Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 25

3793: 2379:

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.

2241:

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.

933:

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.

722: 151: 337: 472: 282: 1407: 31: 2548:- 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. – 631:. 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. -- 803:. 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. -- 2878:

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 Knowledge will become involved, I'm pinging an admin for a more weighty "weigh-in".

1153:– 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. 2907:. 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. -- 2925:, 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. -- 757: 2675: 1079:-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. 2362:(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. 2263:... 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!. – 3468:

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

932:

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

550:

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

417:

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

3788:

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

3357:

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

3015:

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

2877:

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

2240:

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

3291:

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

3220:

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

3467:

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

3236:

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

3132:@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? 2566:

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

2513:

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

703:

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

1198:

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 Knowledge, it seems more appropriate to me that only elected officials have a flag in their main picture. Besides, the

2353:

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

2378:

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

3370:

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,

3847:

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.

3483:

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

1391:. 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. 897:. 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. 3780:

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".

1096:

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.

3358:

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

3332:

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

3557:

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.

573:

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.

2082:

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,

2727:, 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. - 2658:

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

2066:

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.

799:, 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. 3725: 3347:

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:

2571:. 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. 2354:

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

1566:

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.

3371:

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

1982:. 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. — 3292:

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.

2460:

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

3328: 2996:

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

3182:

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.

1118:

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

2415:

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.

3572:

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

1374:

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 C

655:

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.

2522:

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

291:

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.

1114:- 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. 1177:, 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. 2197:

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.

974:

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

418:

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.

2432:

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.

2831:

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

319:

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. --

3500: 2945:

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. --

2710:) 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." -- 569:

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

3000:, "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." 911:

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.

2763:

based in policy, sources, and common sense". Here are the most relevant sources yet found, and the most objective reasonable rating factors yet identified:

3622: 3412:. 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. -- 3237:

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.

1584:

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.

3322: 1667:

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!. –

3750:

I restored the word "longstanding", as in the birther craziness was already "longstanding" when Trump got involved with it in 2011. This was already

2412: 1889:

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,

981: 552: 3664:

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.

3484:

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.

1893:

This one has Trump looking straight at the camera and with a normal, neutral expression, unlike the other proposals. I support using this photo. --

3796:

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.

980:

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

3625:) 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. — 1911:. 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? 1505: 2618:

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.-

3721: 2816:

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

3307: 2446:

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.

704:

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. -

231:

There's currently another similar discussion ongoing over at the 2016 Presidential election article, if more people could weigh in there:

2779:

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

2100: 1995: 3499:

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

2837:

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

555:

article. The pose on the 2013 photo may be "inspirational", but IMHO the image - although technically fine - is not very flattering.

1902: 529: 3503:. Trump has risen from joint-405th to 336th richest person in the world from 2015 to 2016 according to Forbes also, which is nice. 3458:

Trump and his businesses, as well as his personal life and political views, have for decades received considerable media exposure.

1600: 1305:

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.

1136:

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.

2526:

clearly has enough support for consensus now. I withdraw my suggestion from earlier especially when the only people who support

3310: 835:

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.

3521:

Can you give me one example where being the 336th best (in this case richest) deserves mention in the lead of someone's bio?

2936: 2893: 2707: 2700: 2489: 2420: 2180: 2140: 2022: 1396: 1067: 1021: 814: 680: 642: 611: 560: 257: 3319: 3084:

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.

2340: