Talk:Mug shot of Donald Trump

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Diego Moya (talk | contribs) at 10:44, 26 August 2023 (→‎Former president: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Does this really need to be its own article?

It's obvious that it's redundant with Georgia election racketeering prosecution. Yes, the picture is gonna become iconic, but I don't see why a section couldn't be dedicated to it in the article I just linked. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Capitol Hill's mystery soda machine and tell us what's more important. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pyraminxsolver: Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Di (they-them) (talk) 01:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No comment Pyraminxsolver (talk) 02:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. (Oinkers42) (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have many articles about historic photographs. This is among them. Let the article develop. Cullen328 (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very few (potentially none) were created within days of when they were taken. Also, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. (Oinkers42) (talk) 02:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So? There's no other mugshots of former U.S. presidents either. There is not really an easily comparable example here. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion may be better suited for the ongoing AfD rather than on the talk page. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Keep: According to the New York Times this image is "the de facto picture of the year. A historic image that will be seared into the public record and referred to in perpetuity" [1]https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/25/style/trump-mugshot.html ..... Like it or not. This image of Trump will likely be the one the that is forever associated with his name. Not including it on Wikipedia would be omitting history for political reasons.Pbmaise (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thats true but the reason it's true is because the iconic historical pictures that became famous overnight were all before the internet was a thing. Tank Man's photo became iconic within days of being released yet wiki wasn't around back then. Afghan Girl was way before wiki's time. So it's not like there's no precedent for pictures to become well known and iconic overnight, it's just that the last time they did was before Wikipedia existed. Yadinbro (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it clearly warrants its own article, and its notability extends far beyond the prosecution in Georgia. It is the best known photograph ever taken of a US president, iconic, historic (as it has been described by countless sources). --Tataral (talk) 02:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Completely notable and a monumental moment in history. And the coverage and commentary surrounding the photograph has only just begun. It wouldn't just be stupid to delete this page, but utterly premature. 222.152.25.14 (talk) 05:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the case and whomever each one has a bone to pick in this matter (I hope none of you do), least we forget that this is an unprecedented point in US politics & justice system, and given that he was the 45th POTUS is of far greater importance than anyone wants to admit now, while the proverbial strucked steel is red hot. Years into the future, this'll be the 20/20 hindsight opinion.
If this will be merged with his Wikipedia page or not, for now, it should remain up for, at most, a month or two. Trexerman (talk) 08:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe its WP:Notable because he's the first president/former president in atleast 150 years to be arrested, although the mugshot having its own article is kinda Wikipedia:Silly Things it should maybe be renamed to "Prosecution of Donald Trump" or something like that, and have the whole page be about his arrest and the timeline and the events that occurred so people know what happened, sort of like Arrests of Ulysses S. Grant sexy (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are forgetting that Donald Trump and handshakes exists... CleanUp128999 (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it deserves it's own article is because it is iconic and will be a big part of history. This is more in the league of the Tank Man photo or the V-J Day in Times Square picture. It will perhaps go down as the most well known American history picture. Therefore, while it might seem not as important now and apart of just Trump's legal troubles, to the next generation this picture will become way more well known than the legal issues. Kids a decade or so from now will google "Trump mugshot", not "Trump legal cases", therefore it does deserve its own article Yadinbro (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
well said Jjazz76 (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Photographer?

For better or worse this photograph has jumped into historic American photograph iconic status, so the photographer should be credited in the lead. I haven't checked the sources, does anyone have a reputably sourced name for the Fulton County booking photographer? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think we should assume until it’s verified. Article previously said “by a county employee”. But this is unverified.
I can’t find anything that confirms it was an employee. The photographer may have been an external contractor, an intern, or even a volunteer.
I have no doubt the photographer will be paid to do a sit-down TV interview to get an insight into what it was like. But for now, it’s unverified. CleanUp128999 (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, could have been an intern. Whomever it was the photographer should be credited by name as the creator of the image. I hope you're right that someone would report on it, Journalism 101. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should the photo used contain the Fulton Co. logo? There are two versions of the photograph being distributed. One of them feautures the Fulton County sherrif's logo, the other doesn't. Presumably, the Fulton Co. watermark is not part of the original photo, so I have put that one in the infobox, but I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts. TheCelebrinator (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the watermark should be kept because it was originally on the photo as it was released. It is not our job to modify the image. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the watermark because it is a historic image and that's how it was released. TarkusABtalk/contrib 06:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, but seeing as most people so far think we should keep the watermark, I think the version used should feature it. TheCelebrinator (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOR should apply here. You are fundamentally changing the image from what was released. I also have to wonder if the watermarkless images floating around now in the public are a form of citogenesis from these shenanigans here. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I picked up the watermark-less photo from Donald Trump's campaign website, for what it was worth. TheCelebrinator (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution

What was the original resolution of the mug shot as released by the Fulton County sherrif's office? Does anyone know where the original file is published by the Fulton County sherrif's office, or did the office just mail it out to their press contacts, leaving the distribution to the press?

AP News provides a 1440 px × 1440 px webp. Did they blow theirs up (and convert it to webp), or did other news outlet just scale down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.224.1.142 (talk) 08:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Original page name seems correct

The name of this page prior to an undiscussed move was Donald Trump mug shot, which seems to fit the wording and wording-order of the sources. It's also briefer, per brevity. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mug shot of Donald Trump sounds better.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the name is a bit strange, but I also can't think of a better name. It seems a bit strange just to have "Mug shot of Donald Trump" in my opinion Pacamah (talk) 07:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to “Trump Mugshot”
it’s concise and unambiguous
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/trump-mugshot-arrest-reactions-piers-morgan-b2399219.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66612345.amp
https://deadline.com/2023/08/trump-mugshot-photo-1235527288/amp/ CleanUp128999 (talk) 10:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also #TrumpMugshot was the most used hashtag leading up to its release on X/Twitter, and is still the most used hashtag to refer the it after its release CleanUp128999 (talk) 10:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move to "Trump Mugshot" ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mugshot or Mug Shot?

Georgia, the place where the photo was taken, officially refers to this type of photo as a ‘mugshot’. In the same way that we use the birthdate format of a persons home country, I think we should consistently use ‘mugshot’ (no space), as that what Georgia officially calls it.

https://consumer.georgia.gov/consumer-topics/mugshot-websites

CleanUp128999 (talk) 11:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to Georgia Code Title 35, it's called a "booking photograph". The consumer website says booking photograph ("mugshot") and then uses the colloquial term. I think using "mugshot" in the title of this article may be a violation of WP:NPOVNAME but since the article is also being considered for deletion I won't suggest moving it to a neutral title at this time. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 11:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/supreme-court/2019/s18a1158-0.html
In 2019, The Supreme Court of Georgia refers to a website which displays booking photos as a “mugshot website”, one word. (On page 6) CleanUp128999 (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can all agree that “Booking photograph” is the official, formal term. But this section is ‘mugshot vs mug shot’, concerning whether Georgia uses the space or not. An official Georgia .gov website and The Supreme Court of Georgia both style it as ‘mugshot’, so I think the article should reflect that. In the same way peoples birthdates are styled in their home country style. And in the same way that articles such as The dress style the entire English-variation to align with its origin location. CleanUp128999 (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer "mug shot" per Mug shot. Just because Georgia says "mugshot" doesn't mean we must. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand, but I think “mugshot” would align with WP:ENGVAR CleanUp128999 (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The variety of English used by the state of Georgia styles it as “mugshot”. Like The dress article styles “colour” to align with the creator of that photograph. CleanUp128999 (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's used in the article should be consistent with the title, which is currently mug shot and consistent with our topic article. Regarding ENGVAR, ngram has the spaced version three times as common as unspaced in American English while they're about the same in British. I don't think the version the Georgia Attorney General's site uses would control here. Reywas92Talk 14:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should also change the title to align with Georgia’s style of the word to ‘mugshot’ CleanUp128999 (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    +1, agree with Reywas92 ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (another EC!) Two words are used by NYT, Time, CNN, Reuters, MSNBC, AP, WaPo, etc., though I see more British sources using one. Reywas92Talk 14:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These are using their own style guides though? And WaPo 1 word. I was referring to the English variation used by the actual photographer being ‘mugshot’. In the same way the photograph about The dress uses the origins English variation. An official Georgia .gov website and The Supreme Court of Georgia both style it as ‘mugshot’. And the actual photograph is also an official release from the same entity that uses ‘mugshot’. Who are Wikipedia editors to enforce a spelling on a state when they use a different variation!
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/2023/08/25/why-donald-trump-mugshot-matters/ CleanUp128999 (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That WaPo article uses two words... English variation here is based on broader usage, not the style of bodies in the same state. The county jail is also not the same entity as the state supreme court, nor would I call this "enforcing on" someone... Reywas92Talk 14:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yes I didn’t check the article (but is also using its own style guide). My point is that the Georgia’s own Supreme Court wouldn’t make such typographical errors, and simply would just autonomously use their own spellings.
    They’re essentially all wings of the same basic governmental/authority tho. “Georgia law, specifically O.C.G.A. § 10-1-393.5, identifies eight circumstances under which the commercial website must remove an individual’s mugshot”
    Basic example of variants for the same thing exist at different parts of America
    Boone Drug and CVS Health are the same type of business, but autonomously use their own variants to refer to the same things, because different parts of America use different names/spelling. Another example is a “bodega”
    my point is that Wikipedia should simply just avoid all this subjectivity and revert to the origins spelling variation avoid debate. CleanUp128999 (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Official documentation from the very office Trump’s mugshot was taken officially style it as “mugshot”.
    1) An official Georgia .gov website:
    https://consumer.georgia.gov/consumer-topics/mugshot-websites
    Starts by being clear which spelling variation they use:
    “If someone has been arrested, his or her arrest booking photograph (“mugshot”)... Georgia law, specifically O.C.G.A. § 10-1-393.5, identifies eight circumstances under which the commercial website must remove an individual’s mugshot”
    2) The Supreme Court of Georgia (in March 2019): https://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/supreme-court/2019/s18a1158-0.html
    “A few days after the men were arrested, Gilliam saw Blackmon’s photo on a mugshot website”
    3) Fulton County Sheriff’s Office, the very office same which issued Trump’s booking photograph (in May 2023):
    https://fcsoga.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Media-Advisory-Mugshot-of-Deion-Patterson-Suspect-in-Hospital-Shooting-May-4-2023.pdf
    ”4 counts of aggravated assault. His mugshot is attached.”
    It’s not as though ‘mugshot’ is a misspelling. It’s a perfectly valid variant, which Georgia has chosen to use of their official documentation/releases. I don’t see why this is being overlooked? CleanUp128999 (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because that's absurd to base all of our articles on state-by-state examples. Over 300 articles link to the main article, are we really going to decide these based on what sources in Georgia say, sources in Texas say, sources in California say? No. Again, it's better to use what is in common usage, which is clearly unspaced here. Reywas92Talk 19:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Valid. Mug shot it is. CleanUp128999 (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead paragraph

@CleanUp128999: Please stop adding unnecessary information to the introduction. The point of a lead paragraph is to be a short introduction, it should not include detailed analysis, history, reception, etc. It should also not repeat the information that's in the body of the article. Continuing to make the lead longer and have more claims and citations when it should only be a few sentences is thoroughly unhelpful. This is not supposed to be a summary or a TLDR. Di (they-them) (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! I plan to edit the body. I think we should also focus on the wider ‘concept’ of a Trump mugshot woven into this article (impact on Trumpism and how it will be used to further aspects of Trumpism like deep-state, the big election lie etc) alongside that actual photograph itself. I think this article has a lot of potential to dig into those wider-concept areas too. CleanUp128999 (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of the ‘concept’ of the Trump Mugshot too?

Should the article have some focus on the wider ‘concept’ of a Trump mugshot woven into this article (impact on Trumpism and how it will be used to further aspects of Trumpism like deep-state, the big election lie etc) alongside that actual photograph itself. I think this article has a lot of potential to dig into those wider-concept areas too. Should it include that too? CleanUp128999 (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Satirical/humorous tone of article

I don't think the tone of the article is appropriate: it reads like a long joke, like a piece of satire. "Interrogation-style ambiance"? "Archetypal masterpiece of Trumpism"? Fine if the sources said this, I guess, but it has many passages that cause me to roll my eyes. Inspector Semenych (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notions of it being a masterpiece are being commented on “https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/movies/trumps-mugshot-masterclass-capitalizing-ones-014950160.html”
I’ll add the source where WaPo called it: “a symbol of Trumpism at either its most bravely defiant or its most venal and violent.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/movies/2023/08/24/trump-mug-shot-on-brand/
BBC source analyses the actual photograph/lighting setup "They have this one interrogation-style light," CleanUp128999 (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Inspector Semenych on this one. Articles should be engaging, and some topics are inherently funny and as a result lead to humorous articles. The mug shot of an extraordinarily divisive living former president is...probably not the place to experiment with silly prose (even if it's true that many people will find the topic inherently humorous). Right now the lead has:

Leading up to its release, commentators considered it to be an archetypal masterpiece of Trumpism, with some drawing comparisons to the influence of other American art, such as the 1930 painting American Gothic.

"Leading up to its release"?! One article says that it might have the political impact of American Gothic; this is interesting, and worthy of inclusion, but the way this is phrased makes it sound like the mugshot is a work of art that was created with American Gothic as inspiration. If you need nine citations, it's a good sign having a talk page discussion first is appropriate, especially on contentious topics. Similarly, if editors are reverting your changes, you might want to bring it to talk (bold, revert, discuss) first. I see you're a newer editor who maybe hasn't yet encountered edit warring and similar conflicts; the TLDR here is to ensure that you are seeking consensus and not just reinstating your changes. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 16:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on the point about the 9 cites, some are citing the main thing. They should be dispersed (or different info extracted for new parts)
The impact this is said to have on Trumpism/Trumpism-backed-conspiracies is undoubtedly worthy of being very early on in the article (the deep-state conspiracy, the big lie, etc etc) CleanUp128999 (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Calling it a masterpiece and saying it has the potential to overtake the Mona Lisa in popularity is not the correct tone for Wikipedia to take. Cha5mcha5m (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should the “leak” be included

The image was originally posted at 8:05p EST on twitter without the watermark, likely a leak directly from the jail. Northerncapes (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Need some some sources. Doesn’t need to be in first part (could mention in info box) CleanUp128999 (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2023 (2)

There's a lot of silly flowery and opinionated language in this article that, whether it ends up getting AfD'd successfully or not, needs to be changed ASAP.

−
Commentators have considered it to be an archetypal masterpiece of Trumpism.
+

"Archetypal masterpiece" is not supported by a single one of the many ostensible references. Delete entirely.

−
Prior to the photograph being taken, the concept of a Trump mug shot was anticipated by many, including Trump's own family members, to be the most famous mug shot in American history and the most iconic image in the history of photography.
+
Prior to the photograph being taken, the concept of a Trump mug shot was anticipated by some to be the most famous mug shot in American history.

"Most iconic image in the history of photography" is wholly unsupported POV nonsense. The fact that Trump's family thinks his mug shot will be famous is immaterial.

−
Cultural analysts have drawn comparisons to the influence of other pieces of art, such as the 1930 painting American Gothic, and it having the potential to overtake the Mona Lisa in popularity.
+

Delete entirely. "Overtake the Mona Lisa in popularity" — are you kidding me? Does this need further explanation?

There's plenty of other nonsense here (such as quoting a Trump spokesperson as predicting the mug shot would be the "most manly, most masculine, most handsome mug shot of all time", but the diffs above are the worst offenders that unambiguously need removal as soon as possible. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:55BA:894:1C3C:1BC2 (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the last one was removed in the time it took me to type this out, but the first two still need addressing. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:55BA:894:1C3C:1BC2 (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on much of the article content having sourcing or NPOV issues. I removed the Mona Lisa and American Gothic comparisons as the attributions to "cultural analysts" were highly misleading. Comparisons from a Republican candidate and from a TikTok user are not comparisons from "cultural analysts". —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 21:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of the second revision, it's now been changed to "most iconic image in the history of US Politics" which I think is a much more fair case to make. The removal of "including Trump's own family members" seems insignificant whether it is or isn't changed.
RM-Steele (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CleanUp128999: Since it appears most of this content has been added by you and then defended from removal by you, I would strongly encourage you to slow down and be more judicious with your edits. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:55BA:894:1C3C:1BC2 (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CleanUp128999: See, edits like this add absolutely nothing and clutter up the text. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:55BA:894:1C3C:1BC2 (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CleanUp128999: This is beginning to look like WP:OWN behavior. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:55BA:894:1C3C:1BC2 (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CleanUp128999: You just hit WP:3RR. Do not revert again. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:55BA:894:1C3C:1BC2 (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Roger that. I’ll keep mostly on talk page from now on CleanUp128999 (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Partly done: Removed "Prior to the photograph being taken, the concept of a Trump mug shot was anticipated by many, including Trump's own family members, to be the most famous mug shot in American history and the most iconic image in the history of US politics." as it is not verified by the sources provided. No action on the other two requests as their text has since been changed or removed. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

POV analyses

The part about Trump's chin seems too unencyclopedic. There's no evidence that he tilted his chin for any specific purpose, so this doesn't seem to be a BLP-acceptable claim. The other descriptive parts also seem quite POV, I think. They make it seem as though Trump spent time rehearsing for this mugshot, and planned every detail, but if there's no real evidence to support the claims, they're more POV than analyses. Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:YESPOV. The two mentions of his chin are both contained in quotes with direct attributions, and they're located in the reaction section which is made up entirely of people's point of view about the mug shot. I would agree that Business Insider should not be used per WP:RSP though. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see a need for such POV analyses, especially the chin one. Someone happened to speculate that Trump tilted his chin down to avoid the appearance of a double chin; how is this relevant? How can this be proven? Instead of trying to "disappear a double chin", what if he was simply trying to look more dramatic, or what if it wasn't intentional at all? I understand that we often include people's POVs in articles while keeping the articles themselves POV-free, but in this case, why does that person's opinionated analysis matter, when it could very possibly be wrong? Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BI is the one that mentions the double chin, and I said I support removing that. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was trying to make a point about the inclusion of uneeded analyses in general. Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside the issue of the appropriateness of Business Insider as a source, there is no need to "prove" the properly attributed opinions of an analyst. Vanessa Friedman of the New York Times also mentions his chin. Cullen328 (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're not required to prove her analysis. What I am saying is that her analysis doesn't seem necessary. This isn't an analysis of an obscure battle that took place in Ancient Rome thousands of years ago, where there were only five eyewitnesses who went on to write accounts of that incident (as a hypothetical), and we're debating the inclusion of their opinionated analyses; those would likely be worth including. I won't push this at all, but I don't see how this analysis is worth including, especially when considering the fact that evidence wasn't provided by the analyzers to prove their claims. Nythar (💬-🍀) 22:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the BI quote. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should we mention the Wikipedia Editor article debate?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak/2023/08/25/wikipedia-users-fight-over-donald-trumps-mug-shot-getting-its-own-page/amp/ CleanUp128999 (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a small part like:

The image sparked a deliberation among Wikipedia editors regarding the necessity of creating a dedicated article for the photograph

Perhaps if there are other sources, but not based on this one, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prefect. Thanks for letting me know. CleanUp128999 (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would be navel gazing. This Wikipedia article was already a "speedy keep" before the Forbes article was published. Cullen328 (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea on protocol of Wikipedia editors being self-referential. Also why does it matter it was “speedy keep” before publication? The debate still happened, and they just reported it late CleanUp128999 (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
600k views on X/Twitter
https://x.com/depthsofwiki/status/1695142194401693870?s=46 CleanUp128999 (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The debate over keeping this article is not due coverage in the subject of the article (i.e., the Mug Shot of Donald Trump). Wikipedia articles are not about themselves; only if it's relevant to the subject should it be included. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 23:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Amending this; on second thought this is closer than cut-and-dry, since the coverage here sort of is related to the mug shot, in a reception-style way, but it still doesn't belong given that neither Forbes' contributor blogs or Twitter are reliable sources here. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 23:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree.... until a WP:RS picks up the story, adds some AfD background, and published something notable. At that point, we have a whole new discussion. Considering some of the articles (and AfDs) I've worked on, a couple solid analyses by the BBC, WashPo or DW and we'd have trouble explaining why there isn't an article. There is nothing in policy that excludes things based on recursion and navel-gazing. We follow the sources. Just sayin'. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Forbes piece be included in Template:Press at the top of this talk page? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Completion date" in infobox

This is not a painting. Should a new parameter called something like "Date taken" be created? Hddty (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{Infobox artwork}} doesn't appear to allow for custom labels. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's why I'm asking whether a new parameter should be created or not. Hddty (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. In that case it probably needs to be discussed at the template's talk page. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the name of the photographer?

Has anyone seen a source naming the photographer? Should be in the lead paragraph. I know this was a section way above but a long time ago in Wikipedia years, so wanted to ask again. The photographer's name is of primary importance on Wikipedia iconic photo articles. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All sources attribute the photograph to the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office. It would probably be a WP:BLPNAME violation to single out the person who actually took it. Not to mention it's inconsequential given all mugshots are taken in the exact same manner. It's not like whoever took it had a creative impact on the photo. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn
The photographer is the Fulton County Sheriff.
Employees are exempt from naming. TEMarc4real (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Naming the civil servant who uncreatively "clicked" the "shutter" while simply doing their job would expose that person to the most intense harassment imaginable. Why, Randy Kryn, do you yearn to expose this innocent person to such life threatening harassment? Cullen328 (talk) 06:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think that was Kryn's intention, but I do get what you mean about why it should be strongly withheld. SWinxy (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All editors need to think deeply about the WP:BLP implications of what we add. None of the reliable sources, to my knowledge, discuss any creative input by the shutter clicker. That person was just doing what they were instructed. Cullen328 (talk) 06:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Former president

Shouldn't this sentence say 'former president' instead?


> It is the first and only mug shot ever taken of an American president


Given that the shot was not taken with Trump being in office. Diego (talk) 10:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mug_shot_of_Donald_Trump&oldid=1172323383"