Talk:Donald Trump

Terrible Picture

Why am I not surprised that you've chosen an picture with an unflattering expression?

BTW Our local school is blocking Wikipedia because its so 'Neutral and Liberal/Zionist'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.51.163 (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It just so happens that his face looks like that literally all the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.57.207 (talk) 04:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh right. He never smiles, laughs, or shows sense of humor. He never parodys himself or mocks his own mannerisms. He only ever frowns. You are so observant! IHTS (talk) 05:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you want a picture of Trump parodying himself?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you want to go soak your head? IHTS (talk) 07:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Fiorina (lead image)

Agree image s/ not be unflattering, e.g. interpretable as a frown or scowl. (Even Carly Fiorina, a GOP candidate notorious for *not* smiling, has lead image w/ smile.) IHTS (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Some additional current and recent presidential candidate BLP lead images. Note the smiles (or Carson & Paul, understated smiles). None of these shots are taken while the subject was talking (where their mouths look as though also perhaps smiling). Also note the dates of photos and that currency is not a requirement.

• 
  Obama (2012)
• 
  Romney (2013)
• 
  McCain (2009)
• 
  Clinton (2009)
• 
  Sanders (2012)
• 
  Carson (2007)
• 
  Rubio (2011)
• 
  Cruz (2013)
• 
  Paul (2011)
• 
  Huckabee (2010)
• 
  Kasich (2011)
• 
  Graham (2006)

Also, Rubio's head isn't "straight", and Romney's and Carson's eyes aren't clearly visable. IHTS (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Chris Christie isn't smiling. Bobby Jindal isn't smiling. George Pataki isn't smiling. Jeb Bush isn't smiling. Your whole argument is bunk. And to argue that a straight head and visible eyes aren't preferable is disingenuous in the least.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• 
  Chris Christie (2015)
• 
  Bobby Jindal (2015)
• 
  George Pataki (2015)
• 
  Jeb Bush (2015)

Did I say there weren't exceptions? No I didn't. I said the (vast) majority of presidential candidate BLPs have images incorporating smiles.

"Disingenuous"?? You can stop with the personal attacks. IHTS (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

How about this one? It's from 2015, he is smiling, and you can see his eyes unlike the 2013 image. The other one from 2015 is of him at an event where he had to sign an agreement not to run third-party. As a result he's unhappy in that picture.

Trump (lead image)

ShadowDragon343 (talk) 03:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the September 2015 image. It shows a serious candidate. We do not have to use a fake smiling photo like that used on the pages of other politicians. IHTS is pushing an obvious anti-Trump POV to make Trump look like a typical, run-of-the-mill politician. No. An image with a straight face and neutral expression is best.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Seems to me that claiming Trump is not a typical politician is a POV. Objective3000 (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

"IHTS is pushing an obvious anti-Trump POV". Earth to William! Earth to William!: How could that possibly be true, seeing that it is precisely the same photo used on the webpage www.donaldtrump.com?? IHTS (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know who designs the campaign page. Do you take directions from them? Would you consider the cover of Trump's latest book to be unflattering? If the entire basis for the image you are promoting is that the campaign uses it, then you are not being neutral. I am supporting a recent image in which Trump has a straight head and neutral expression. You are supporting a squinting, 2013 image in which his head is tilted and he has an unnatural expression. I could care less what the other candidates use as their lead image. The choice is clear.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

First you accuse me of having POV against Trump, then you imply I might be taking orders from the Trump campaign! (Is that a demo of the quality of your argumentation?) Clearly the Trump campaign feels that photo is not unflattering. I'm contending that the 2013 photo is an inferior choice, since Trump's expression could be interpreted as a frown or scowl. You say Trump has an "unnatural expression" in it, however I don't understand why you think that, I disagree, and I think most editors would disagree also. Your detail nitpicks on the photo are overridden by the more important issue of the frown/scowl on the photo you prefer. You say you could "care less" what the other candidates use as lead image, however that info is a reasonable benchmark to take into account. All of these current and recent presidential candidate BLP articles have lead images where the subject is smiling:

Barack Obama (2012), Mitt Romney (2013), John McCain (2009), Hillary Clinton (2009), Bernie Sanders (2007), Ben Carson (2015), Marco Rubio (2011), Ted Cruz (2013), Carly Fiorina (2015), Rand Paul (2011), Mike Huckabee (2010), John Kasich (2011), Lindsay Graham (2006).

(Obviously photo currency is not a requirement too--2009 for Hillary?!)

Your take that a smile shows the candidate is fake or is indicative of "typical politician" is refuted by the simple fact that a smile (for millennia!?) conveys sociability, instead of its opposite. Please don't confuse the issue with Trump's new book, which has a specific focus, is not an encyclopedia BLP. (Trump said on ABC today he preferred a family photo where he was smiling, but the publishers had other plans. [I don't buy that either, so please don't shoot from the hip as you are prone to do. Again, that book has a different and specific focus. Trump will be on SNL this Saturday, are you going to hold me to account for any still shot that show produces too?!]) The choice of photo is largely subjective, but the arguments you are offering for your preferred photo are less quality arguments than my rebuttals and arguments for the 2013 photo. (And if it's good enough for the Trump campaign, how can anyone reasonably call it "unflattering"?!)

(ec) There are lots of photos of Trump on Commons, but in most all of them he is animated/speaking with mouth open. The fact the 2013 photo is used by the Trump campaign, confirms for me the advantages of that photo versus alternatives on Commons. Your suggestion that my preference is "entirely based" on the use of that photo at www.donaldtrump.com, is another example of your shoot-from-the-hip and crass argumentation.) IHTS (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:Otherstuffexists. What other pages do or don't do is not relevant here. It is simply your opinion that the 2015 photo "could be interpreted as a frown or scowl." Equally, the 2013 image could be interpreted as him having constipation. An encyclopedic photo is one in which the head is straight, the expression neutral, and the eyes open. The 2015 photo does this. The 2013 photo does not. The 2015 photo has been in place for almost two months and it has been stable. Before it the image was often a subject of dispute. You are an army of one demanding that an inferior, webmaster-chosen photo is better based on your personal "interpretation" of the stable, clearly superior photo. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The great majority of other BLP presidential candidate articles containing smiles is not an "otherstuffexits" argument. I pointed it out because of your weird contention that a smile is "fake" and shows the candidate is "typical". So quit bending what I say to suit your shoot-from-the-hip purposes.

Yes, it's my opinion the 2013 photo can be interpreted as having a frown or scowl. You're trying to get me to debate my opinion versus a theoretical opinion about "constipation" that no one has stated including you. (What kind of a discussion argument is that? Manipulative, I'd say.) "An encyclopedic photo is one in which the head is straight, the expression neutral, and the eyes open." Says who? Can you diff that in policy or guideline? And if according to you expressions s/b neutral, what accounts for the vast majority of the BLPs named where current & former candiates sport smiles?

The photo you have preference for never had consensus on Talk. Photos are different than article text in that they are subjective, and little exists in policy & guideline that applies. We disagree, and I think I've shown the weakness in all your shoot-from-the-hip arguments. Input from other editors is the way to go at this point. IHTS (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You've focused too much on my tactics rather than my arguments. You are the one disrupting two months of stability. The burden is on you to prove that your image is preferable. You have not done so. How is an image with a tilted head, squinty eyes, bad color, and strange expression preferable to one with a straight head, open eyes, natural color, and neutral expression? That is what you must prove. And as if it makes any difference, I believe he looks constipated in the 2013 image. Again, I don't care if the other candidates have official U.S. government photos as their lead image. Trump does not have one. However, the official photos, smiling notwithstanding are much more like the 2015 image than the 2013 image.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I've not ignored your arguments, I've dealt with them one by one. (You are ignoring mine, however.) And you're repeating yourself on things I've already responded to. Lead BLP photos are subjective w/ little guidance in policy, nothing therefoe can be "proved" one way or the other. Again, I disagree on your choice of photo for reasons already stated. (The primary one is the photo is interpretable as frown or scowl. The vast majority of past & current presidential contender BLPs all have smiles, so how you get from there to say the 2015 pic is "more like them" I just don't get. (I think the 2013 photo is the best choice in absense of "official photo", so, we disagree there too.) Can you possibly drop it and let others weigh in!? IHTS (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I've never seen an official photo with the head titled, eyes squinty, terrible color, and weird constipated expression.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Once again you repeat already discussed points ad nauseam. (Trump has no official photo. If he did, it would likely be better than the 2013 image. But your nitpicking is overridden by lack of smile, which nearly all the other current/past presidential contenders have in their lead photos, for reasons already explained.) Can you stop repeating yourself now?? And quit trying to induce me to repeat myself too?? IHTS (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You are single-mindedly focused on the presence/absence of a smile and are willing to sacrifice the integrity of the image to force a smiling photo. George Washington isn't smiling. Lyndon B. Johnson isn't smiling. Stop focusing entirely on whether there is a smile or not. It's not relevant.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not "single-minded". I said absence of a smile in 2015 image was the primary reason I didn't prefer that image. That your nitpicks on 2015 image are overridden by comparative presence of smile. Absence/presence of a smile for a candidate for elective office is not "irrelevant"--a smile conveys sociability, the absense of one can convey the opposite (especially if accompanied by what is interpretable as a frown or scowl). How about stop repeating things ad nauseam? It's getting dizzy here, and I just might puke up all over you. I don't want to get motion sickness. IHTS (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Chris Christie isn't smiling. Bobby Jindal isn't smiling. George Pataki isn't smiling. Jeb Bush isn't smiling. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Did I say there weren't exceptions? No I didn't. I said the (vast) majority of presidential candidate BLPs have images incorporating smiles. How about giving it a rest?? IHTS (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC

To help resolve dispute between two contending lead images. IHTS (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

2015 image

2013 CPAC image

Zppix from FRS here. use the 2013 the 2015 is of poor quality thanks Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support 2013 image. For reasons already explained above. (It isn't necessary to duplicate the entire discussion-debate again here.) IHTS (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

  @AdventurousSquirrel: In all your suggested photos, Trump is animated (talking) with mouth open. The bow tie photo is best IMO, but I don't think appropriate for a BLP who is current presidential candidate. IHTS (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, are animated photos strongly disfavored? In any case, I'm certain there are photos out there that more people will be willing to agree upon than the two options here. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Right. But new, strongly advocated photo options w/ satisfactory licenses, isn't happening at the moment. (This RfC, I guess, is to help resolve the dispute between two hotly contested images between Saturn & myself.) Ok, IHTS (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support 2015 image. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

My reasons for supporting the 2015 image: The head is straight, the eyes are open, the color is natural, the expression is neutral.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

THTS's reasons for supporting the 2013 image despite the fact that it has a tilted head, squinty eyes, bad color, and weird constipated expression: He's smiling! And a campaign webmaster likes it! --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support 2013 image - Neither is exceptionally representative of what he looks like, on average, but while the 2015 image has undoubtedly better lighting, his that strikes me as being a particularly abnormal expression for him. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Or maybe a crop from one of these other recent pictures will do? The lighting is good, and there are a variety of expressions to choose from in the set from this town hall meeting. A few examples:

1

2

3

4

5 (For good measure)

In any case, there has got to be other better representative photos out there. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support 2013 image - Yes, the lighting may be dark and not as clear, but I don't think the 2015 image is a "neutral" enough photo. It is this expression, in the 2015 image, that many people make fun of/mock on social media. The 2013 image would be a better choice for a BLP and would contribute to the article's neutrality in my opinion. But I also agree with the above user in that there has to be better pictures out there to choose from. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 02:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

  Summoned by a bot - ooo I love picture RfCs! I choose the 2013 picture because the 2015 picture makes him look less like a presendital candidate, and more like the lizard king! Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support 2013 image - summoned by bot. Neither are particularly good, but the 2015 one is downright bad. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support 2013 image - Trump is clearly frowning in the 2015 picture while the 2013 one only has him lightly smiling. The one he uses in his twitter account is more neutral in expression than both however. ShadowDragon343 (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support 2013 image Although more recent, the 2015 one is certainly less neutral and not especially representative. 2013 is superior, though I agree with AdventurousSquirrel that that one isn't necessarily the best image we have of him either.LM2000 (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support 2015 image Vastly superior photograph, more even lighting. Too much loss of detail in shadowing in 2013 image. Hugh (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support 2015 image While I think a smiling photo would be nice, the 2013 one is just not a good enough photo to have in the lead. AIRcorn (talk) 06:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support 2013 image the 2015 image is no where near neutral. Although there should be another option, right now its between a negative expression and poor lighting/resolution. Fraulein451 (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support 2013 image In the 2015 image he is frowning, making it non-neutral. Unfavorable lighting is preferred over a frowning face. Meatsgains (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support 2013 image. Summoned by RfC bot. 2015 photo, with frown, is not neutral. Coretheapple (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Any of these would work. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Adjunct discussion

Neither photo is a good representation of the man and his personality. And let's face it: Trump is a personality as much as he is a presidential candidate. In 4 of the 5 photos suggested by Squirrel, Trump is speaking, with his mouth is agape. And yet, they seem more appropriate than the two relatively expressionless photos under consideration. I would choose one of those, or something similar that is more true to Trump.Kerdooskis (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

"Truer to Trump" is an undefined subjective guidance. Plus you don't make a specific recommendation. Meantime, this RfC is to resolve between two choices contested between two users, so a !vote for one or the other would at least make some progress (as an interim choice and comparable to a potential future "better" specific candidate lead image). IHTS (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)"

Ya'll should check over the image I've selected & implimented. GoodDay (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• I like "5 (For good measure)", but the "Current implementation, August 2015" also looks good to me. TNKS, AstroU (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• The problem with the current image being used is that its a low-res version, the Higher Quality, better cropped version isn't being used...the problem is trump himself, if you get a pic of him 'not-smiling' then peopel calim its rude and have the image replaced, if you have him of trying to smile, people say it makes him look weird and then they remove the image...not to mention this person changes colour like a chameleon, sometimes whitish, sometimes pinkish but generally, he is yellowish..he isn't the only one, Jeb Bush has a similar problem lol..Its impossible to find a pic of 'TheDonald' where he isn't making a 'weird' facial expression/face or looking yellow ..I actually preferred the image before all this drama..--Stemoc 01:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. This discussion has been going on since August. The problem isn't with the photos; it's with the subject.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Stemoc, the "current image being used" is the same photo as the one you prepared in Talk Archive 6. IHTS (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

same image, different quality, the one being used is a "thumbnail" low-quality version, the other is a higher quality better cropped version...--Stemoc 04:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

My point was to clarify they are essentially the same image. (Different color adjustments or cropping, ok, but I don't see a difference in cropping.) IHTS (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Post-RfC

The purpose of the RfC was to resolve a dispute between two images. It seems that 2013 image beats 2015 image per consensus. Meanwhile two other images have been tried, plus Stemoc's preferred image is included below:

March 2013 (CPAC)

August 2015

March 2015

April 2015

(My own preference is 2013 (CPAC) is best, April 2015 is next-best. But whatever.) IHTS (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• I find "August 2015" to be among the Trump-iest and most neutral I've seen proposed. My previous vote was for 2013, which I also think is decent. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the August 2015 image is acceptable for lead. (As mentioned I think 2013 image is best. I don't have opinion - as user Saturn does - that a tilted head makes the photo "inappropriate for infobox". [Is that just his opinion, or one based on policy? I don't know.] I simply personally feel the 2015 photo is satisfactory.) IHTS (talk) 09:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2015

Can I edit, please? JeoHero (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You will be able to edit this page when your account becomes autoconfirmed, which usually happens when your account is at least four days old and you have at least 10 edits. RudolfRed (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hero, meanwhile you can make suggestions. How is it working out for you? -- AstroU (talk) 05:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Supporters

Should this article indicate the fact that Donald Trump has greater appeal among less educated Americans? search -- Moxy (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Certainly not in this article. Possibly in his campaign article. But, that would require very good sources and careful wording. Objective3000 (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

As seen above sources not a problem....the concern is the wording that should be used. "The difference is staggering.....Among Republicans, 71 percent of noncollege graduates have a favorable opinion of Trump, compared to just 46 percent of college graduates"....the problem he has is getting these people to actually come out and vote-- Moxy (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

You can try the article at Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Personally, I don't like the use of polls, particularly current polls, in an encyclopedia, particularly in narrow areas. But, that's just my opinion. Objective3000 (talk)

sounds good will go over there...that article is simply stacked full of polls. -- Moxy (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The Suntimes article is from 9/30/2015, probably by then there wouldn't be further Repub candidates entering the race. ("Among Republicans, 71 percent of noncollege graduates have a favorable opinion of Trump, compared to just 46 percent of college graduates.") OK, so what other candidate--if any--did the other 54 percent favor?? It seems the media sources didn't care about asking or reporting that! That info would add context to the reported 46 percent stat. IHTS (talk) 07:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

To me (educated) it seems like a dumb premise; but I agree with the suggestion to TALK/discuss it over on the campaign WP site for Donald Trump.Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 Thanks, AstroU (talk) 05:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Error

in the section of of net worth according to the Forbes list Donald Trump has $4.1 Billion 2015 Billionaires Net Worth Paola301.295 (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)paola

Forbes updated this to 4.5 recently. Objective3000 (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Presidential campaign summary section

Am I the only one who thinks the section summarizing his presidential campaign is too heavy on polling and too light on issues? pbp 00:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I have removed a paragraph that consisted of polls from July and August, as they are completely irrelevant even now, and will be even more irrelevant come Iowa. In its place, I have added sentences summarizing the general polling trends over the past four months. I have also added a little more on what he is campaigning on, chiefly bombing the bajeebers out of ISIS, building a giant wall, and using his personality to fix everything pbp 04:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Image placement

I got reverted, but the reason I moved some images in to the section where they are most relevant is this, from MOS:IMAGELOCATION: "An image should generally be placed in the section of the article that is most relevant to the image." Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Note word "generally". So what is justification to move, when the 2 pics in question are 1) already physically adjacent to their respective content (secs), 2) utilize surrounding (above & below) dead (white) space better, and 3) (in the case of the 2nd pic) give text at least some organic wrap (versus blocking off the entire sec's text margin)? Article layout priority s/b for readers (appearance) not editors (ease of editing). IHTS (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad the layout works for you, but not everyone has the same computer, OS, browser, and screen as you. For example, I was recently using a mobile device that shows me one subsection at a time (more if they are short). On that device, if I go to the "Golf" section, I don't see the photo of the Turnberry golf course, and if I go to the "Apprentice" section I don't see the Rodman on Apprentice photo. I have another browser in which if I click on "Golf" in the table of contents, I don't see the Turnberry photo unless I scroll up, which I am unlikely to do because I won't know it's there. I suspect screen readers will have trouble with this too. I agree that the MOS shouldn't be slavishly followed if there is a better way. But I don't see a compelling reason to break usability on some devices to improve the appearance on others. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks for that. (I don't use a phone for WP so didn't see that, I'm sure I'd agree w/ you if I saw it.) Go ahead & revert me back. OK, IHTS (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2015

WE can include that he is running for president and that he is currently leading the polls. Endicott213 (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Um, we do include that, both in the lead and in the subsection on the presidential election. pbp 18:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Straightened image

I straightened the infobox image. See File:Donald August 19 (cropped2).jpg. This is a pretty standard practice in order to display the subject in a more encyclopedic manner. It was reverted because "your 'straightening' of the image is a modification of it out of its natural setting and context." That is true, but doesn't the modification make the image more encyclopedic? --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

natural context

context removed

I disagree with "straightening" the image and here's why: When you do that, it strips away the image context (in this case the context is body language - clearly Trump is listening to someone, such as a questioner; the tilt to his head and facial expression are consistent with this). When you crop and straighten, the body language context is gone, the result looks like Trump had his photo taken, but made a socially awkward smile as though he's uncomfortable or inept at making a normal smile or even saying "Cheese!". (Another example, theoretic and extreme so you can further know how "staightening" removes critical context: If Trump had his pic taken while hanging upside down by his ankles, his face would be red due to gravity. If you cropped his face and straighened the image 180 degrees, that context would be stripped and he'd look like he was face-red mad, or face-red embarrassed.) So removing context/body language can & does have unintended consequences. IHTS (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

There appears to be a rather, long-running effort to improve the image here to make a person look more like what he likely isn't -- even going to the extreme of photoshopping. Trump's campaign can do that. Why would an encyclopedia do that? Objective3000 (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

There exists an image that shows the subject as he is in an unaltered state with a neutral expression. It was used as the infobox photo for many months without any issue. Then IHTS threw a fit about it so it was changed to this image in which his head is tilted. This is not an encyclopedic image for the infobox. The head should be straight. I changed that image used to make it suitable for the infobox and now IHTS is throwing another fit. There is no pleasing IHTS. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

If there's anyone "throwing a fit" it is you -- continuing to whine the same complaints even after an RfC determined that your preferred image lost to consensus over a competing image. Is there some rule I'm missing that I must agree with any third image you select to modify in the meantime and place as the article lead image? And if I don't agree that means I'm an editor who is "unable to be pleased"?! I explained my reasons in detail above what problems I have with your "straightening" modification to the image. You ignore the topic of the drawbacks I explained of stripping the photo's context away and simply insist "the head should be straight". (Fine, I don't have that requirement myself, but if you do, then go find a photo - that has consensus or potential consensus - where the head is already straight, and you don't need to strip the photo of its meaningful body-language context. As pointed out and explained, doing that is inherently a distortion and creates a misleading photo image of the person. And that's not good for a BLP.) IHTS (talk) 08:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Objective3000, I agree w/ you - the lead image s/ not be photoshopped, at least to the degree it removes meaning-laden context (body language) from the original. IHTS (talk) 08:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The image with the cocked head makes him look mentally retarded. In no way is that appropriate for the infobox image. It looks fine when straightened. I don't see why context should even matter.--William S. Saturn (talk) 08:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

And I obviously disagree, for reasons already explained above. (I disagree your "straightened" image that stripped out meaningful body-language context, is better than the original image with said context. I did not say that I think the original is "appropriate for the infobox image" -- just that your modification of it is inferior to the original, and why.) Now you're repeating what you did earlier on this Talk page -- repeating your complaints over & over & over & over again. (Is this "Act II"?! How about something more productive this time?) IHTS (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Why does it need to show "meaningful body-language context"? --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• The straightened image looks weird. Looks like it's already been changed back, though. The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 11:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Why would anyone, for one second, find it acceptable to photoshop an image on a BLP? Objective3000 (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

It was rotated. That's all. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Not just rotated. IHTS (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Already answered. And I agree w/ CatcherStorm and Objective3000. IHTS (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Your answer: "but made a socially awkward smile as though he's uncomfortable or inept at making a normal smile or even saying" --- granted, that's all in your mind. You provide a ridiculous hypothetical that has absolutely nothing to do with this image: "If Trump had his pic taken while hanging upside down by his ankles, his face would be red due to gravity. If you cropped his face and straighened the image 180 degrees, that context would be stripped and he'd look like he was face-red mad, or face-red embarrassed." --- obviously that would be a problem but that's not the case here at all. That's not the result of this rotation. Even if the result you imagined is taken as true in that the rotation causes him to appear "uncomfortable or inept at making a normal smile" that is still far more flattering than appearing mentally retarded as the cocked image certainly does.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

And it's all in your mind that the head tilt makes Trump look "mentally retarded". Thx for understanding my points, Saturn. I also understand yours. We simply disagree. IHTS (talk) 10:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose "Straightening". Don't see why it was necessary. As well, the coloring/lighting was changed and not in a good way. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi believes everything should appear redder than normal. I did not intentionally change the color. It changed when I went back to an earlier version. I have no opinion on the color/lightening. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Unless you've actually met any of these people up close and in person, I doubt you are the ultimate judge on their natural skin tone. Regardless, the straightening was unnecessary (as several other editors also believe, it would seem). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think the straightened image may be marginally more visually appealing, since it looks more balanced and a bit lighter (which is probably a good thing), though the hue may be a bit too yellow, and it makes the tie hang in a direction that is somewhat gravity-defying. I don't think there's anything wrong with the original image, so it may be best left alone. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 06:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• Leave original image alone until a better original image comes along. This one is not just rotated and brightened, but also the microphone is photoshopped out which is an important piece of context that explains his expression and position (he's listening to a question before answering it).Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

OCAT?

This article is in over 70 categories. Am I the only one here who thinks that's overkill? Maybe remove some of his peripheral involvements, like writing and video games, and focus primarily on his principal business ventures and his current political aspirations? pbp 23:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

John Sweeney interview - no walk out; edits by 591J

I just watched a tape of the interview with John Sweeney (have a look, it's easy to find on YouTube) and doesn't "walk out" of the interview like is stated here - the interview is finished after 15 minutes, he stands up to leave and John Sweeney calls out another question at him about as he is on his way out of the room. This should be clarified.

(response to unsigned comment)

No, the video you watched (on YouTube) was edited and posted by the Trump Organziation and cuts out the question from John Sweeney about Felix Sater. Watch the end of interview again—the cut at 15:04 is obvious, the screen going black. That Trump would supposedly post the entire interview except for this Sater question is an indication of just how sensitive the issue is for him. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

On at least three occasions,[1][2][3] editor 591J has attempted to delete some or all references to the ex-con Felix Sater, the mob-linked Russian-born real estate developer with whom Trump has worked closely for many years; Sater's Bayrock Group owned at least 18% of the Trump SoHo project, for example, and also collaborated with Trump on failed and/or allegedly fraudulent investment projects in Ft. Lauderdale and Phoenix. Although Mr. Trump has, by his own admission, "one of the all-time great memories", he can scarcely remember Sater when asked about him by reporters. The Trump/Sater issue has now been covered in multiple Reliable Sources and more coverage is quite possible, notwithstanding an apparent warning to the Associated Press from one of Sater's lawyers that they research his client's past "at your own risk".[4]

User 591J also attempted, without success, to establish a biography of Felix Sater on Wikipedia in July 2015, which was not approved. (I do not have access to 591J's deleted draft.) I recognize that Felix Sater has his defenders, such as the person writing this blog. If there is mitigating information beyond Sater's two known convictions, including one for assault, it should certainly be taken into account. In any event, User 591J has repeatedly been asked to comment on his deletions here on the Talk page and discuss before performing them again; this is a reiteration of that request. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

A new term in the media: "Trump phenomenon" .!.

Started with Rush Limbaugh and others, the term 'Trump phenomenon' is taking off.

Headline-1: The Republican Establishment Hates Trump Because He Owns the Media

• http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/12/04/the_republican_establishment_hates_trump_because_he_owns_the_media

QUOTE: "the Trump phenomenon is a phenomenon [where] Donald Trump owns the media." -- AstroU (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing. And we can expand later.

Talkpage Protection

Although the article itself is protected, this talk page is still not protected. Therefore it is vulnerable to vandalism by trolls and angry people, especially due to the many controversial things Donald Trump has said (some offensive). Therefore this page should also be protected as some people may turn to this page to vent out their fustration and anger. This is just an idea. Signed 99.240.204.52 (talk) 07:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I support this idea, his lack of political correctness and consistent frontrunner status in a presidential election make this page a prime target.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose We can deal with trolls here. There needs to be a venue for suggestions open to people unable to edit the article itself. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 12:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I've just declined this request at WP:RFPP. There has to be some very severe vandalism to protect the talk page of a protected article. Nowhere near enough at the moment. GedUK  13:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

J

He's sprouted a middle initial. J for...137.205.183.109 (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

His middle name is John, which is in the first line of this article. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the poster meant that the Donald has recently started styling himself the Donald J, probably to add gravitas (he refers a lot to himself in the third person, much like Caesar and Napoleon).92.12.60.184 (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Disqualified candidate

The White House has announced that Trump is disqualified from running for presidency. Please clarify that he is a former candidate, not a current one. http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/12/8/trump-ban-on-muslims-entering-US-disqualifies-him-from-presidency.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Comtes (talk • contribs) 04:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

That's an opinion from the White House, it's not an actual disqualification, nor is such a thing even possible. Acroterion (talk) 04:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to take seriously the comments of someone called "Josh Earnest".--Jack Upland (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we need to leave it to the readers what they think about the statement from the White House. I propose the following sentence: In response to anti-Muslim remarks by Trump that were widely condemned as racist, the White House announced in December 2015 that he was disqualified from becoming president." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Comtes (talk • contribs) 07:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a error in the introduction

The introduction section says he's a candidate for President. He is not, at least yet. He as not been nominated to run for president yet. 69.158.90.85 (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The Federal Election Commission, under U.S. election law, considers him a candidate. Is there a reliable source saying they're wrong? 2600:1006:B127:6B0B:DDF:6999:A965:B6F6 (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

This is the most absurdly non-neutral article I have ever seen. Is this written by the Trump campaign: "trump's controversial positions have earned him support among working class voters" no, trump has (rightly)been called fascist by everyone in his party

Is this article a joke? Has Wikipedia totally just given up? What the hell is this? How can you people possibly regard this article as even anything close to neutral? He has called for Muslims and Mexicans to all be ejected from the country, every other republican candidate has condemned him as a fascist (to say nothing of what the democrats have said about him, who have rightly been calling Trump a fascist and noting his uncanny resemblance to Adolf Hitler for months) and the most you can muster is a mealy-mouthed "his controversies appeal to the working class?" This article proves that Wikipedia is dominated by extreme far-right editors, with absurdly slanted political views. Please, enough with the goose-stepping, and let's fix this god-awful article. 2600:1017:B42C:4945:E5C4:EDC4:4041:1433 (talk) 08:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)