looks a little dazed maybe, but still it's a better pic by far.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Anythingyouwant that the photo captioned "How about this one?" (aka, hamster on a wingnut) is the best of the five in consideration. It is a more natural, reposed portrait, has better photographic quality (except for the blown highlights on the shirt), and has a more dignified context than some of the others. The smile could be interpreted as a smirk but I suspect it's not. Hopefully, once he's elected, we can get a really nice official portrait. - MrX 18:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Pic E (longstanding)

Let's try to stay neutral here, without expressing hopefulness that one candidate or the other will be elected.  :)Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll try. .- MrX 18:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

MrX, you need to change the photo back. There is no confirmed consensus for that photo here, nor has the discussion closed - it is still ongoing. Consensus doesn't get formed in just a day or a few hours, it takes time. There is no deadline in Wikipedia. The infobox image that you reverted out has been in place for a long time with a definite consensus, yet, you ignored the embedded instructions in the infobox and just changed it on your own accord. That needs to be remedied immediately. The right thing to do would be for editors who came to consensus on the previous image to also be notified of this discussion so a fair consensus can take place. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I responded on my talk page.- MrX 18:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I like the new picture better as well. I always thought the old one was a bit dull. I also do not see a smirk in the new one. Display name 99 (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, I strongly support pic A, pic B, or pic C, and strongly oppose pic D and pic E. Pic E was nice for awhile, but it needs to be retired now,though it's not too bad. Pic D is looking in some random direction.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree with WV. The other photos make him look strange and non-professional looking. Our standards need to be if he was to hire someone to take pictures of him, they should be as good as that. He would use zero of the above pictures to advertise, neither would anyone else unless they are against Trump. Chase (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

You realize the current photo doesn't meet your own criteria? And is why there is a discussion to constantly replace it because it is extremely unflattering. Calibrador (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@Calibrador: I disagree slightly. It's not the picture I would fantasize about having, but it's the closest to it. I agree that the picture should be changed, but to one that is better to the current. In the current photo he isn't squinting and making silly faces. It looks like he is listening to someone asking a question. Which honestly, I quite like because it reflects what one of his campaign highlights. Him listening to his main group of supporters. That's something he has built the campaign on. I think the photo should reflect something like that. There are many criteria that should come into affect, and as a photographer, I understand that, but we will never get a perfect picture unless his campaign himself releases one to us or something similar. So until that happens, we need one that is dignified and high quality, as if he were going to be president. Chase (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Your hopes of an official portrait is not going to happen, at least not during the campaign when it is most relevant. Calibrador (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support Photo E: Wikipedia shouldn't be trying to make anyone look more presidential. Calibrador's comments on Photo C: "I agree with everything Jean-Jacques Georges has stated about the left image, and would also add that the backdrop of the American flags also gives the photo a more Presidential look, something that is desired for a Presidential candidate." Also oppose Photo D as it is taken from a weird angle; oppose Photo A is it shows him smirking. Photo B would be good for an infobox photo in the United States presidential election, 2016 article, but not here. Only left with Photo E. --Proud User (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Replace the word Presidential with professional. That was the connotation I was going for. Calibrador (talk) 13:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support Photo E.CFredkin (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• Continue to support image E. It remains the better of any being suggested here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Photo C-I find that the picture makes him look fairly normal. Photo D is probably my least favorite because I don't think the camera shows him at the best possible angle. I've considered Photo E to be a bit boring, and with the U.S. flags in the background Photo C adds a bit more color. I think it is more pleasing to look at. Display name 99 (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Photo C It's high quality, in focus, well lit, has sense of professionalism, accurately portrays the subject, and they are standing up straight rather than leaning forward. Not to mention a smile rather than a frown, and it is from August 2016 rather than August 2015. Calibrador (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support C - It is a more natural, reposed portrait, has better photographic quality (except for the blown highlights on the shirt), and has a more dignified context than some of the others. E has a harsh shadow, creating visual separation from his face to the rest of the composition. Also, his face looks overly orange, flat, and his expression makes it look like he's practicing his 1000 yard stare. In A he is squinting, or perhaps laying an egg. B is so out of focus I'm surprised the photographer would take credit for it. D has the best lighting an exposure, but he's looking the wrong way and the focus is soft. Note to the photographer: increase ISO to 3200, DOF to ~f/7.1 and shutter speed to 1/100 and you will probably nail it next time.. - MrX 20:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• E – This picture is perfectly fine, and it has survived many such discussions. Opposing C version with a flag because Trump has never held political office. If you look at his recent speech in Mexico, Peña and Trump stand at the same podiums in front of the same background, but Peña has Mexican flags while Trump has none. Diplomatically correct per protocol; we should respect that. Compliments to MrX for his photographic advice — JFG ^talk 21:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

JFG, I don't understand. Are you saying that because someone has never held political office they are not allowed to give a speech in front of flags? That doesn't really make sense. Display name 99 (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Display name 99: Don't get me wrong, Trump has every right to give speeches with prominent US symbols. I was just remarking that in official contexts such as his visit to Mexico, he can't. And on Wikipedia, it seems more appropriate to me that only elected officials have a flag in their main picture. Besides, the white-and-red stripes make the background more "noisy" and attention-grabbing than the candidate's face. — JFG ^talk 13:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment That sounds like original research to me. Calibrador (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment @Calibrador: It's not OR. --Dervorguilla (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• C ShadowDragon343 (talk) 03:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: The sole official photograph of Trump as president (& CEO) shows his upper canines and incisors. (Source: "Donald Trump Biography", The Trump Organization.) So does pic B. But pics A, C, D, and E don't show any teeth at all.

In the official biography photo, his frontalis (forehead) muscle looks relaxed, as it does in pics A, B, C, and D, but not pic E.

Also, he's looking at or near the camera, as in pics A, B, and C, but not pics D or E.

Also, the cropped background is rather neutral, as in pics A, B, D, and E, but not pic C.

And the microphone is absent, as in pics A, B, and D, but not pics C or E.

Raw scores

Pic A: +3. Pic B: +5. Pic C: -1. Pic D: +1. Pic E (current): -5.

I personally like pic D best ... but that's my problem. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Compare the proposed images with an analogous picture in the Britannica article lead. --Dervorguilla (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• strong support for C with A coming close. The best photo so far, the current one in the infobox more than 1 year old, that one you said looks presidential, too old, I encourage every other user to support CTexasMan34 (talk) 03:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support for C. B or A can be used in the articles about the various elections (B might be better because he is smiling). D is technically fine, but not for the infoboxes. Same thing for E - too unflattering - which should definitely not be used in infoboxes, especially not in the pages about elections. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 07:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Pic F: Well F this discussion :)

• F-This - really getting tired of this showing up every 6 weeks, we have better things to discuss...--Stemoc 13:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Now that's a smug photo. Calibrador (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Lets face the fact, he has more pride than an actual pride of lions :) ...--Stemoc 13:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support E I see no problem with the current photo. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• This photo is the best. I support this. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support C for now, until we find a better picture. The current one is awful. The one we had before was fine, though.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support whatever is already there without looking. How many times has this discussion restarted? Objective3000 (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment This vote should stricken, as they admitted to not even looking at the photos being discussed. Calibrador (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support C I have supported the current photo for a while but after so much complaining and discussions, I think it's time for an update. Hopefully people won't complain about this photo as much as the current one has. TL565 (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support C: In my own opinion, this is the most presidential photographic option for depicting Donald Trump. A close second alternative would be E, but C has my vote. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 06:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• E - Best out of the lot IMHO. –Davey2010^Talk 03:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note One needs only to scroll down a few sections to see the personal vendetta of this user, WP:HAR. Calibrador (talk) 08:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Skidmore I would advise you go to SpecSavers, come back with some lovely glasses, and then read this where I clearly state I have no issue with you personally .... so no this isn't a personal vandetta well not against you anyway but 10/10 for trying!. –Davey2010^Talk 10:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

He thinks anyone that is against him using wikipedia to WP:SELFPROMOTE himself is Hounding him..lol ignore him..he will get blocked soon enough for his persistence..--Stemoc 00:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• C or E both seem good. No problem with Gage's pics. Tend to be high quality. E is fine too. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Note There is a run-off below where voting is now taking place. Calibrador (talk) 09:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support E first and C second. These support the notability of this subject with just a glance from the general reader (our audience). Steve Quinn (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• Continue to support image E, Its the bedst of the images. And the age of the picture really doesnt matter. (Hillarys image is 7.5 years old). Christian75 (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn and Christian75: if you want you vote to count please move it to here. Thank you. Chase (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

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.

Finally a good pic

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.

---

(non-admin closure)

File:Donald Trump by Gage Skidmore 13.jpg

This is the best Trump photo by far.

Look, I know there's a discussion going on right now above about which picture to use at the top of this article, but I believe this one is the best, even better than the current one. This one has Trump looking straight at the camera and with a normal, neutral expression, unlike the other proposals. I support using this photo. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. It's not a neutral expression. It's a "meh" expression. The current one is terrible though. Can we not revert it back to the one we had before?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. Being honest, he looks like a sad puppy here with the lips. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Best picture by far: [1] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. The current is better and many discussion have been had to have that one in place. It should remain. Chase (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. If I'm being honest this is probably the worst of the bunch so far. It would probably be nice if not for the pursed lips; to me it's the type of image someone would want for a satire piece of Mr. Trump. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 20:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. Simply awful. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. Are you kidding me? TL565 (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose Best to leave well enough alone. The one that is there now is fine for the time being. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It's well past time to end this interminable and diversionary Trump pic sideshow. The existing photograph is adequate and characteristic. Energies here would be more productively directed towards the content of the article. Writegeist (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Whether a picture is "aesthetically pleasing" or adequate is entirely subjective anyhow, so we're unlikely to get anywhere with these types of wasteful discussions. If someone finds a picture they really think works in the future, boldly post it, and if it sticks, it sticks. I'm not sure why there's any urgency to change it in the first place. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 21:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree. I like the current one, though the one here isn't too bad. D is better, imho. [Amended.] Trump himself doesn't seem too picky. YoPienso (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Replace the current photo with photo C shown in the above discussion, and let's all move on to something else. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I also oppose this photo, and Jean-Jacques Georges, did you mean C? E is the current photo. Calibrador (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Calibrador, sorry : I guess I was tired. :) Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 05:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I Oppose because in this photo he looks like my junior year science professor. That was the exact look he had when he handed out detentions. 55 years later and I still have nightmares. Buster Seven Talk 02:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Note: So technically it is not an IDONTLIKEIT vote...its more a SCARESMETODEATH vote. Buster Seven Talk 02:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Support Yes I am going to be butchered for breaking a trend but if this were Hillary Clinton currently having a picture of her leaning looking off to her side it would be full of supports in the quest to try and fix it and get her the most smiley picture of her in existence. Instead of automatically bashing it how about analyzing what is good about it. It's better than C in the above discussion. In that there is no mic obstructing the view, he's smiling lightly and not in an out of norm manner, and he's looking right at the camera. The picture was included in a discussion in the General election page but the discussion somehow teleported to here and the vote was started while leaving it out. It's always going to be hard to get a picture with his eyes wide open because of genetics. If your supporting the current image, it is looking off, leaning over, and has bad lighting that makes his skin look redder than normal.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - I oppose absolutely every photo that has the words "by Gage Skidmore" in the title, You'd think Calibrador ... err I mean Gage Skidmore would stop with the self promotion bollocks but clearly not, That aside the photo has as noted above a "meh" impression ... not really something you want on a potential president image, Seeing as I have the file mover right on Commons I may just rename all of these images!. –Davey2010^Talk 03:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - really bad image. Christian75 (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

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.

Suggestion re photo

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.

---

(non-admin closure)

I think the reason why the current photo has continued to survive so many discussions yet they keep popping up, is that someone will suggest a new picture, then more people join the discussion and more and more pictures are suggested. This then splits everyone's support meaning there is no firm consensus allowing the status quo picture to survive yet again. I think there should be a process of elimination with so many images being suggested. Judging from right now, there is a lot support for photos C and E(the current photo). I suggest when the above section closes, there should then be a final vote between the two photos head-to-head only, like a runoff election. I think this is the only way to establish a firm consensus rather than having endless discussions with so many images and all ending in a mess. TL565 (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the current discussion ongoing, nearly every vote to keep the current photo (which I counted at 6) is either supporting it simply because it is the current photo, or due to lethargy from all of the photo discussions and simply saying it's "the best," or didn't even look at any of the photos, in a recent instance, being proposed and just being generally flippant. Nearly every vote for C (which I counted at 11) has listed many different reasons for the photo being a better choice, and no one who chose E has taken the time to effectively respond to these commenters saying why they are wrong, or to develop a consensus. As a supporter of C, I've seen no arguments to convince me that E would be a better choice to remain the main photo, and not to mention the fact that there is good reason that E has been brought up over and over again for replacement because it is an awful photo that portrays the subject negatively, and I'm not even a supporter of his, it needs to be replaced and C finally provides a professional photo that portrays the subject from a neutral point of view. Calibrador (talk) 05:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

11 to 6 seems like a firm consensus to me. It's about 65%. Does anyone disagree with that?Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. We should definitely replace the current photo with photo C, and we must replace it everywhere, including the pages about the primary elections. The current infobox at United States presidential election, 2016 looks like a "Vote for Hillary" poster : I'm no fan of Trump - but I'm not even a citizen of the United States, so I guess that makes me relatively neutral - but I find that embarrassing. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant My main point was that those users supporting E had mostly no legitimate reason given, and have made no attempt to create a consensus among those opposed to the current photo. Calibrador (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure people really need much of a reason in such a subjective matter. Hence my emphasis on the raw number of supports and opposes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Any image with 65%+ support is a very clear winner. I would even go as far to say that any image with more than 50% support should be the chosen one. Assuming that the candidate images meet MOS:LEADIMAGE, then the best we can do is determine the most favored by counting votes.- MrX 20:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course, I agree with MrX. It's definitely time to replace the current photo with photo C - in this page and the pages about the elections - and move on to more interesting things. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It is clearly becoming obvious from this past week that the same users are opposing the new photo for one reason only, Gage Skidmore took it. They always harp about "consensus" but they never do anything constructive about the actual process. They will always oppose the new photos but never give any reason why the new photo is not good or why the old photo is better other than the fact that they're just tired from all discussions in the past. Of course they support photo E, Gage Skidmore didn't take it. Their goal seems to be to replace any photo taken by him and will support any image as long as it's not his. I don't know what this personal grudge is, but it is weird. Photo C clearly has enough support for consensus now. I withdraw my suggestion from earlier especially when the only people who support E, only support it because it's not by Skidmore. TL565 (talk) 09:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

TL565 - Personally I have nothing against Gage/Calib - I do however have an issue with the fact he has to use his name on every single image title, Had it been "Donald Trump 1" 2,3 etc etc etc then I wouldn't have any issue however I have an issue with the naming and I always will and my opinion would be the same for any photographer who uses their name in every single photo title so nope it's nothing against Gage/Calib ... just the titles. –Davey2010^Talk 03:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem is I keep seeing users who follow him around though multiple articles and revert when he tries to add seemingly uncontroversial photos telling him he must seek consensus. When he then tries to seek consensus on the talk page the same users seem to try make the process as painstaking as possible so that consensus can never happen. I am trying to assume good faith but that seems to be a clear case of WP:Hounding. I point it out and suddenly I'm accused of being his "buddy". If so many people are opposed to his photos, it needs to be addressed. Undermining his every move under the guise of consensus building is ridiculous. TL565 (talk) 04:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, and hold per proposed RfC on whether WP:CONACHIEVE policy applies to decisions about choosing pictures. See comments above and Consensus Talk. --Dervorguilla (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think so. There's no justification for delaying determining consensus in this discussion, while you propose an RfC to change a policy.- MrX 17:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: Compare a relevant comment by a page admin,

I'm aware of policy, thanks. [...] If everyone wishes to continue to argue they have the best aesthetic sense, that's fine as there are no sources that tell us which is the best picture and no policy that dictates who has the best taste.

with a relevant example from the WP:RfC project page:

and the relevant policy (WP:RFCEND) as given in that page. "The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments... Counting 'votes' is not an appropriate method of determining outcome." --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, I think you missed NeilN's point. The "merits" of arguments about images are largely subjective and ultimately come down to personal preference. Technically, any of the images in consideration are equally valid based on policy. - MrX 20:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: Per WP:CONACHIEVE, editors try to "work out the dispute using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense". Here are the most relevant sources yet found, and the most objective reasonable rating factors yet identified:

Analogous picture in Britannica article lead:

microphone absent • teeth concealed • irises showing • eyebrows not elevated • anterior gaze • mostly black background (some gray) • 2010

Main picture in official biography:

microphone absent • teeth showing • irises showing • eyebrows not elevated • anterior gaze • marble background • 2011?

Main picture at Trump-Pence 2016 Campaign page

microphone absent • teeth concealed • irises concealed • eyebrows not elevated • lateral gaze • mostly gray background (some crimson) • 2016

Pictures in Trump-Pence 2016 Campaign biography

microphone absent • teeth concealed • irises concealed • eyebrows not elevated • anterior/lateral gaze • mostly deep blue or black background (some pale blue or peach) • 2013

Points: Microphone absent = +1. Eyebrows not elevated = +1. Low-contrast background = +1. Teeth, eyes, gaze, date = 0 (inconsistent).

Scores: Pic A: +3. Pic B: +3. Pic C: +1. Pic D: +2.5. Pic E: +1. Pic F: +1.

I like Pic D best. Pics A and B match the most relevant sources best. I lose. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow, really??? We just completely circumvent policy and guidelines regarding consensus and disrespect that other editors of other articles should be bypassed in their opinions regarding that article's images by declaring in this discussion what the Donald Trump photo will be Wiki-wide? We will now start counting votes ("scores") instead of achieving consensus? No, no, and no. That is not how this type of thing is done and if anyone here knows that but is advocating for it anyway (I know Calibrador knows better), what the hell? It's time for more eyes on this. Before starting an RfC so more editors across Wikipedia will become involved, I'm pinging an admin for a more weighty "weigh-in". NeilN, opinion, please? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 10:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

See this. Editors can strive to achieve local consensus in all matter of ways. With something as subjective as choosing the "best picture" it may be useful to try techniques that differ from the norm. Of course, this is dependent on buy-in from interested editors. If it is felt that regular discussion will achieve consensus and not bog down then that's great. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

My larger concern beyond what you've mentioned, NeilN, is that there seems to be an idea that one decision here on one person's photo will then decide for all articles where such a photo would be included. Particularly concerning is the fact that the one-size-fits-all photo proposal is being suggested by the photographer who is pushing for his photos only in these talkpage photo popularity contests. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 10:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Consensus to use a picture in one article does not necessarily mean that's the best picture for all articles. If there are objections, they will need to be addressed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

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.

Notice: Archiving changes

I have changed automatic archive parameter "minthreadsleft" from 2 to 4; this ensures a table of contents will be kept. MB298 (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

New sentence in lead paragraph about New Jersey Generals and/or Trump U

I disagree with selecting a couple of flops by Trump and putting them in the first paragraph of the lead: "He is the founder of Trump University and the New Jersey Generals football team." Per WP:MOSBIO, "Incidental and non-notable roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph."Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

OK. Maybe no mention in the lead but the Generals could be mentioned somewhere in the article. I mean...really...how many guys can say they owned a professional football team in the New York City market. It deserves mention...not as a flop....just as a fact. I bought this up two weeks ago...I'm glad it resurfaced. Buster Seven Talk 16:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The Generals were indeed in the article already, as we discussed, and that's fine.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Generals definitely not important enough for the lead. Trump U probably not. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree, Trump U probably not, as it's an incidental role, not integral to subject's notability.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree on the Generals. I do think Trump U is important enough to be mentioned in the lead although not in the first para.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Neither seems notable enough to warrant mention in the lede.CFredkin (talk) 01:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course Trump U is notable. Why in the world would it not be? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Anything. You say "...not integral to subject's notability". Which subjects notability do you mean...Trumps (as the subject of this article) is not notable to the University or the University is not notable to Trump? I'm confused. Do you mean Trumps role is incidental related to the University? Buster Seven Talk 05:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

His role as founder of Trump U is not integral to his notability. His notability stems mainly from other things.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Trump licensing his name for anything and selling substandard products kind of is what he's notable for. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

He'd be just as famous today if he had never set up Trump University. Only a small fraction of the media coverage of him discusses it. It's fine to describe Trump U later in this BLP, though.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. How do you know? Trump's notability is that he is a businessman. This is one of his businesses. It is one of his businesses which has received a lot of attention. It is one of his businesses which is covered extensively in sources (yes, partly because it's subject to investigation and civil suits). I don't know what this "small fraction" is, that just sounds like something you made up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC

His "Brand" is what's famous. Nowadays that is the product:the Trump name. Even before the election cycle, Trump realized that his rumored success was the product. Trump University would be just another huckster scam without his name on it. It's in the news and will stay in the news because it has his name on it. Its not prominent in the news because of the three class-action law suits, but when those are adjudicated I'm sure we will hear about it. Buster Seven Talk 06:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

In fact, I haven't "heard" or read anything about Trump U in the media in quite awhile. I think at this point, it is at the middle part of the spectrum pertaining to inclusion in this article. It seems, there has been other more prominent issues that have come to light during his campaign. I may be looking at this the wrong way, so I am open to input from other editors. In summation, I know Trump U is part of his bio, but it seems to have less prominence than when there was significant news coverage. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Just in the past week or so: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]

Of course it was even more prominently featured in the news when Trump made those comments about the judge, which many thought to be racist, but it's still there. In good measure because now it's linked to Trump Foundation and the "contributions" made to it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for providing these Volunteer Marek. Like I said, I may have been looking at this the wrong way. These presented sources show that this issue has legs and is being sustained. The New Yorker has a nice opening: "Trump University: The Scandal that Won't Go Away".

"If news cycles were driven by issues of import, rather than what’s new, Trump University, the scandal-plagued learning annex which promised to teach its students Donald Trump’s secrets of how to get rich in real estate, would never leave the front pages and home pages of American media outlets. As I noted in a June post that was based on court documents, even some of Trump University’s own employees regarded it as giant ripoff. The idea that the proprietor, and principal promoter, of such an enterprise could end up in the Oval Office is absurd on its face".

And I forgot about his comments about the judge. I also forgot about his "foundation" donation in Florida -

"a twenty-five-thousand-dollar payment to a political group supporting the reëlection of Pam Bondi, the Attorney General of Florida. When Trump’s charity made the donation, Bondi, a Republican who took office in 2011, was deciding whether to launch a formal investigation into Trump University, following complaints by Florida residents who claimed that they had been bilked. Shortly after Trump’s charity made the donation, Bondi announced that she wouldn’t go ahead with the probe of Trump University".

. So, I am now rethinking my previous statement. Actually I have been proved wrong. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's any way to put either of these items in the lead without giving them undue emphasis. It's not that they aren't significant--of course they are--but mentioning them while excluding Trump's many other ventures wouldn't be representative. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Forbes 500

Should the lead have been edited today as follows?

“ Listed by Forbes among the world's wealthiest 500 billionaires the World's Billionaires Trump and his businesses, as well as his personal life and political views, have for decades received considerable media exposure. ”

I think this was a counterproductive edit, and the words "wealthiest 500" should be restored. It sounds silly the way it is; if we want to say he's a billionaire then just say he's a billionaire (which is almost completely undisputed by reliable sources). However, it is much more noteworthy that he's among the world's wealthiest 500 billionaires. See Blankfeld, Karen. "Forbes Billionaires: Full List Of The 500 Richest People In The World 2016", Forbes (March 1, 2016). I don't think it's puffery any more than it's puffery to say in the Hillary Clinton lead "the first female", or to say in the Mike Bloomberg lead "6th richest person in the world", or to say in the Warren Buffett lead that "He was ranked as the world's wealthiest person in 2008 and as the third wealthiest in 2015", or to say in the George Soros lead "Soros is one of the 30 richest people in the world", et cetera.

As of August 31, the lead of this BLP said "Listed by Forbes among the wealthiest of the World's Billionaires...." On July 31, it said "Listed by Forbes among the wealthiest 400 of The World's Billionaires...." On June 30, it said: "Listed by Forbes among the wealthiest 400 of The World's Billionaires...." I haven't seen any firm consensus to remove from the lead that he's not merely a billionaire but also one of the wealthier ones.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters that much, but I'd support the re-inclusion of "the world's wealthiest 500 billionaires", as there are 1,810 billionaires according to Forbes. Trump has risen from joint-405th to 336th richest person in the world from 2015 to 2016 according to Forbes also, which is nice. Zaostao (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you give me one example where being the 336th best (in this case richest) deserves mention in the lead of someone's bio? Steve is the 336th best chess player in the world! John is the 336th highest paid CEO - brilliant! -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I did give several examples in the original comment of this section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Top 500 to distinguish from the 1,810 total, not a specific number. Anyway, I'd be pretty happy if I was the 336th best chess player in the world, i'd definitely want that in my wikipedia article—I'd also be rated nearly 2600 which would be very nice. Zaostao (talk) 23:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not taking a position on this discussion, but I think it's appropriate to note that what an editor would "want" if they were the subject of the article is, if anything, an argument against, not an argument for inclusion. Remember, the goal is to be independent and neutral. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Religion in the infobox.

I thought there was a consensus about not adding it.Ernio48 (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is consensus (closed RFC here) not to place a subject's religion in their infobox unless it's directly tied to their notability. I've gone ahead and removed it accordingly. —^0xF₈E₈ (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

He's Presbyterian. Here's an article about his childhood church.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

It was a different one made months ago, if Trump is elected he needs to either have it returned or all 43 previous presidents are to have it removed.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

44*Ernio48 (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I was excluding Cleveland's second termShadowDragon343 (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

AfD for List of books by or about Donald Trump

FYI, there's an Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussion about List of books by or about Donald Trump. The discussion is here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Longstanding

I restored the word "longstanding", as in the birther craziness was already "longstanding" when Trump got involved with it in 2011. This was already discussed extensively at this talk page, and I don't think we should give readers the impression that the whole thing started in 2011. Here is an archived version of our Wikipedia article about the controversy from just before Trump got involved, and it's clear that it was already longstanding.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Removed Trump Tower / Barbara Res passage

Today's GA fail suggested a citation for: "Favorable reviews of the building's design helped convince the city to approve the project. Trump hired Barbara Res to manage the building's construction, and she became the first woman to manage the construction of a skyscraper in New York City".

I am removing the passage because:

• Too tangential to a bio of Donald Trump. Particularly the bit about Barbara Res's career advancement, unless that's meant to show that he is not sexist because he did something that happened to advance the career of a woman. Which is not to say or imply that I believe he is sexist, I have no opinion on that.
• The passage is a copy-and-paste from this book and I'm not feeling inclined to spend some of my limited mental energy composing a rewrite for something so relatively unimportant to the article.
• WP:SELFPUBLISH. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Diff, FTR. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I can see why, as written, that it would not fit GA1. But it is historical that she was the first woman to be given the management of a skyscraper in New York City and that Trump is the one who gave her the job means it belongs in the article. I would be willing to edit it to GA1 standards. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: No objection from me, with a different source. That one is SELFPUBLISH. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)