Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 34

New picture
I think it's time to put a more appropriate image in the infobox.

--Reollun (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you serious or joking? Please check out the talk page archives. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * See here. It's very unlikely that you'll get much support for reopening that debate now,  as the discussion was quite recent and resulted in a firm consensus. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The current image looks OK. How could a better image be chosen? Jarble (talk) 06:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I presume it will have to be changed since he is now preisdent-elect.

--Reollun (talk) 09:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Why would a person who just won the presidential office have a frown on them??? Use the photo from Wiki Commons (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/Donald_J._Trump_October_2016.jpg/113px-Donald_J._Trump_October_2016.jpg) instead. hvacrmaster (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox image
I think it's time to change the lead image. The smiling Trump is reflective of the man who is now President-elect of the United States. Trump is not the man in deep contemplation but the man who contemplated a winning strategy and stands ready, and happy to serve.--John Cline (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree, of course. The same goes for United States presidential election, 2016, the pages about the Republican primaries, etc. We have a fine picture, it's time to use it. This is not equivalent to "beating a dead horse" anymore. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I placed a new, less obscured image of Trump in the infobox.

If this is reverted, this image is the proposed image:

Placed this in the talk page just in case! -- ZiaLater  ( talk  ) 08:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It needs to be DISCUSSED first Gage/Calibrador, stop imposing it, most of us like to follow rules...-- Stemoc 08:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Reminder : this image has also been proposed (see section above and previous discussions) Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * (moved image to gallery above)


 * ZiaLater is following the rules, but you are not. I agree with the logic of ZiaLater, and I vote to keep the contribution of ZiaLater. Several others have already reverted your disruptive edit concerning this matter, Stemoc. Please see WP on conduct—anything remotely percieved as bullying is to be avoided, and don't be resistant to allow others to contribute within guidelines. You're not the only user here, and so far you're the only one resistant to this edit. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 09:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry for placing it without discussion! One of the reasons I uploaded my image is that in the current image, the microphone is in the way. The other proposed image seen in the reminder has a microphone too but is not bad.-- ZiaLater  ( talk  ) 09:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, here is another proposed image:
 * (moved image to gallery above)

Should be enough options for now.-- ZiaLater  ( talk  ) 09:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I think User:ZiaLater's first proposal (at the top of this section) is the better one. Please be aware though that the image should not be changed without clear consensus here. This article is subject to 1RR sanctions and I've reluctantly just had to block an editor who exceeded 3RR who was edit warring over the image. This is a reminder to all editors not revert more than once on this article in a 24 hour period. WaggersTALK  09:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I did not revert's ZiaLater's edit on the page because I did not like the image but because he/she did not follow the protocol which is that images need to be discussed here and a proper outcome (if there is one) needs to be adhered to. You cannot just go 'willy-nilly' changing the image to suit the one you want. The image has been changed on that page many many times so a proper procedure should now be followed, that said, it would be wise if admins watching the page do not block users trying to restore the longstanding image by mistake, As i was told by another admin, the IRR on that page is not very clear..That said, I do like the first image but it has to be zoomed in a bit, its supposed to be a headshot, not a longshot :)-- Stemoc 10:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's been quite a bit of confusion and discussion about discretionary sanctions lately; in the case of the editor I blocked they had breached 3RR not just the discretionary 1RR sanction so it was a fairly clear-cut decision. You're quite right, admins should not block users trying to restore the longstanding image (unless it's clear the consensus has changed of course). Wa</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  10:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, I added a gallery now, its an easier method and makes it less congested, peopel can add more options (just make sure its an actual headshot and recent and not images from 2014 or before).-- Stemoc 10:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1, 2 and 4 are fine as far as I'm concerned. What matters is that we have to replace the current photo ASAP. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I like Image 2 the most but it would be better if the microphone was photoshopped out. 1, 3, and 4 are also feasible. Note that the photo of Trump on the United States presidential election, 2016 article has been changed as well.  CatcherStorm    talk   16:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I vote for Image 4. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: Why don't we wait until his presidential picture is released? We are going to change this picture to only have to change it again soon. When will this non-sense end? Chase |<small style="font-size:75%;"> talk 23:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * How long does it take for this official picture to be revealed? With Obama, it took months. As president elect of the United States, Trump should at least have a decent picture until the official one is unveiled.-- ZiaLater  ( talk  ) 03:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * No change until his official portrait emerges. That was the consensus in zillions of prior discussions. — JFG talk 23:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Change picture. Out of all the photos to chose from, this was obviously a negative POV choice. There's no reason not to change to an image with a formal pose. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Change picture to 3 or 4. 3 is him grinning and not smiling as much while 4 is closer and shows him smiling. The current image shows him hunched over behind a microphone.-- ZiaLater  ( talk  ) 02:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * No change per JFG, although zillions may be a slight overstatement. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Change picture I don't like Trump, but he does look pretty damn presidential in picture #3 UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

How much longer is this going to go on? Pretty soon all of Trump's and Clinton's supporters that come to this page are going to line up and vote accordingly here. So we must let Wikipedia POLICY determine what photo is used. -- The existing photo of Trump, clearly wearing a frown with eyes shifted to his left, violates Policy regarding Biographies of Living People, as it is a "disparaging" image of Trump. Since there are more formal pictures that could have been chosen, this is a POV issue as well. All president's biographies, and even that of Hillary Clinton, present the subject with a favorable pose. We need to treat this biography like any other. The image should be changed now and administrators should make sure Wikipedia policy is maintained for all editors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: Image 3 has been placed into the infobox for now since most agreed with in and because most agreed that the previous image was not NPOV. Image 3 can stay for now but if others want to agree on the other proposed images, decide below. The previous image, however, should not be placed back. At least for the next few months until his official portrait is unveiled, we can have a NPOV image for him.-- ZiaLater  ( talk  ) 02:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I do agree with others that the current photo is not ideal. It is difficult to find a photo that is both available for usage per its licensing and also one that everyone can agree upon, but I think the current one could be much better. Nagylelkű (talk) 04:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Gwillhickers mentions the behaviour or "Trump's and Clinton's supporters" : I am not a Trump supporter, but that doesn't stop from thinking that the photo should be changed. Quite simply because it does not only make Trump look bad (hence violating NPOV) : it makes Wikipedia look even worse. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump Picture!!!
Can we now please get a new picture of PRESIDENT ELECT TRUMP?--Subman758 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is under discussion above. --MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Seems not to matter now. The practice is to keep the official government photo of their last government position -- so in a couple months it would become his official Presidential Photo, and then it stays that forever.  Markbassett (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

This is my opnion but I don't think the new picture looks presidential with the black background and the expression on his face. I proposed a new picture in a new topic

--Dyl1G (talk) 2:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello everyone,


 * The only images we should be considering are those which A. include President-elect Trump smiling, and B. include an American flag in the background. This is the standard for literally all U.S. president's WP pages, and U.S. presidential candidate's WP pages. Therefore, only image # 2 would qualify. We should change to this photo immediately, and if in a few months there is an 'official photo', we can later change to that one. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 12:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. Can we at last change that photo ? Quite frankly, the current one is making wikipedia look ridiculous. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Revert to image that gained consensus
There was a consensus that File:Donald Trump August 19, 2015 (cropped).jpg is the best image to use here, and yet another editor put in the current image, claiming some others liked it on this talk page. However, lacking a detailed discussion and consensus like the other one received, the above-linked image must be used until a new consensus is reached. This is standard practice. I cannot enforce this again due to 1RR; I suggest someone else does. ɱ (talk) · vbm  · coi) 02:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. --TBM10 (talk) 02:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , just as a note, the end result of the discussion above was that File:President Trump 2.jpg be used. Primefac (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, most agreed that the File:Donald Trump August 19, 2015 (cropped).jpg was not appropriate or NPOV. Overall, most people agreed that Image 3, or File:President Trump 2.jpg, should be used as it is more neutral.-- ZiaLater  ( talk  ) 02:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh my god, people. Please look at the many discussions of the infobox image, which received votes from scores of editors and went through a formal analysis and vote based on photography and appearance attributes. Just because a small handful of editors now seem to like this one just based on gut feeling, saying "I like this one", you're making a mess of something that actually achieved a proper consensus. Respect it, or again open a full RfC with multiple image options and tagging multiple WikiProjects and other relevant groups. What you have here is an embarrassing form of 'consensus'. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 03:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * 100% agreement. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. Far too much discussion on this.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump New Picture
I know, his picture was changed 30 minutes to an hour ago but based on all the other president pictures, it is no good and looks unprofessional in my opinion.

I found a picture that looks like a presidential picture and I think should be used. I am currently getting permission from the photographer.

Example 1

Example 2 --Dyl1G (User talk:Dyl1G) 2:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * If you can get permission, Example 1 is pretty good. If you receive permission, let us know. As for now, the current image is more NPOV than the original, but hopefully you can get their permission.-- ZiaLater  ( talk  ) 02:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand you are proposing a picture change in good faith, however it will not be accepted unless you run a formal RfC. The sooner you start the process, the sooner it will end. Besides, I personally don't see how the longstanding picture is disparaging; it actually gathered consensus repeatedly over many many other pictures that various editors deemed "more presidential". In this picture, Trump looks serious and attentive, his face is in focus, the colors are neutral, well it's just fine. (And for the record, I once advocated for a picture change as well, at least an edit of this one to remove the microphone and background artefact, but I accepted consensus to keep this one). — JFG talk 16:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * FYI, the last big push to change the image consisted of a week or two of heated debate in a series of talk threads, followed by a big RfC. After the RfC got several dozen !votes, the activity died to the point that the archive bot archived the RfC before it was closed. And nobody complained about the lack of a close, nobody restored the RfC from the archive or asked that that be done, because we were all suffering from severe infobox image fatigue. I think many of us still are, I know I am. In the end, all that editor time and energy were wasted. My advice is to wait for the official White House portrait. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 16:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@JFG How do I start a formal Rfc? --Dyl1G (User talk:Dyl1G) —Preceding undated comment added 18:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Instructions are at WP:RFC. Enjoy! — JFG talk 20:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Current Trump picture violates policy
The present "long standing" picture of Trump is a clear violation of Policy regarding Biographies of Living People as the image shows Trump with a frown and eyes shifted to his left. There were other more favorable images used in the Trump biography before this one came along. Consensus can not override POLICY. The image is clearly "disparaging". Are Wikipedia administrators, etc, just going to sit there and let this continue? Currently we have good support for a better image, while there should be overwhelming agreement that Wikipedia not be used to express political POV's. Again, how many people have to weigh in before someone does something around here, and then, how much longer will the debate continue?? At this rate, with all the foot dragging and arguing, the current picture will still be in place when Trump is sworn in. (!) WP credibility is sinking fast in the eyes of at least half of Wikipedia's readership, as I know there are a lot of Clinton supporters that have not stooped to using Wikipedia to express their particular political peeves. Can we please treat the Trump biography like any other and include a favorable and formal pose? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice try, but the policy you pointed to says that a photo cannot be "misleading." The current photo is not "mislading" at all. If you were to randomly bump into Donald Trump, that's what he would look like. --Proud User (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect Wikipedia administrators, etc, are just going to sit there and let this continue, because this is how the Wikipedia collaborative process is designed to work. If I'm not mistaken we have a hard-fought RfC consensus for the current image, and that consensus will not be overridden by a relatively few editors outside RfC with significant opposition. I believe there is still a thread on this page soliciting suggestions for good replacement photos. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Many editors disagree in good faith with your premises, including me. Your policy interpretation here is exactly that, your policy interpretation; I see no such explicit prohibition against this image in Wikipedia policy. Your perception of the image is exactly that, your perception; I see no frown. I do see a serious and sober expression. Unlike you, I recognize my perception as my perception, my interpretation as my interpretation. And I don't go around accusing fellow editors of bad faith or incompetence en masse.

As I do agree it's not the best photo choice it does not seem to violate the policy. If you are going to complain about it at least suggest a new one.... Dyl1G (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Dyl1G


 * "Nice try"? The BOLP policy I refer to says Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. It would have helped if you clicked on the link and read the item. Trump's expression is clearly disparaging, not at all the best picture to represent him with. The image looks like a media sniper shot, typically taken by photographers who lie in wait to capture the worst possible expression. They did it to Hillary also.


 * We're not debating whether the image looks like Trump. I respect your concern for established consensus but it was almost entirely established before Trump was elected. Since then there are new and important things to be considered, esp since consensus is now marginal and clearly split for obvious reasons. Given this situation, all personal opinions should be set aside, and the biography be allowed to receive the same treatment as the others. This has not happened, even after repeated objections to the current photo. We now have two sides arguing, and it looks like there will never be any resolution until long after Trump is sworn in and an official government photo is made available. We can belabor about what Trump's expression is, i.e. frown, or sober and serious, and prolong resolution indefinitely if that is your intention. The fact remains, there are far better images available, yet we have a marginal consensus not to use them. Good faith or not, that is a fact. Personal opinion aside, Trump has not received the same formal and favorable image Clinton and other famous living people have received, all the while such photos are available. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Since then there are new and important things to be considered That's a fair reason to seek a new consensus via a new RfC (I would oppose such an RfC at this point for the reason I have given in the existing RfC, but it would at least be a legitimate use of established process). Not a legitimate reason to argue for a new consensus in unstructured, open discussion which would be unlikely to involve more than 6 or 8 editors. RfC consensuses generally require RfCs to change, and that is especially true for RfCs that had such high participation and involved so much debate. We don't so easily throw out the result of that much editor time and energy. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello User:Gwillhickers,


 * I agree. It does seem odd and out of place for a U.S. Presidential politician to have an unflattering frowning photograph on a WP page. Compare this to Barrack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George H. W. Bush. All other U.S. Presidents have a smiling photo of them, with an American flag in the background. Even the Hillary Clinton's photograph has an American flag in the background with her smiling. Gwillhickers, I encourage you to find a smiling photo of President-elect Trump, with a U.S. flag in the background, and replace this controversial image. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Fine, so go !vote in the existing RfC. Participate in the process. This thread is out of process. And following your suggestion would be a clear violation of the ArbCom restrictions in effect at this article, making a consensus-free edit already known to be highly controversial. You have given exceedingly bad advice. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ontario Teacher BFA BEd : I agree that the current image is a disaster but you should be voting here. We already have better, more flattering images of Trump, one of which even has a US flag in the background. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

New photo
United States presidential election, 2016 has agreed, President-elect of the United States has agreed, List of Presidents of the United States has agreed, Family of Donald Trump has agreed. So why are we STILL using a low-quality 2015 photo of Trump here???? Can we just finally agree here, for once and for all, to change the lead image to this:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by User1937 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Summoning strength (or trying to), considering wikibreak. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You need to get an official photo approved by the individual. Famous folks like Trump have readily available approved photos.  It's not up to WP editors to stage a beauty pageant or photoshop retouching bee.  That's why we end up with silly threads that say he looks like a chicken in this one and she looks Martian with the red blouse, etc etc.  SPECIFICO  talk  16:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I remember derp face. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Let's wait on this.  When President Trump is sworn in, he will have an official picture made for the Armed Forces chain of command.  Let's wait and use that picture.  IMO, all the pictures shown so far suck.Hilltrot (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's not disparage his appearance. This one is very flattering, but it shouldn't be up to us.  SPECIFICO  talk  01:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * wow that face, its exactly like my constipation face..we should use it, TheDonald just realising what he got into .lol ..-- Stemoc 01:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

New Post election consensus
Since the election a new consensus has emerged (here and here'''). That there was actually a "consensus" to keep the unflattering picture of Trump over the more favorable/formal poses is troubling and negatively reflects on Wikipedia, the consensus process and the idea of neutrality. Since the election 11 users have expressed a desire to change the existing photo to a better picture, while 5 editors want to keep the existing image. Can we now make the change and treat the Trump article fairly? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not another picture discussion. Any suggestion that editors here have reached consensus to purposely insist that the photo must be unflattering is a vio of WP:AGF. I hope that isn't what anyone is saying. Objective3000 (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Another picture discussion"? I was referring to the existing one. The prior consensus was established before the election, as I've said several times now. I was assuming the editors involved before weren't incredibly stupid and were well aware that the current picture is objectionable. Don't cry 'lack of good faith' when someone assumes they knew what they were doing. There is a new consensus. Can we get on with this without these diversion tactics? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no "new consensus" sufficient to override the existing hard-fought RfC consensus, as has been explained to you with great clarity. You did not respond to that explanation, and it would be pointless to try because there is no viable response to it. Nothing in the existing RfC consensus said, "This consensus will be void after the election", so you're inventing your own rules. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I will now bow out of discussion of this dispute. I've said everything there is to say about this, and it's clear that it would be pointless to continue saying it. If any editor changes the infobox image without an RfC consensus to do so, and I have reason to believe they are aware of this dispute, the question will be resolved at WP:ANI with the possiibility of preventative sanction for disruptive editing. I would much prefer that an admin proactively stated here that my position is correct as to process, so we could get on with our work, but it has been seen above that admins are very reluctant to step in and stop disruption at this article. That leaves ANI as the only remaining option. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There is an active RfC for the purpose of deciding (1) should the infobox image be changed before the official White House portrait is made available, and (2) if so, what should it be changed to. This has been explained to you above in a thread you created, you didn't like what you heard there, so you started another thread in the hopes of getting a different answer. You were out of process before, you remain out of process, and you are becoming tiresome. WP:IDHT and WP:STICK apply here, and you are approaching WP:DE. See the essay Process is important. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Wrong on all counts and I'm well aware of the discussion, which, btw, I linked to. Hello? Once again, the former consensus was established before the election and a new consensus has emerged. How long do you plan on referring to the outdated consensus? You should learn that consensus can change, and there is nothing lately that says it hasn't. Sorry. Please don't assume the roll of talk page cop with this apparent effort to ignore new consensus that the above RfC has revealed. We have heard your opinion coming and going -- your name occurs more than 80 times on the existing talk page alone. Please let other editors establish the consensus so we can move on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the "Wrong on all counts" link to WP:AGF makes no sense. AGF is not about being right or wrong. I don't doubt your good faith, I doubt your competence on this question.
 * Speaking for myself, I've no intention for changing anything without consensus. All that was asked is that the new consensus be recognized, as it is the latest and was established after the election. Acknowledging that the current picture is horrible and raises POV issues would be a sign of good faith, btw. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've no intention for changing anything without consensus I said RfC consensus. Replacing the existing RfC consensus. Acknowledging that the current picture is horrible and raises POV issues would be a sign of good faith No it would not. It would be a sign of agreeing with your viewpoint. I said I would bow out of discussion, but that was incorrect. I will bow of out of discussion when you cease addressing me directly with such flawed reasoning. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It was flawed reasoning that says the current picture is the best image for the article. We are not trying to decipher hieroglyphs here. Claiming that the existing image is all a matter of how you look at it is a POV cop-out. Esp when there are a fair number of better poses, with smiles, to chose from. Or are those images with smiling poses something that is equally abstract to you and all a matter of "viewpoint"? BS. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not in love with the current image. I am, however, in love with the reasoning in the essay Process is important. Have you read it? I have. I and others believe that cost exceeds benefit of debating what photo is shown in that infobox for the two or three months before the White House official portrait becomes available. That's a good faith non-spurious argument, I get that you and others disagree with it. You're entitled to disagree with it, but you are not entitled to say that it lacks legitimacy. The way to resolve that good faith disagreement is through an RfC that replaces the existing RfC consensus. The fact that the election is over does not change the fact that there is an enormous weight difference between the existing consensus and the one that you say should replace it, one that is far less formal and involves far fewer editors. I reiterate. Again. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Consensus is an entity unto itself and changes. We must go by the latest consensus, wherever it may be found, esp on the Talk page of the article in question. You can't ignore the existing consensus and say those who don't aren't following process. You say you don't love the existing image, yet you voted to keep it from the start. Yes we have no bananas? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * See my previous comment. I certainly can ignore your little consensus, for the reason I clearly articulated there. All consensuses are not created equal. They have varying weight, and a 1-pound consensus cannot replace a 50-pound consensus. Period. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

On various Trump related pages there have been hundreds of Talk edits on the subject of his photos. As soon as a decision is made, yet another discussion begins. Let us be honest. He doesn’t photograph well. I’m not saying that as a measure of his character. I’m saying that it is patently obvious from all the discussions. All the photos show him as smirking, growling, yelling, orange, or with some other problem. The photo in a new discussion above has been previously quoted as making him look squinting and constipated. Blaming editors for bad faith because the photo is not compelling is out of line. A suggestion was made that we wait for an official presidential photo. I really don’t see how anyone can argue with that. Objective3000 (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change, as any experienced editor will tell you. POV issues are nothing new and they will continue to surface every time a controversial subject presents itself. The "50 pound consensus" was established some time before Trump was elected and as such can easily be regarded as out dated. There are new and significant considerations to address now, including newer images of Trump. Were any formal/smiling images of Trump considered when this "50 pound" consensus was established? If so, I'll bow out now and wait for the formal presidential photo to be released. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This might be easier to accept if there were no formal poses with Trump smiling, however there are and have been. It can easily be argued that a formal pose with Trump smiling, in full display above, be used to replace the one that has been objected to by many editors. Apparently the formal/smiling images of Trump were not considered when the old consensus was established. If we don't come up to speed on this and wait months for a formal pose (esp when several formal poses are presently available) and much of America views the current photo on Inauguration Day, it could cause a good segment of the readership to come to regard Wikipedia as no more credible than the Enquire, just in case anyone's concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Consensus has not changed. It would take a new RfC, and any attempt at a new RfC would probably get shouted down, because people are sick and tired of arguing the same issue over and over. (That's undoubtedly why more people aren't chiming in here. Their silence reflects "This matter has been settled, stop bringing it up.") The RfC went on for a long time; it involved many people; it doesn't change because somebody objects to it. As for your accusation that people deliberately chose an unflattering image: personally I thought, and still think, it was the best of the images on offer. Most of them showed him smirking, or with his eyes squinting closed. And yes, many of them were "formal smiling poses". This image shows him looking alert, interested, and curious, as if talking to someone. It's not ideal but it was better than what else was on offer. MelanieN alt (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

And in case you don't know, Gwillhickers, this is the admin input I was wishing for. I sincerely hope we can drop this, at long last. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, smiling formal poses were available, yet were not chosen. Gosh, my faith is restored. Yes, Trump looks serious -- he also and obviously looks angry -- not shouting or screaming, but clearly pissed-off. Anyway, the first RfC came before the election. Many people chimed in immediately thereafter with complaints about the existing image of Trump. What will you do when others continue to object, as they have and no doubt will continue to do? Shush them away and direct them not to talk because others have already discussed it? Also, Mandruss, with all due respect for administrators, while they have certain privileges, this doesn't make them more qualified to make subject/content decisions, and if I'm not mistaken, they can't stop someone from beginning a new conference or RfC simply because legitimate considerations have emerged, like the election. Much of America and the world will now be reading this biography, where they'll also look at Clinton's bio and see a pleasing pose. But when they compare it the Trump biography they will see the exact opposite with some people rationalizing that the picture is 'okay', which will tell them that Wikipedia is just another biased political rag. We need a new post election RfC. Making everyone wait months for a better picture is unfair. I move that a new post-election RfC be initiated. If no one seconds this motion, then I'll wipe the egg off my face and wait for the official picture to arrive, someday. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * One more comment pointing out your flawed reasoning and/or ignorance, and then I'm done with you. which will tell them that Wikipedia is just another biased political rag. Yes, much of the public is constantly seeing bias at Wikipedia. That will always be true. They understand WP:NPOV even less than the huge number of Wikipedia editors who misunderstand it (which includes you, apparently). So what? We edit Wikipedia according to Wikipedia policy, not to avoid external criticism. Best of luck with your plans for continued disruption. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, Gwillhickers, you've made your motion for a new RFC. The appropriate action now would be to stop arguing and wait to see if you get any support for the idea. Fair enough? MelanieN alt (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC) P. S. Just to make it clear: I function at this article as just another editor. I do not take any admin actions here because I am WP:INVOLVED. MelanieN alt (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * One of us is missing something here. There is already an active RfC about infobox image, at Talk:Donald Trump. What "new RfC" are you referring to? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that one was still active. Apparently neither did Gwillhickers with their call here for a new RFC. MelanieN alt (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers has been advised of the existing RfC multiple times throughout this multi-thread dispute. They were well aware of it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * As an admin, you are a relative expert on many things including Wikipedia process. I'm going to assume that you don't forget all that when you login as your alt. I did call it "admin input", not "admin ruling". I don't expect your comments to be binding, only informative. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You understand that; I just wanted to make sure Gwillhickers does. You called attention to my admin status. I didn't want them to think I was trying to give any kind of orders or throw my weight around. MelanieN alt (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think a reasonable editor with 55K edits, acting in good faith, would read your comments and reluctantly concede. I know I would in their place, I don't believe I know more about Wikipedia process than a widely respected admin. Consensus has not changed. It would take a new RfC ... &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't try to make anything of you being an administrator, as Mandruss attempted to do. (No? why was it brought up?) No one is forced to participate in these discussions and I don't appreciate being harassed by the same lone editor (not you) who has resorted to personal attacks several times now. Many readers have expressed legitimate concerns, since the election, on the Talk page. Should we ignore them? RfC's are for editors. Very few, if any, readers ever participate there. The Talk page is where concerned readers air their concerns, and they should be counted in the consensus process when they take the time to chime in. Should we ignore them because of an outdated RfC that occurred before it was known that Trump was our next president? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This article peaked at 6 million views a day, an exceptional surge for any article in Wikipedia's history. In that context, some readers don't like the picture and they should not be ignored. However we cannot guess how many readers would have complained about another picture, had it been changed to one of the suggestions. Each proposed picture was deemed unfathomable by enough people that none gathered enough support over the current one. Obviously WP:CCC applies, you are free to suggest a change and see if the community would support it now. Alas, this is ultimately an WP:ILIKEIT / WP:JDLI debate, as was noted repeatedly in long-winded discussions about the most suitable portrait. The only event that might change the status quo is the issue of an official photograph by the Trump campaign (that didn't happen) or by the White House (that will happen soon enough). — JFG talk 05:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My whole point is that that discussion belongs in the active RfC, not in separate unstructured threads. But we can't do that because Gwillhickers refuses to go there and discuss it, instead insisting on taking the issue out of that process and starting one thread after another to demand that his mini-consensus replace the existing hard-fought RfC consensus. Please, let's observe process first, then discuss content. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The readers should be our top priority. They are the only reason why we are here. When the readers compare the Clinton and Trump pages they're going to wonder what's going on around here. Brushing it off as "external criticism" is a slap in the face to the readership. There is no policy, proceedual or otherwise, that says consensus can't be reestablished when circumstances warrant it, as they have, on the Talk page. I will consider initiating a post election RfC. In the mean time all editors need to limit their discussions to article improvement, (a Talk page policy I'm sure you're not ignorant about) and not get their feathers ruffled when someone doesn't accept their opinion as gospel. If something comes up on a Talk page someone doesn't like, no one is forcing them to participate, so kindly not carry on like you're emotionally disabled, 'disrupted', and are being dragged through this against your will. If concerns come up on the TALK page, then they naturally are addressed on the TALK page. Your efforts have only attempted to disrupt this legitimate process. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Re the claim: "Consensus has not changed. It would take a new RfC." Okay, can we see the policy that expresses this idea exactly? Is there a time limit? Two years from now will we still be required to use the RfC to establish consensus? If that's truly the case then I'll forget about trying to resolve the matter here.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * We seem to be entering a new era of nastiness. We are all volunteers. Can we try to be polite? Objective3000 (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Gwillhickers, I am totally baffled what your point is in this thread. You are demanding a new post-election RFC. There IS such an RFC currently active on this page. As you already know, and as Mandruss has reminded you. You already have what you are asking for. So why are you still asking for it ? MelanieN alt (talk) 05:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that the subject himself does not find the photograph objectionable. Moreover, it comports with the take-home message in his acceptance speech: He is actively listening to other peoples' voices. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Two years from now will we still be required to use the RfC to establish consensus? - After we have an official photo for Trump, are we going to consider a different official photo while he's in office? Why on earth would we do that? Because the first official photo is a WP:NPOV violation? As for after he leaves office, with the possible exception of Lyndon Johnson - File:Lyndon_B._Johnson_Oval_Office_Portrait.tif - the bio of every former U.S. president after Franklin Roosevelt shows an official government photo in the infobox. Why would there be a need to revisit the photo then? For that matter, I wouldn't see a problem with a Donald Trump photo RfC every four years, and there is no way we would need anywhere near that much. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note that there is a guideline advising against using bullets in a thread that was started without bullets, or vice versa. Switching the method makes formatting for good readability unnecessarily difficult.
 * The RfC above has been closed. There is a discussion above, which is where the consensus I referred to is located, but this is not an RfC. RfC's are usually on their own page. Anyway, I said I would consider an RfC, per your statement that it would take another RfC to override the old one, but the idea of post election considerations seem to be routinely ignored by a couple of editors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The existing picture of Trump may have been taken from footage during a debate, and viewing it in that context is quite different than viewing the single image photo used in a WP article, esp when compared to the favorable pose of Clinton. Again, the existing photo is out of context, misleading and disparaging in that regard. Where are you getting the idea that Trump "does not find the photograph objectionable". I sort of doubt he'd approve of using this out of context image in his biography. Many people already find the image, uh, less than acceptable, esp when compared to other biographies showing formal/smiling poses, as the Clinton bio does. Not a fair and balanced presentation for the readers, who should be our primary concern. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

RfC's are usually on their own page - Incorrect, per the first sentence at Requests for comment. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The RfC above has been closed. That RfC above has been closed, but it had nothing to do with the infobox image and therefore nothing to do with this dispute. The applicable open RfC, which I identified and linked above at 17:58, 15 November 2016 for MelanieN since she was new to this dispute, is at Talk:Donald Trump.


 * Ultimately, while you have some support as to content, you remain all alone as to process regarding this issue. That's basically the test for the widely-accepted essay WP:STICK. If you remain a minority of 1 after a couple of days of very active discussion, you review WP:How to lose and move on—even if you are absolutely certain that your debate opponents are wrong. That's the only practical way this business can work, and this is another thing that I feel you should already understand at your experience level. In this case, "move on" means go participate in the decision-making process already started in that RfC. If your preferred image is not on the table there, I don't see a problem with adding it yourself, especially with so few !votes already stated there. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

New Post election consensus (cont)
, more so than anyone, by far, you're all over the map around here and need to stop reassuring yourself by speaking for other editors. As you're well aware, many editors/readers have expressed a desire to change the existing photo since the election and are not fixated on your narrow take of process, such that it was, before the election. i.e.Not carved in stone for all time. Since the 2nd RfC is stuck in the middle of this (very) long talk page, many, like myself who have arrived later and/or haven't sifted through the entire page, no doubt will overlook this RfC, which, btw, only has two similar photos to chose from, which even I find less than adequate. Once again your concern for the readership seems to have taken a back seat to your apparent blind allegiance for that pre-election RfC. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "Where are you getting the idea that Trump 'does not find the photograph objectionable'." A truly authoritative source for that information would most likely have communicated it only in confidence, but you can take my word for it. "Many people already find the image ... less than acceptable ... when compared to other biographies showing formal/smiling poses, as the Clinton bio does." Yes, but Clinton's an acknowledged loser. Roosevelt's an (historic) winner and he apparently would not have felt a need to smile for his Wikipedia photo. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Be that it may, that's not going to cut it in an open date where editors are expected to at least make an attempt to support highly questionable claims such as you've made. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * stuck in the middle of this (very) long talk page Not a problem, we can move it to the bottom if that's an issue for you. only has two similar photos to chose from, which even I find less than adequate. I just suggested you add your preferred image, and that's far from the first time you have failed to hear what I said. Are you intentionally doing this or just uninterested in real discussion and communication here? Anyway, as Melanie has indicated, this question of Wikipedia process is not a matter for debate and consensus, so it matters not how many other editors feel it should be circumvented. I don't care if you have somehow evaded standard process your entire Wikipedia career (you appeared to know little or nothing about RfCs, stating that they usually have their own page), that doesn't make that legitimate. Need I list the things you have gotten objectively wrong in these threads? I really don't think you're in a position to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about here. I reiterate, you are a minority of 1 as to process, and nothing you can say here will ever change that fact. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  03:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

He is not President-elect of the United States.... yet
hello, this point must be changed... Donald Trump is not, yet, elected... Sg7438 (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * could you clarify your point? The link you shared describes his situation quite perfectly, thus substantiating why he should be listed as the president elect. { MordeKyle }   &#9762;  21:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Apparently the Electoral Colleges don't cast their votes until December 19. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * of course : if i understand american election (i'm french), he'll be elected december 19th... He seems to be just expecting the Electoral College vote, no ? so, he's not president elected, yet : let's wait : tell me if i'm wrong ! Sg7438 (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect. He is receiving top Secret Service briefings, which are only given to POTUS and POTUS-elect.  Tylr00 (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * See https://www.usa.gov/inauguration-2017#item-213261 Cheers! Tylr00 (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's "President Elect" not "Elected". Also, per Presidential Transition Act of 1963, the title of President Elect is used for the apparent winner of the election between the general election in November, and the inauguration in January. { MordeKyle }   &#9762;  22:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Also see President-elect of the United States, which is a correct description of Trump's position between now and the inauguration. The vote of the Electoral College does not change his title (assuming the electors vote "faithfully" on December 19). <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  Talk   22:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Obama is calling him "President-elect"- I think it doesn't get any more official than that. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 00:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * He is the presumptive president-elect since the electoral voting is on December 19. It's just the same nature as he was the presumptive Republican nominee before the votes were cast at the RNC convention in July. 207.245.44.6 (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * President-elect is the proper title for the position he is in right now. Between the general election and inauguration. If the electors end up being faithless (extremely unlikely) only then would the title change. PackMecEng (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Can we at last change the infobox image ?
Per the discussion in this secton, as proposed by John Cline, ZiaLater et al. IMHO, we should definitely not wait for Trump's official portrait. The current image makes wikipedia look ridiculous, and you don't have to like Trump to think that. Even Hitler's infobox picture looks better ! Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * There is an active RfC to decide those questions, at Talk:Donald Trump. Please participate. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Duh. I hadn't seen that. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You're not the only one, as it is buried in the middle of a sea of talk, with a TOC a mile long. No one editor's fault. I agree, the Trump biography has not received the same treatment as Clinton's which reflects unfavorably on Wikipedia and the idea of unbiased writing. I mentioned that many readers, (our top priority hopefully) will compare the current Trump image with that of Clinton's and make the same obvious deduction you and many others have made. No one can argue that Trump is not smiling, as is Clinton -- nor can they argue that the image is not formal in appearance, as is Clinton's. All bio's should receive the same considerations, esp when controversial subjects are involved, yet we will have to wait months before that happens, even with adequate images available. Hopefully the other supporters will weigh in soon so we can present an article in a truly neutral manner.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to note the reason Clinton's image is the way it is: that is her official portrait as Secretary of State. Most biographies of office holders use an official portrait like that. Trump has never held office so we don't have that option. Presumably that will be rectified soon. --MelanieN (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Which doesn't change the fact that the two biographies have not been treated in a fair and balanced manner. Clinton's image is pleasing and formal in appearance -- Trump's is not, even with several such images available. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that the sections (not RfC's} filled with support for a new photo have been tucked away in numerous collapsible boxes by one editor who took it upon himself to do so -- the same one whose name appears all over the page more than any other, by a huge margin. Very revealing. It appears we have POV and ownership issues at work here. The current RfC only "supersedes" the old RfC, it is not a license to suppress opposing opinions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The same editor just tried to do the same thing with this current discussion. Will someone please talk sense to this individual? He is apparently too angry to listen to me anymore. Discussion about the Trump image is not confined to the current RfC. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion about the Trump image is not confined to the current RfC. Strongly disagree. Anything "decided" outside the RfC with respect to the infobox image could not override the RfC result, so would be a pointless waste of editor time. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Does the 1RR apply to this talk page? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Speaking as an uninvolved editor, please keep the image discussions in one place, in this case the ongoing RfC. I have seen plenty of people agreeing that the current image is not ideal, but none agreeing on a new one. In order to agree on a new image these people are going to have to agree to one image in one place. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please review the sections involved. Most of these sections have been tucked away in green collapsible boxes so they are easier to find now. Many editors have expressed a desire for a new image, including the editor that initiated this section. The new RfC is where we will determine any new consensus. There is no process (or any) policy however that says every discussion about the image must occur there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The more the discussion is diluted the longer it will take. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I had a similar concern, that people on both sides of the POV fence would line up and vote accordingly, resulting in a long debate, which indeed has occurred. This is why I hoped that policy would prevail (not that anyone has out-right violated policy) and both bio's would simply get a pleasing and formal picture. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The constant violation of WP:AGF on this page has become quite tiresome. My opinion, and that of many here, is that the alternative images of Trump are all poor. The ones in the new group are squinty and make him look constipated. The claim that we are purposely trying to keep un unflattering image due to political beliefs is outrageous and without any merit. Objective3000 (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Superseded by active RfC. Please take any content discussion to that RfC. There is nothing to discuss as to process. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC) If there is something I'm missing in this thread that makes my collapse inappropriate, please point it out to me. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , please read what is written. This is a current discussion about something other than consensus or process. No one said this discussion will override anything. No policy has been violated. If so, please give us a quote to the exact policy -- not a general link/referral to some page, but the exact policy, please. Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I read what was written. I see you comparing smiling Hillary to serious Donald, as if that "inconsistency" is precluded by Wikipedia neutrality policy. It is not. I think I see you saying that the issue is too urgent to wait for an RfC resolution, so we must resolve it more quickly outside the RfC. I strongly dispute that. You seem to have trouble with the concept of subjectivity, trouble accepting that there are good faith differences in perception of the existing image. This was elaborated at length during the last push to change the image. You appear to believe that your view of the image is self-evident, and you in fact suggested the other day that failing to agree with your view was evidence of bad faith. It is not, and I would call that the ultimate bulletproof debate argument, "Agree with me or you are acting in bad faith".
 * All 'perceptions' aside, Clinton's image gives us a smiling and formal pose, Trump's does not. Re: Urgency, I wouldn't say that, but the fact remains, several months will pass where many thousands of viewers, every day, will see a glaring difference in the bio' images. and wonder about Wikipedia's credibility, as has been expressed by several editors. Okay, let's try to bury the hatchet and let the current RfC run its course. At least most are willing to use the official photo when it becomes available. Trying to count the blessings here. Cheers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Clinton's image gives us a smiling and formal pose, Trump's does not Again, and for about the 4th time, Wikipedia policy does not require that kind of "consistency". Can you see why you are seen as "not hearing" what is said? If you hear what is said, you either dispute it with evidence, or you accept it and change your position accordingly. You did neither, simply repeating the same thing you said before my comment. The concept is the subject of the essay WP:IDHT. And you failed to hear my comment yesterday or the day before that we edit according to policy, not according to what readers will believe about our credibility or neutrality. At the risk of glibness, Wikipedia is not engaged in a popularity contest. We are a non-profit encyclopedia, not a newspaper with the need to consider profitabililty. Again, you neither countered my statement (I don't think you even responded to it, actually) nor accepted it and altered your position. Again, IDHT. This pattern is what is so frustrating with you and other editors who behave in that manner. It is simply impossible to communicate with you in a constructive way and affter several days one wonders why they are wasting their time. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh my goodness, you're still fuming. Given your rather frantic participation, suppression of opposing opinions, disregard for fair treatment and neutrality, even when numerous editors point out the obvious difference in the photos, disregard for policy regarding ownership, Talk, repeated personal attacks, etc, not to mention your habit of speaking for others, your recital about what Wikipedia is and isn't has become something of a blur. IDHT? Look who's talking. I heard very well, and when it comes to policy about "process" you never took the ball past your own ten yard line. Once again, the RfC is about establishing consensus. Discussion about the neutrality of images however can occur where it may, and there is no policy about "process" that says editors can't express such opinions while an RfC is occurring. Is there? Your attempts to suppress these discussions, which no one is forcing you to participate in, obviously says more than you care to admit. As I said, we'll let the RfC run it's course. Now have your "last word" and repeat yourself for the nice folks out there.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Would someone please stop these constant personal attacks? Objective3000 (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My understanding and experience is that no admin will act without a complaint at WP:ANI, WP:ANEW, possibly somewhere in the Arbcom infrastructure where ArbCom restrictions are in place, I'm not very familiar with that area. Discretionary sanctions are available at this article but I've yet to see them exercised for talk-page-only misbehavior. So, sadly, I believe the answer to your question is "probably not". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I was willing to bury the hatchet, and let the RfC run it's course, and look at the reply. Again, I'm willing to let the RfC run it's course. Evidently this was not good enough for Mandruss, who initiated and has made repeated personal attacks. I'm done with this thread. Mandruss? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting the RfC run its course. Thanks again for being done with this thread. If you want to have a general discussion about infobox images and neutrality, the venue is Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, not this page. In theory, at least, some editors who are especially familiar with WP:NPOV watch that page and offer comments. While that does not always happen, it at least gets the discussion off this talk page. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Producer or personality?
Trump is a television producer:


 * "Donald J. Trump is the co-owner and Executive Producer of the 'Miss Universe Pageant'..."
 * "Mr. Trump is producing additional network and cable television programming via his Los Angeles based production company..."

He's also a television and radio personality:


 * "His radio program with Clear Channel Radio ... was a wonderful success."

He's not, in that context, a "reality television personality". Sources: Trump Productions; Donald Trump Biography. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd say he is both. He was the subject of a reality TV show, which makes him a reality TV personality. { MordeKyle }   &#9762;  02:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Correct, he's both. Next question: Which lead sentence conflicts with WP:BEGIN-
 * A. Donald John Trump is an American businessman, television producer, radio and reality television personality, real estate mogul and President-elect of the United States.
 * B. Donald John Trump is an American businessman, television producer, and President-elect of the United States.
 * Hint: Which version introduces the subject, and which tries to describe five or six notable things about him? --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * right, I don't disagree with you, but I think he is more commonly notable for being a reality tv personality than a producer. I for one, had no idea he produced anything, yet as a person who really doesn't know anything about this guy, I do know he was on reality tv shows. I think if you are only able to make one mention of his tv work, then the reality tv personality is better to use. I also think that maybe using the term, "Television Personality" is more accurate that reality tv personality, because he was on a lot of non reality shows like Oprah and such in the past as well. { MordeKyle }   &#9762;  03:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, just to add, being a TV producer is really just a business venture of an American Businessman right? { MordeKyle }   &#9762;  03:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC){{reply to|}
 * No. A TV producer isn't an owner or proprietor; he's labor. Organized labor. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

First sentence order of titles
In the first sentence, it makes sense to change to order of titles and speak first on the fact that he is the president elect. This outshdow all other information, and the main reason people enter this page. I would suggest something along that line:

Donald John Trump (/ˈdɒnəld dʒɒn trʌmp/; born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, the President-elect of the United States, an American businessman, reality television personality and real estate mogul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.237.184.222 (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Disagree we can cross that bridge when we get to it, not a moment too soon. --Bod (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * He already won the race, and is the president elect. What do you mean "... when we get to it ..."? This is exactly where we're at. 128.237.184.222 (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As a biography of a living person, most of his life has been as a business man and celebrity. People may come here cuz of recent events but it would be NPOV in my mind to classify this man first and foremost as a politician. --Bod (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What Bod said. He may one day be better known as a president. That day is not today... Distrait cognizance (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * At this current time point, even if Mr. Trump suffers an heart attack tomorrow, and never make to the white house, he will for generations to come be remembered as the president elect, years after he is forgotten as the owner of Trump towers. As much as he deserves an article as a business man and reality TV he is not extraordinary due to that. He has become extraordinary by winning the race to the white house. Let me ask it this way - If you were to write this page from scratch, what would be the most important thing you could say about Mr. Trump? 128.237.184.222 (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You're being blinded by current events, my man. All in due time. All in due time... He is still a wannabe politician to many. He has never even held office and you are ready to call him an "American politician" --Bod (talk) 01:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Bod's observation is correct -- in part. Most mainstream sources say that Trump is not truly a "wannabe politician" -- at least, he didn't wannabe elected as much Clinton or Cruz did. (And judging from his biography page, when Trump sleeps, he dreams of building golf courses, not campaigning.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Donald's hair and other physical appearances (again)
The last time this was discussed, it was made very clear that detailing sections for people's physical appearance, such as their hair, hands, breasts or ears, is a serious violation of BLP. Some people even got banned for making fun of Donald's appearance and one user even got their adminship removed. Yet again I see someone added another section for Donald's hair and even added a degrading picture of him where sweat drips from his face. Imagine if someone made a section of Obama's ears, lips or feet in his article with a picture to follow it up? Or likewise on Hillary's article, making fun of any of her body parts? I think we need to take body shaming very seriously, even if we don't like Trump and like to talk about his body. Beatitudinem (talk) 05:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * So far this sort of section has been based on press clippings - similar as the whole portion on his political stance. That say, try a google scholar search on "Donald Trump", hair - you will be surprised to find about 4000 entries and a German thesis called We Shall Overcomb. An Analysis of Donald Trump Hair Memes (Verena Born, 2016). No kidding, the topic as such is noteable and warrants an separate article. That said, Body Politics (not Body politic, but the role of politician's and rulers bodies) is an important topic as well for the Trump election and perception, but one should finally start to base such an entry or section on academic sourcing, less on Huffpost and Slate googelites. Polentarion Talk 06:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It's still not worthy for an encyclopedia that takes itself somewhat serious to include this in an article about a US President. If he never ran for president, I wouldn't mind as much. But this is just bad taste/indecorous. Beatitudinem (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Someone created an article, "Donald Trump's hair". Last month, it was put up for deletion and the result was that the content was merged here. There was no consensus for the material to be purged completely. I think it's too soon to debate the issue again.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should not be in the article, but, if we are allowed a moment of levity, it certainly would seem to be "just desserts."

http://www.americanhairloss.org/general/about_us.asp http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/09/donald-trump-alicia-machado-hillary-clinton-presidential-debate-rosie-odonnell-fatness-weight-fat-shaming-amy-farrell/501827/ Activist (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "Donald Trump Hair Memes" could be based on scholarly sources and is for sure noteable. Why confine gender and body studies to Dolezal, Merkel and Butler ;) ? Polentarion Talk 18:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Role of hair comb and photo on this talk page
As far as I can see, the longest discussions here have been about the photo, not about any detail in text. That said, physical appearance, including hair comb is much more important than any content. The hair style is part of that. The point is, one should start to use the real studies about such topics, not the Huffington posts. Body politics is clearly important for the Donald. Polentarion Talk 06:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Says right there in the lead graf: "He is heir..." --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Used to say it, anyway. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The recent Der Spiegel title page use an "hairbomb". We shall overcomb! End of the world as we know it. Polentarion Talk 07:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

"Heir to the Trump fortune"
This was recently added to the lead. Per the article body, "After his father died in 1999, Trump and his siblings received equal portions of his father's estate valued at $250–300 million." So when he got his share, it was a small portion of his total wealth.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's how I edited this just now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: Remove 'formerly run by his father, which is now...', per MOS:INTRO (avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions). Also, the business was named "Elizabeth Trump & Son" when Fred was running it. Some readers could erroneously understand the text to mean that at some point in time, Fred ran a business called "The Trump Organization". --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, that sounds reasonable. The next paragraph of the lead gets more specific: "he took control of his father Fred Trump's real estate and construction firm".Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, that's 60-75 million $. Worthy of the lede? Maybe not. But I think what it did is let it be known that Donald was not the builder of the family fortune. It should be written in the lede that his father and grandfather built up the family fortune and Donald continued in the same business as his father. --Bod (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Forbes "gave each member of The Forbes 400 a score on a scale from 1 to 10 — a 1 indicating the fortune was completely inherited, while a 10 was for a Horatio Alger-esque journey... 5: Inherited small or medium-size business and made it into a ten-digit fortune: Donald Trump". ("The New Forbes 400 Self-Made Score: From Silver Spooners To Bootstrappers".)
 * Had his score been 1, 2, 3, or even 4, the information would clearly be leadworthy. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

It's the entire base upon which his current fortune stands. Sure it has been expanded, but the fact remains we don't know how much it is now—and the inheritance was very substantial. Some sources even say it makes up most of Trump's fortune once you correct for inflation and the increase in NYSE valuation, and that had he only invested in the stock market he would have been richer than he is now. Regardless it belongs in the lede as something central to Donald Trump, especially considering his controversial comments about "small loans". I just can't see how this is problematic? As for that score it seems difficult to get a proper source for that when his fortune is so difficult to pin down, and to base editorial decisions on it seems bordering on WP:OR. Distrait cognizance (talk) 11:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Relevant sources:


 * http://fortune.com/2015/08/20/donald-trump-index-funds/
 * http://time.com/money/4005271/donald-trump-index-funds-wealth/
 * http://www.vox.com/2015/9/2/9248963/donald-trump-index-fund
 * https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/54699/1-easy-way-donald-trump-could-have-been-even-richer-doing-nothing (original source)
 * more…

This "material" probably isn't lede worthy. Also, it is now mentioned twice in the lede that he took over his dad's company, that should probably be addressed or corrected or not. --Malerooster (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have combined the two lede paragraphs about his career into a single paragraph. It does not mention inheritance or "family fortune," just says that he took over the family business and expanded it. I trust this meets with people's approval, but if not let's discuss it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

My changes to the lede
I made some organizational changes to the lede, although I didn't add or delete anything. The information about his election as president was formerly scattered among three paragraphs; I combined it into a single paragraph and put it right after the lede sentence. The information about his birth, education and career was scattered between two paragraphs; I combined them into one. Comments/suggestions/corrections are welcome. --MelanieN (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * BTW to avoid the recurrent arguments about whether he was really "elected" on November 8 or won't be until the Electoral College meets, I said he was "selected" in the general election to become the next president. Does that sound OK? --MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * No, it sounds like a strange construct to me. I'd leave it at something like "he won the general election on November 8th..." (personally, I'd also include "without winning the popular vote" or "despite not winning a majority of votes" but YMMV).  Rest of the changes are good. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I like that wording better and have changed it. There has been controversy on talk pages about whether to mention the popular vote in the lede; it is already present in the body of the article. I think I will clarify the "won" sentence to say something like "by getting more electoral college votes than Clinton". I'm not so sure about mentioning the popular vote in the lede since it might confuse people who are not familiar with our unusual process for electing presidents - or might require more explanation than is appropriate for the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd just say "elected" and leave the EV/PV thing to lower in the article. EV may be a historical artifact but it's what campaigns work to win (thus the intense effort in swing states).  There's been increased argument since the election to get rid of the EC (including a constitutional amendment bill introduced by Barbara Boxer iirc) and that should also be mentioned.  But it's all relatively technical and doesn't belong in the lede. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

real estate mogul in the first sentence is redundant
Real estate mogul is a subset of businessman. Real estate mogul implies businessman. Businessman does not imply real estate mogul. Real estate mogul should not be in the lead.

207.245.44.6 (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Instead of making another section on this, please add your opinion to one of the above sections that are covering this exact same subject. Thanks. { MordeKyle }   &#9762;  21:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)