Talk:Donald Trump

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Pstein92.

Open RfCs and surveys

• #RfC about Russian affairs in Trump sidebar
• #RfC: Accusations of bigotry

Current consensus

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
[[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .

01. Use the official White House portrait as the infobox image. (Dec 2016, Jan 2017, Oct 2017, March 2020) (temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait, enforced when an official public-domain portrait was released on 31 October 2017)

02. Show birthplace as "Queens, New York City, U.S." in the infobox. (Nov 2016, Oct 2018, Feb 2021) "New York City" de-linked. (September 2020)

03. Omit reference to county-level election statistics. (Dec 2016)

04. Superseded by #15

Lead phrasing of Trump "gaining a majority of the U.S. Electoral College" and "receiving a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide", without quoting numbers. (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

05. Use Trump's annual net worth evaluation and matching ranking, from the Forbes list of billionaires, not from monthly or "live" estimates. (Oct 2016) In the lead section, just write: Forbes estimates his net worth to be [$x.x] billion. (July 2018, July 2018) Removed from the lead per #47.

06. Do not include allegations of sexual misconduct in the lead section. (June 2016, Feb 2018)

07. Superseded by #35

Include "Many of his public statements were controversial or false." in the lead. (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

08. Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (Dec 2016)

09. Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2017) Include a link to an archive of Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2021)

10. Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (Jan 2017, Nov 2016)

11. Superseded by #17

The lead sentence is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States." (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (RM Jan 2017, RM June 2019)

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no comments for 14 days. Manual archival is allowed for (1) closed discussions, 24 hours after the closure, provided the closure has not been challenged, and (2) "answered" edit requests, 24 hours after the "answer", provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the "answer". (Jan 2017) (amended with respect to manual archiving, to better reflect common practice at this article) (Nov 2019)

14. Omit mention of Trump's alleged bathmophobia/fear of slopes. (Feb 2017)

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

Supersedes #4. There is no consensus to change the formulation of the paragraph which summarizes election results in the lead (starting with "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text (Diff 8 Jan 2017) has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense (Diff 11 Feb 2018). No new changes should be applied without debate. (RfC Feb 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017, Feb 2017) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

17. Superseded by #50

Supersedes #11. The lead paragraph is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." The hatnote is simply {{Other uses}}. (April 2017, RfC April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, July 2017, Dec 2018) Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018. Lower-case "p" in "president" per Dec 2018 and MOS:JOBTITLES RfC Oct 2017. Wikilinks modified per April 2020. Wikilink modified again per July 2020. "45th" de-linked. (Jan 2021)

18. Superseded by #63

The "Alma mater" infobox entry shows "Wharton School (BS Econ.)", does not mention Fordham University. (April 2017, April 2017, Aug 2020, Dec 2020)

19. Obsolete

Following deletion of Trump's official White House portrait for copyright reasons on 2 June 2017, infobox image was replaced by File:Donald Trump Pentagon 2017.jpg. (June 2017 for replacement, June 2017, declined REFUND on 11 June 2017) (replaced by White House official public-domain portrait according to #1 since 31 Oct 2017)

20. Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. (June 2017, May 2018) (Note: In February 2021, when he was no longer president, the verb tense was changed from "have sparked" to "sparked", without objection.)

21. Superseded by #39

Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him. (July 2017, Aug 2017) (superseded by #36 on 18 June 2019, then by #39 since 20 Aug 2019)

22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. (RfC Aug 2017)

23. Superseded by #52

The lead includes the following sentence: Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision. (Aug 2017, Nov 2017, Dec 2017, Jan 2018, Jan 2018) Wording updated (July 2018) and again (Sep 2018).

24. Superseded by #30

Do not include allegations of racism in the lead. (Feb 2018) (superseded by #30 since 16 Aug 2018)

25. Do not add web archives to cited sources which are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)

26. Do not include opinions by Michael Hayden and Michael Morell that Trump is a "useful fool […] manipulated by Moscow" or an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation". (RfC April 2018)

27. State that Trump falsely claimed that Hillary Clinton started the Barack Obama birther rumors. (April 2018, June 2018)

28. Include, in the Wealth section, a sentence on Jonathan Greenberg's allegation that Trump deceived him in order to get on the Forbes 400 list. (June 2018, June 2018)

29. Include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the article. (June 2018)

30. Supersedes #24. The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist." (RfC Sep 2018, Oct 2018, RfC May 2019)

31. Do not mention Trump's office space donation to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/Push Coalition in 1999. (Nov 2018)

32. Omit from the lead the fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. (RfC July 2018, Nov 2018)

33. Do not mention "birtherism" in the lead section. (RfC Nov 2018)

34. Refer to Ivana Zelníčková as a Czech model, with a link to Czechs (people), not Czechoslovakia (country). (Jan 2019)

35. Superseded by #49

Supersedes #7. Include in the lead: Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. (RfC Feb 2019)

36. Superseded by #39

Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals who have not examined him. (June 2019) (paragraph removed per RfC Aug 2019 yielding consensus #39)

37. Resolved: Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (June 2019)

38. Do not state in the lead that Trump is the wealthiest U.S. president ever. (RfC June 2019)

39. Supersedes #21 and #36. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. (RfC Aug 2019, July 2021)

40. Include, when discussing Trump's exercise or the lack thereof: He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise. (RfC Aug 2019)

41. Omit book authorship (or lack thereof) from the lead section. (RfC Nov 2019)

42. House and Senate outcomes of the impeachment process are separated by a full stop. For example: He was impeached by the House on December 18, 2019, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was acquitted of both charges by the Senate on February 5, 2020. (Feb 2020)

43. The rules for edits to the lead are no different from those for edits below the lead. For edits that do not conflict with existing consensus: Prior consensus is NOT required. BOLD edits are allowed, subject to normal BRD process. The mere fact that an edit has not been discussed is not a valid reason to revert it. (March 2020)

44. The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim and some degree of clarification that they haven't produced clear results. (RfC May 2020)

45. Superseded by #48

There is no consensus to mention the COVID-19 pandemic in the lead section. (RfC May 2020, July 2020) (Superseded by RfC Aug 2020)

46. Use the caption "Official portrait, 2017" for the infobox image. (Aug 2020, Jan 2021)

47. Do not mention Trump's net worth or Forbes ranking (or equivalents from other publications) in the lead, nor in the infobox. (Sep 2020)

48. Supersedes #45. Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic should be mentioned in the lead section. There is no consensus on specific wording, but the status quo is Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. (Oct 2020, RfC Aug 2020)

49. Supersedes #35. Include in lead: Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. (Dec 2020)

50. Supersedes #17. The lead sentence is: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. (March 2021), amended (July 2021), inclusion of politician (RfC September 2021)

51. Include in the lead that many of Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as misogynistic. (Aug 2021 and Sep 2021)

52. Supersedes #23. The lead should contain a summary of Trump's actions on immigration, including the Muslim travel ban (cf. item 23), the wall, and the family separation policy. (September 2021)

53. The lead should mention that Trump promotes conspiracy theories. (October 2021)

54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (October 2021)

55. Regarding Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, do not wiki-link "Trump's comments" in this manner. (RfC December 2021)

56. Retain the content that Trump never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan but add context. Current wording can be altered or contextualized; no consensus was achieved on alternate wordings. (RfC November 2021) Trump's expressions of doubt regarding the Russian Bounties Program should be included in some capacity, though there there is no consensus on a specific way to characterize these expressed doubts. (RfC March 2022)

57. Do not mention in the lead Gallup polling that states Trump's the only president to never reach 50% approval rating. (RfC January 2022)

58. Use inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations. (RfC May 2022, discussion on what to cite May 2022)

59. Do not label or categorize Trump as a far-right politician. (RfC August 2022)

60. Insert the links described in the RfC January 2023.

61. When a thread is started with a general assertion that the article is biased for or against Trump (i.e., without a specific, policy-based suggestion for a change to the article), it is to be handled as follows:

1. Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias.
2. Close the thread using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, referring to this consensus item.
3. Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
4. Manually archive the thread.

This does not apply to posts that are clearly in bad faith, which are to be removed on sight. (May 2023)

62. The article's description of the five people who died during and subsequent to the January 6 Capitol attack should avoid a) mentioning the causes of death and b) an explicit mention of the Capitol Police Officer who died. (RfC July 2023)

63. Supersedes #18. The alma mater field of the infobox reads: "University of Pennsylvania (BS)". (September 2023)

64. Omit the {{Very long}} tag. (January 2024)

65. Mention the Abraham Accords in the article; no consensus was achieved on specific wordings. (RfC February 2024)

RfC about Russian affairs in Trump sidebar

You are invited to participate in Template talk:Donald Trump series#RfC: Selection and display of articles about Russia. — JFG ^talk 16:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Lies

As a follow-up on the RfC that was recently closed, and in light of yesterday's New York Times news article (not opinion) discussing Trump's "lies," I would like to start an ongoing, no-archive thread in which we collect all of the reliable sources that discuss whether Trump has lied. The fatal flaw with the RfC, in my view, was that the proposal wasn't readily verifiable: it included an overwhelming list of sources, many of which were opinion sources (not reliable for facts) or that only discussed whether Trump's statements were false. (Not all false statements are lies.) It also made no effort to include reliable sources that say Trump did not or does not lie. I don't know how many such sources exist; that is the purpose of this discussion.

I am not proposing any changes to the article at this time. I'm merely requesting research help. If you think a source should not be on the list, please tag it, discuss it, and/or move it into a new subsection or something. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources

• Stolberg, Sheryl Gay (August 7, 2017). "Many Politicians Lie. But Trump Has Elevated the Art of Fabrication". The New York Times.

Discussion

Wrong venue. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

This is obviously for political reasons. There are many other politicians (Hillary Clinton, Romney, etc.) who also have numerous reliable sources stating they lie, but they are not put under the same scrutiny on Wikipedia.--97.124.67.164 (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC) Do you have tangible evidence that the amounts of RS are even similar? The consistent consensus among experienced Wikipedia editors has been that they are not. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC) That's pretty naive to say without acknowledging how much news has changed in the past couple of years. You think the NYT and the Washington Post would chronicle how many times Kennedy or Reagan lied during their respective years in office? Alongside the fact how many in the press have a vendetta against the current President, I'm disheartened to see Wikipedia continuously make decisions like this. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 07:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC) Read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, then go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you want to claim that longstanding reliable sources are no longer reliable (bring solid evidence or don't waste your time). But this is not the place for that discussion. See also #RFC on use of Liar and Lie above, just closed. Per that consensus, it's looking like any mention of "lies" will be attributed to the sources that have said that (whether collectively or selectively I don't know). No matter what anybody thinks about the reliability of our sources, there is no question that many, many have said it, and we would only be reporting that fact with an "According to..." or equivalent. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC) I say this be included in the article. 31.215.113.174 (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC) That's all well and good, but I seriously doubt there would be consensus for it unless/until more reliable sources are gathered. So if you want to see it included then please consider helping with the research. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Re [1]. I know there was (were) an exhaustive (several) discussion on the "lies" and "falsehoods" thing, consensus was to include it, so why is this being removed now? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

You may be thinking of #Current consensus #7, which was only about the lead. I don't recall a consensus as to body, but if one exists it needs to be located and added to the list. Noted that a mention in the lead generally requires something in the body. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

That was my understanding as well, I did not see anything in consensus about the body. With that since @Bergeronp: removed it originally we can talk about it here to see if it should be kept or not. PackMecEng (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Also suggest a new section, as this one is specifically and solely about the words "lie" and "liar", and their variations. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Accusations of bigotry

Should a new section be added regarding accusations of Trump's bigotry (racism, antisemitism, sexism, Islamophobia)? Avisnacks (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support Agree with Avisnacks. There is near-universal consensus among the American public - including part of the coalition that elected him - that he is openly a bigot. The overwhelming evidence of a history of lawsuits against him faulting him with racial profiling, the many public statements confidantes have made about him lying and being an insensitive person, and his open rallying of alt-right causes confirms it. Of course there is bipartisan dispute about insinuating someone is a "bigot" on their page, but if something like this is warranted, the sheer moral opprobrium over having it done should not be what stops the community from doing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historybuff18 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support There is a mainstream contention on the left that Trump is a bigot. While the right mostly denies this, a discussion of the underlying facts is overdue. Avisnacks (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Maybe Depends upon wording, sourcing, due weight and other factors. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose As per WP:NPOV, mostly. 104.247.233.128 (talk) 05:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:UNDUE on the main article. However, I support including this in Public image of Donald Trump, an article that was deleted a while ago but warrants re-creation since a lot of sources have discussed his public image and reputation, and probably more so than any other politician that has an equivalent "public image" article. I would suggest including accusations of racism and bigotry there. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 05:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Every person is at least a bit racist. Unless Trump is openly racist and speaks publicly about white supremacy and hatred of other races, it is pointless to point out Trump is a bit racist. I'm sure he is, but there's nothing special about it. 38.121.89.51 (talk) 01:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Neutral - I'd support inclusion of accusations on the page about his presidency, but I'm hesitant to include them on the BLP as they may be undue. But in the grand scheme, his presidency is the most "due" thing in his biography I guess. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Maybeis a good word, as it'd depend on how it is presented. From racial bias cases against him in the 70s, to statements made on the campaign trail targeting Mexicans, to the hiring of Steve Bannon and to the tepid criticism of Charlottesville neo-Nazis, this persons decades-long issues with race are well-documented. ValarianB (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Undue for main BLP, a discussion could be had on his presidency article perhaps. Also half the sources listed below are opinion pieces and not acceptable for this material in a BLP. PackMecEng (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support but the sources need to be rock-solid (not opinion pieces) and the wording has to be unambiguous in the sources. Have to be very careful about this area, obviously. But I think there's enough to warrant a section. Rockypedia (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE not appropriate. Meatsgains (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Lean Oppose. A good case can be made for this. But, I tend to think it should only come up in connection with actions in office; in which case it would belong in a different article. There is already mention of his violations of the Fair Housing Act in Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump. Besides, this could require a year of RfCs. Objective3000 (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – Undue minefield of emotional opinions. — JFG ^talk 04:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Emotional Opinion-- JFG, please reconsider your rabid support of Donald Trump, which may endanger your continued residence in this fine nation. Please see: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/08/09/raise-act-would-eliminate-most-immigration-including-high-skilled-immigrants.html. I'm afraid your 10 years of Wikipedia editing are worth 0 immigration points. I would hate to lose such a tireless editor to the deportation squad. 68.132.68.52 (talk) 02:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Why, Kingshowman, that was entertaining! I appreciate your concern for my well-being. Rest assured that I live in a very safe and neutral country, far far away from the U.S. of A. — JFG ^talk 07:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose I'm not convinced at the moment that such a section is necessary, or that we should build one on the basis of commentator opinions only. (Summoned by bot) Coretheapple (talk) 11:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Support (sock) Both Trump's supporters and detractors can agree that Trump is a bigot: that is what they love best/hate most about him. Thus we should easily be able to arrive at a consensus. Didn't Trump just give a speech in Phoenix in which he announced that he was the first "White Nationalist" president? Let me give you some quotes from Trump: "There were very fine people on both sides."-- Trump, on a Nazi pro-slavery rally,and their victims. "There are always two sides a story. There was blame on many sides." Trump, on Nazis, Jews, and the Holocaust "They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists,and some I assume are good people."- Trump, on Mexicans “Thank you President Trump for your honesty & courage to tell the truth,” David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan leader, wrote in a Twitter post shortly after Mr. Trump spoke. Richard B. Spencer, a white nationalist leader who participated in the weekend’s demonstrations and vowed to flood Charlottesville with similar protests in the coming weeks, was equally encouraged. “Trump’s statement was fair and down to earth,” Mr. Spencer tweeted.68.132.68.52 (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Striking invalid !vote by banned user Kingshowman. — JFG ^talk 07:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - partisan violates WP:BLPSTYLE, and WP:LABEL too. This is silly, asking for a whole section carte Blanche to list unlimited emotional opinions and general character insults without stating any support or notable incident basis. Just reads like asking if it is ok to make this an attack page. Markbassett (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - Violates WP:BLP as attack page. Jdcomix (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

  @Jdcomix: Actually, there's nothing in WP:ATTACK that is relevant to this RfC. What is being proposed is a section discussing the numerous, well-sourced accusations of bigotry et al. Please actually read the proposal before commenting on RfCs in the future. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

  I read the entire proposal, but thanks for the tip. I still stand by my strong oppose !vote, it violates BLP. Jdcomix (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

  How does it violate WP:BLP? Just saying it does isn't sufficient rationale for your !vote to mean anything. Just sayin'. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

  "Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR)". One could argue the proposed section violates all three of these, though personally I think it just violates NPOV and NOR. I can point to more examples if you'd like. Jdcomix (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

  And one could argue the proposed section violates none of these as well. There are numerous reliable sources that document Trump's bigotry, and acts thereof. There's a clear case to be made that this is a defining characteristic of Trump, in fact. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - violation of WP:BLPSTYLE, section for attack is undue and will open door for emotional editorializing. Specific actions can have mention of attacks by critics of that action, which can include an accusation like this. Marquis de Faux (talk) 04:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support. There are a plethora of reliable non-opinion sources about this, are there not? Isn't this a major feature of Trump's life, way beyond his campaign and administration? I have read and re-read the many good-faith oppose !votes, and I don't see any that are grounded in our policies or guidelines. Simply saying that such a section would be undue is meaningless. WP:UNDUE is about fairly summarizing the reliable sources. The reliable sources have discussed Trump's bigotry (or lack of bigotry) at tremendous length. Not including substantial content on this issue would be undue. And no one is proposing making an attack section. Assuming good faith, the proposal is to make a neutrally presented section about a tremendously noteworthy aspect of Trump's biography. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Our hands are tied. We must reflect coverage given by reliable sources. That the term is subjective, and that in this case it is used exclusively and selectively by his political opponents, is completely irrelevant policy is policy we must call Trump a bigot and in Wikipedia's voice. Wikipedia has been accused in the past of having a left-wing the bias and a hatred for Trump in particular,leading to biased and partisan coverage. We cannot let our reputation prevent us from calling a meanie a meanie. Marteau (talk)

Are you saying to simply ignore NPOV just so we can call Trump a racist? Jdcomix (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose mainly because the proposal is too vague. Moreover, it would be better to simply broaden the existing section about accusations of sexual misconduct rather than have an additional section on accusations of sexism. The accusations of antisemitism seem relatively minor to me, and there is much info to the contrary that we would have to include too (e.g. appointment of Jews to high government positions, warm welcome in Israel, Jewish grandchildren, et cetera). As for Islamophobia, I think his phobia in that regard is mostly more specific, i.e. a phobia about radical Islamic jihadists, but that subject is already covered with regard to his travel ban. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose We should, and do, mention his association with white nationalists. We should, and do, mention his issues with women. We should, and do, mention his anti-Islam proposals. Those are all factual, neutral, and proper for a biography. We should NOT get into name-calling like bigot, racist, etc. - just as we say "many of his statements are untrue" but do not say liar. Name-calling is inappropriate for an encyclopedia no matter how many sources do it. (BTW I don't know of any evidence that he is anti-Semitic - as convenient as it may be for people to assume that anyone who is a bigot is automatically against everything. His son-in-law is Jewish, his daughter converted to Judaism, he seems very proud of both of them - I think that is one accusation against him that doesn't stick.) --MelanieN (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as WP:UNDUE. "Bigot" is a very big word to strap into an article, and will result in nothing more than lots of drama even if it is stated as "just an opinion." Stikkyy t/c 05:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose may I suggest a refresher of NPOV, V, WP:PUBLICFIGURE, WP:LABEL, WP:REDFLAG, WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE for starters? ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Four respected sources (Dana Milbank of The Washington Post, Nicholas Kristof of the NYT, Vox, and Rolling Stone) have concluded that Trump is a bigot (and/or racist). Respected news sources on both the right and the left have reported a variety of accusations against Trump's bigoted actions, bigoted statements, and tacit support of bigotry. World leaders, politicians, and opinion writers all over the spectrum have criticized him for these varied acts and words. While reporting of Trumps actions and statements have been heightened as a candidate and president, many writers have traced this theme throughout Trump's life. That said, it is absolutely crucial that this section sticks to the verifiable facts and avoids truth-value statements about Trump (e.g. "Trump is a racist"), because those kinds of statements are hotly disputed. Avisnacks (talk) 09:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Not even close to the WP:LABEL guide of 'wide' use - this is just an opinion piece, an NYT election piece, a Vox piece reusing the NYT piece, and Rolling Stone saying Charlottesville response was too slow. Markbassett (talk) 04:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Trump should not be described as racist as per WP:LABEL guide ("widely used by reliable sources"). But I think that the accusations are broad enough (this includes Paul Ryan calling one of Trump's statements the "textbook definition of a racist comment") that they merit discussion in the same way that his "awards, honors, and distinctions" do. Avisnacks (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• Note. 2 of the votes above are IP users with 4 edits between them, all to this page. I'd suggest that these and future RfCs are limited to confirmed users. ValarianB (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

ValarianB GeoLocate reveals that the track to the same hood in Toronto. Will file an spi with cu request, remembering beans. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I think I only understood 1/3rd of that. :) But it looks like they can figure out if they're the same person or in the same place, so sounds good, thanks. :) ValarianB (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Shoot for B-class or GA label?

The article has been quite stable for a while, controversial topics were properly addressed by consensus, and the talk page is free of major disputes. Would this be the right time to submit the article for a B-class review? — JFG ^talk 04:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Checking the criteria, it seems to me that we could even try obtaining the WP:Good Article label now. — JFG ^talk 04:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Situation seems little changed from prior rejects for GA and remark it is not even B class. Stability still seeing multiple changes every day, always multiple dispute resolution RFCs in progress, Talk of NPOV, Talk of significant restructure/reduction, Talk of significant additions, Talk guidance still evolving, etcetera. I think Power~enwiki helped with July guidance about not repeating everything in the blp, and cites needed a bit better, plus gone down from election era frenzied activity.... But less insane does not yet seem "good". Markbassett (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I too wonder if it is yet good for even B-class. There are still a number of unresolved disputes. Lorstaking (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Russiagate

I'm a long-standing critic of what I feel is an excessive number of pages regarding Trump-Russia scandals. A few, especially Donald Trump's disclosure of classified information to Russia, are not notable enough (IMO) for a stand-alone page. However, there's currently no good merge target for them.

I propose creating a new page called either Russiagate or Donald Trump's Russia scandals . Russiagate, as a neologism, has some usage [2] [3] but I wouldn't say it's a commonly-used term at this time; creating a Wikipedia page under that title could possibly cause it to be promoted in the media as a term. "Donald Trump's Russia scandals" is wordier but un-ambiguous in meaning and unlikely to have any secondary impact.

I'm also not sure whether re-naming Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections to an agreed-upon name or creating an entirely new page would be best, if there's agreement for a top-level page. Thoughts? Power~enwiki (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that if we do this we have to be very careful about WP:SYNTH issues. For example you mentioned the disclosure of the classified information and the election interference. Is their any source linking the two together? And even if we do a top-level page would it be an overview with links to main articles or would all the information be merged together and create a possible WP:SOAPBOX or could it end up being WP:INDISCRIMINATE? I am not totally opposed to this idea, but I think that we must tread with caution if we undertake such a proposal. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

That's interesting. See the open RfC about limiting the number of Russia-related articles to display in the Trump sidebar. @Power~enwiki:, about "Russiagate", I hope you don't seriously consider that "creating a Wikipedia page under that title could possibly cause it to be promoted in the media as a term". That would be a willful attempt at citogenesis, a hard-to-detect phenomenon that we must strive to stamp out. See for example suspicions of this problem having occurred on Talk:Whataboutism#Any pre-2008 references?

To avoid WP:SYNTH, we could create a List of controversies about Donald Trump and Russia, but I'm not convinced that would be a productive exercise. A more promising avenue is to notice that a lot of the contents in the various Trump–Russia articles is duplicated, so that selective merge is possible per WP:CFORK. For example, Comey memos was recently merged into Dismissal of James Comey. Surely some other news-spike events which haven't developed beyond the initial reports could be merged as well. Donald Trump's disclosure of classified information to Russia is a good example; I would merge it into Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration or into Russia–United States relations. — JFG ^talk 07:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for informing of the RfC. I have already voted C, as I don't believe that hiding any of the information is helpful to a reader. That template uses the phrase Russia controversies, and lists different controversies with Russia but doesn't make it seem like it is linked other than that they both have to do with Russia and Trump. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. It seems that any news story that includes the words "Trump" and "Russia" gets a new Wikipedia article because widespread press coverage "automatically" imparts WP:GNG. This is not sustainable. Thankfully, some of the "shocking-tweet-of-the-day" articles do not survive prompt AfDs. — JFG ^talk 15:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Power~enwiki - Renaming or merging Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections seems a poor idea as that is a well-known large meaty topic, and also as it's nominally about Russian actions -- Trumps Russian Scandals would be things Trump did. And JFG is right -- the open RfC about there being way too many Trump articles on trivial items (805 articles today) or repeating material - but I'm thinking that making another for 'List of Trump and Russia Stories" would just add one more rather than eliminate any. The growth in numbers seems slowed, perhaps as the large number now means folks find a larger article something new fits into so that separate articles are not started or merge smaller articles into, but that's a natural happening and isolated incidents rather than made-up synthesis of items. ... ... ... I don't have any great solutions here, but suggest just let it be. Markbassett (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• What Markbassett said. I think this is a well-meant but ultimately hopeless proposal. There is just too much information to combine - unless we create a "list" type article without removing any of the existing articles. And please, whatever we do, not "Russiagate"! In the first place, I am sick of labeling every scandal Something-gate, and in the second place, calling something "gate" automatically labels it a scandal - a word we have been careful not to use with regard to this investigation. --MelanieN (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
• Agree with Markbassett and MelanieN. We're dealing with a new situation, even for Wikipedia. Trump is unique and probably has already set a record with number of articles here. Hey, "someone's got to do it"! I also agree with JFG that momentary news spikes, with no lasting effect, usually mean the content ends up in a larger, existing, article, and that's how it should be. Above all, we must remember WP:PRESERVE. During the process of actually necessary merges, no RS or content should be lost. If merging would then make the main article balloon too much, that means the merge should not occur. Sometimes such a merge can work because of duplication, and other times not. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Walking into dressing rooms

The following was added to the Sexual Misconduct Allegations today:

Trump had previously described his practice of walking in unannounced while teenage beauty pageant contestants were naked or partially clothed, during a Howard Stern interview in 2005, saying "you know, they're standing there with no clothes. And you see these incredible-looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that."

User:Awilley modified it to:

Other recordings surfaced including a 2005 radio interview with Howard Stern in which Trump described barging into dressing rooms at beauty pageants while contestants were nude or partially clothed.

User:Scjessey restored the original wording. I have removed the entire thing, subject to discussion here. Options are 1) don't mention this at all; 2) use the original addition, including a quote from him and sourced to a Rolling Stone article about Trump's "creepiness"; or 3) use Awilley's modification, without the quote and sourced to the Washington Post. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources

• Personally I would leave out the whole thing. We already have extensive material on his crude remarks about women. This was a one-time macho brag of his, twelve years ago, and AFAIK it has not been corroborated by any of the girls or women who were part of his pageants. But if we are going to include something about this, I would prefer option 3 as less tabloid-y and more encyclopedic. --MelanieN (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC) Update: I stand corrected. --MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

  Re: "AFAIK it has not been corroborated by any of the girls or women who were part of his pageants" [4] [5] ~Awilley (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• For corroboration see Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#Allegations of pageant dressing room visits. This article already includes about 175 words about the "grab them by the pussy" brag, which has less corroboration, as far as I can tell only that at Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#Kristin Anderson (1990s) (actual, depending on what "grope beneath skirt" means) and Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#Jessica Leeds (1980s) (attempted). All this considered, I would favor a TBD Option 4: one or two sentences summarizing both his statement and the corroboration of it. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but our article on the topic is written in an intentionally biased manner to conceal all of the evidence suggesting these claims are baseless—which is most of the evidence, and most of the testimony. BuzzFeed interviewed 16 of 51 contestants from the 1997 Miss Teen USA pageant; five alleged that Trump visited their dressing room, whereas 11 denied it. The contrast between the source and Wikipedia is jarring:

Of the 11 women who said they don't remember Trump coming into the changing room, some said it was possible that it happened while they weren't in the room or that they didn't notice. But most were dubious or dismissed the possibility out of hand. "There were so many chaperones I can't even fathom" him doing so, said Jessica Granata, the former Miss Massachusetts Teen USA. "It was very secure." Allison Bowman, former Miss Wisconsin Teen USA, cast doubt on whether it happened. "These were teenage girls," Bowman said. "If anything inappropriate had gone on, the gossip would have flown." "There was way too much security," said Crystal Hughes, the former Miss Maine Teen USA. "If that was something he did, then everybody would have noticed." Asked why some of her fellow contestants said he did enter the changing room, Hughes responded, "They’re probably lying because they are voting for Hillary Clinton."—Source: Taggart, Kendall; Garrison, Jessica; Testa, Jessica (2016-10-13). "Teen Beauty Queens Say Trump Walked In On Them Changing". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved 2017-08-29.

Trump also entered the dressing room of the Miss Teen USA pageant in 1997 while the girls were dressing. The youngest contestants were 15 years old. He told the girls, "Don't worry, ladies, I've seen it all before." Of the 15 former contestants who were interviewed, none alleged Trump said anything sexually explicit or made physical contact in the dressing room. ... The dressing room had 51 contestants, each with their own stations. Eleven girls said that they did not see Trump enter the dressing room, though some said it was possible that he entered while they were somewhere else, or that they didn't notice. Allison Bowman, Miss Wisconsin Teen USA, expressed skepticism: "these were teenage girls. If anything inappropriate had gone on, the gossip would have flown." Billado recalled talking to Ivanka, Trump's daughter, who responded "Yeah, he does that." Trump's campaign stated the allegations of him entering the dressing room "have no merit and have already been disproven by many other individuals who were present."—Source: Wikipedia, Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#Allegations of pageant dressing room visit, purporting to cite the above BuzzFeed article through this derivative New York Post piece.

Wikipedia states the allegations against Trump as a fact in its own voice, implies that 40 contestants (rather than five) concurred on the dressing room visits, misrepresents the eleven skeptics as merely conceding that they "didn't notice" Trump's presence (whereas BuzzFeed explicitly notes "most were dubious or dismissed the possibility out of hand"), and attributes actual doubt to Bowman alone (in fact, her's was the majority opinion). (In turn, Bowman was likely chosen because her comment about "gossip" was considered weaker than Granata and Hughes's insistence that the massive security/chaperone presence would never have given Trump free reign.) Moreover, all such allegations are difficult to square with first-hand accounts of how the pageants are actually run:

Amy Colley Tyson recently wrote her personal account of meeting Donald Trump on her Facebook page. In it, she provides a timeline of events on what happened to hear during her time as Miss Tennessee USA during the 2005 Miss USA pageant.

:::*6:00pm—delegates released to dressing rooms (2 rooms total) to begin prep for live telecast. We were assigned one of two rooms based on our state title in alphabetical order. My assigned area was directly across from entrance on right hand side between Texas and South Dakota. The organization gave us 2 1/2 hours to complete prep.

• 8:20pm—15 minute warning announced: chaperones, who were present at ALL times, announced Mr. Trump and his wife, Melania, would be briefly visiting the room to greet us. The chaperones instructed us to be completely dressed and appropriate.

• 8:30—5 minute warning. The chaperones walked along the room to ensure we were appropriate and to offer assistance to anyone should they request.

• 8:35—Last announcement warning: this ensured we were appropriate and dressed. Mr. Trump and his wife, Melania, entered dressing area to say hello just after arriving to the building. Their visit was brief, pleasant, appropriate and 3 minutes maximum. Mr. Trump greeted us and wished us good luck. Melania spoke as well. Not once did he glance, speak or gesture inappropriately in our dressing room. He kept his gaze on Melania during most of the encounter. Chaperones were present at all times. Mr. Trump and his wife then exited to enter the next dressing room.

• 8:45—Delegates released from dressing rooms to line up in wings stage right and left.

• 9:00pm—production begins.

 ... Tyson's experience compliments the personal account of fellow 2005 Miss USA contestant, Miss Kansas USA Rachel "Saunders" Imdieke, as previously reported by the Inquisitr.—Source: Frye, Patrick (2016-10-16). "Donald Trump Walking In on Half-Naked Contestants of '1997 Miss Teen USA' Allegations: Former Miss Tennessee Amy Colley Provides Personal Account Meeting Trump at '2005 Miss USA'". Inquisitr. Retrieved 2017-08-29.

I previously attempted to add some of this conflicting information to Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations—or at least revise the BuzzFeed text to bear some slight resemblance to the source—but was totally blocked by editors insisting that the purpose of the article was solely to document negative claims about Trump. Thus, testimony such as Tyson's was deemed "off-topic," even when the sources considered it relevant.

I would support 1 or 3 here, but the bigger problem is that our dedicated article ignores WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and even WP:V in a transparently one-sided effort to treat every allegation against Trump as undisputed fact.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Brevity is the sole soul of wit. The original is more accurate. The revision is more in keeping with guidelines. I support Awilley's mod. But, let's drop the aspersions. Objective3000 (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

3 is good sturdy encyclopedic prose. 1 seems like undue detail for his bio article. May belong in a different article. NPOV BLP and V complaints are nonsense. SPECIFICO talk 21:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• I would leave out anything that did not receive widespread coverage in mainstream media such as CNN. Per policy this article is not the place for people to go to find things that are ignored in mainstream sources but to read what mainstream sources find important. TFD (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• I failed to be clear that I wouldn't use the word "corroboration" in our prose, nor would I imply that the allegations are unanimous or undisputed (it would be highly surprising if they were). "Some pageant participants alleged", or something similar, would be both accurate and policy-compliant. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I think editors should wait 30 or more days before adding any more of this kind of material. It seems to be a matter of some contestants say he walked in on them at an inappropriate time and others say this is not so. Personally, I would like to add to this article that he definitively did this. However, I don't think this Wikipedia article will be lacking if this is revisited at a much later time. It is possible that more perspective will be available later - imho. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• If it is to be included I think one short sentence is sufficient. I don't think the additional allegations from pageant participants need to be mentioned here. That Trump said what he said is uncontroversial. The accusations are less so, though they definitely added to the story's "notability".
  @TFD, According to Fox [6] it was CNN that broke the story [7]. @Objective, I think you meant "soul" ;-) ~Awilley (talk) 04:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Well this sure was a creepy episode if it happened like that. A properly encyclopedic article would mention that the Trump campaign issued a denial.[8] So it seems the campaign wanted everyone to believe Trump was just BSing to Stern. Which seems possible though unlikely. If we include the quote from the Stern show, I oppose cutting off the last six words which make things a bit more ambiguous: "And you see these incredible looking women, and so, I sort of get away with things like that. But no, I've been very good." Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Anything, In case this was a reply to my comment, let me clarify that I oppose including the quote at all. Also if you look at the sentence's location in the article, [9] the very next sentence begins, "Trump and his campaign have denied all of the sexual misconduct accusations..." ~Awilley (talk) 05:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Awilley, I'd feel better about your draft if we replace "described" with "talked about" or something like that. Incidentally, Trump's account to Stern apparently referred to "women" so we probably shouldn't say he talked to Stern about girls or teenagers, as the other draft does above. But if we don't discuss any allegation regarding the pageants, and instead only describe dueling statements by Trump, then maybe this stuff doesn't belong in this section? Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@all: I'm puzzled. Why is this story from October 2016 resurfacing now? The election is over… We've had the relevant editorial debates at the time, is there anything new? — JFG ^talk 06:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Awilley, according to Fox, CNN found the tape where the comments were made. But the CNN article doesn't mention these comments. Even if it had, a single mention is not the same as widespread coverage. Donald Trump is in the news ever single day and has been for 2 years and will continue to be as long as he is president. We need to follow policy: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." TFD (talk) 10:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• My view is that IF we include any of it, Trump's quote is an important aspect of it. He's openly bragging that he abused his power to see naked women, which would be shocking and nauseating if it was coming from anyone other than Trump. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• I support the first version, with his quote. Agree with Scjessey. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Per discussion above, if we are to use the first version (my option #2) we should strike the word "teenage". Anythingyouwant quite properly points out that Trump's brag referred to "women," and neither he nor the source suggest that this happened at the teenage pageants - which (as contestants suggested) almost certainly were chaperoned in a way the adult pageants were not. --MelanieN (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• Except for the fact that it was ALSO the teenage contestants who complained, and the complaints were spread over several years. The fact that some didn't experience it does not negate the fact that others did and complained, so let's stick with what RS indicate. It was ALSO the teenage contestants. Therefore we should mention "adult and teenage contestants". -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• Five complained one month before the election, but everyone else interviewed by BuzzFeed was unanimous that it never happened, and they all shared one big dressing room. The claims are indeed "almost certainly" false, because for Trump to have engaged in such behavior would have required a huge list of enablers, yet no chaperones or security personnel or anyone else with first-hand knowledge has since come forward to corroborate the allegations. To the contrary, the story began and ended with BuzzFeed and a few derivative tabloids and has since completely died. Not only does it not belong here, it should be removed from Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations as an WP:EXCEPTIONAL WP:BLP vio.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• You're forgetting that these two very important people confirm it:

1. Ivanka Trump: She was unsurprised and confirmed that "he does that".
2. Trump himself: "You know, they're standing there with no clothes. And you see these incredible-looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that ... I'll go backstage before a show, and everyone's getting dressed and ready and everything else."

The Trump campaign's later denials are akin to Trump's attempts to deny that he grabs pussy:

1. Women complain that he was creepy and sexually assaulted/touched/whatever them.
2. He confirms that he does that type of thing by bragging that he grabs pussy.
3. When his quote becomes public he denies, but that doesn't wash because there are too many people who confirm that the bragging is Trump speaking truth, and because there is nothing in his personality, character, and history which gives even a smidgen of doubt that he would do these things. When reasonable people hear these things, they shrug and think "That's par for the course. It's just Donald being Donald. That's who he is." -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Trump's words "confirm" nothing. We can't call him a habitual lying blowhard (in talk) when it serves our argument and then take his words at face value when it serves a different purpose. Ivanka is a different matter. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The Ivanka "quote" is not a quote at all, but something recounted by one of the five accusers, Mariah Billado.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Image

Can we replace the current image with this one?

President Trump Oval Office June 2017.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edge4life42 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

You can discuss it here, if you like, but do not add it unless there is a consensus to do so. Right now there is a long-standing consensus for the current image; see Current consensus above, #19. --MelanieN (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

This picture is heavily distorted, and Poroshenko would have to be edited out, leaving a low-resolution Trump. I don't see the potential benefit. — JFG ^talk 23:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

i think this is a great photo, shows trump in a better way than the current one, and it's not low resolution. Angelgfg12345 (talk) 03:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Its a manipulated image as you can see Trump looks more "orange" in the original ...--Stemoc 10:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I was under the impression there was wide agreement that the current photo is only a "stop-gap" to occupy the infobox during the time between the abrupt deletion of the previous photo and an RfC to select a more long-term image. That discussion closed almost 3 months ago, where the current image "won" with only 50% of only 14 !votes. This is not an RfC, and it presents only one new option. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

As I recall, the "stop-gap" photo assumed we would someday get a new "official" portrait of Trump, which we would then use as per Wikipedia tradition - and until then we would simply use the one we had and stop arguing about it. A new official portrait hasn't been forthcoming, and the actual White House portrait (the "scowling" one) remains off limits to us because of copyright issues. I for one am happy to settle on the current photo as "good enough" and would prefer not to re-open the endless pre-inauguration debates about what image to use. --MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Previous attempts to establish a moratorium on discussion of the infobox image have failed to gain consensus, mostly on philosophical grounds. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, Mandruss, nothing stops you from opening an RfC. I would suggest you first do some kind of request for possible images, maybe use an informal poll to narrow it down to a few, and then launch an RfC. (Although past experience suggests that attempts to limit the number of portraits in the RfC are ineffective, which is one reason why the debates went on forever.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

My opinions about infobox image discussions are laid out at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 48#The futility of extended infobox image discussions. In my view such RfCs should be democratic voting only, sans interminable debate, with multiple rounds. That approach was shot down by an admin (even following extended discussion in that case) despite overwhelming local support and the support of two other admins, and I'm not going to forward it again. Thus I'm not a good choice for RfCs about infobox images. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)