Based on this: http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-religion-of-trump/article/2000601 and many other empirical evidence and sources, it seems that his religion should be removed from the infobox. Trump is not a religious person, he hasn't been to church in ages, so the religion should not be in the infobox. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose He claims to be Presbyterian and I know of no other criterion such as attendance record etc. http://www.donaldjtrump.com/media/report-trump-prays-with-religious-leaders ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 17:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• He doesn't seem to be a religious Presbytarian. As such the infobox stating Religion:Presbytarian is misleading. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Well, it's going to take a lot more than a "holier than thou" attack piece to overturn his stated position on his religion. Religion is deeply personal and subjective. It not objective like buying a gym membership where you pay the price and get a keycard. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 21:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• That's good to know. There have been RFC'es on this subject and some people think otherwise. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Leave it in He goes to church but not every week. He often goes to other churches like Bethesda-by-the-Sea in Florida because he travels a lot. It's as SageGreenRider said his personal life. ShadowDragon343 ( talk) 22:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you have references from reliable sources for this claim, ShadowDragon? In particular, I would be interested in seeing references for time before his presidential bid. I can certainly believe he may have stepped up public church attendance in order to seem religious to his base and the dedicated christian voting block, but I'm curious about his activities prior to having to put on a more public face in regards to this. Centerone ( talk) 00:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@ Centerone, given BLP, the burden of proof is for you to prove otherwise. And given the subjectivity I mention above, I think that's impossible. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 00:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

BTW, sad person that I am, I was rereading Template:Infobox person and it says that the religion parameter should be a major one like Christianity and the denomination parameter should be set to Presbyterian or whatever. And that there should be a cite in the body. Not a fan of the guy but he should get a fair whack here... ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 00:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@ SageGreenRiderDon't be silly. ShadowDragon343 made a very clear statement of a simple bit of information. I was simply asking for a reference, a clarification. The 'burden of proof' isn't on me in this case, I'm simply asking how he knows and if there are any good references for this information. Centerone ( talk) 04:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I incorrectly inferred that you were going down the "remove" route. (The now irrelevant point I was trying to make was that no number of cites about attendance rate over time could prove a 'flag of convenience'.) ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 11:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Here are the criteria that determine whether an individual's religion should be listed in the infobox, as opposed to the body of the article:

From WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements".

From WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion."

From WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" ... "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements" ... "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public". Note that the infobox and the lead are generally considered to be examples of prominent placement.

I have no preconceived opinion on this issue. I just want to see citations to reliable sources that satisfy the above criteria.

I would also note that Sir Joseph's behavior while discussing religion in the infobox of another US presidential candidate at Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 13#Request for comments -- religion in infobox led to a six-month topic ban. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2016 and the discussion linked from that entry. I am purposely not going to comment further other than noting that the topic ban exists because it would not be fair (Sir Joseph could be accused of violating his topic ban if he replies), and I advise others to also stay silent on the subject of the topic ban. The reason I am bringing this up here is to request that everyone dial down the usual amount of aggression associated with political article talk pages to avoid similar problems in this discussion. That being said, The criteria implied at the start of this section (how religious someone is) is not considered to be a criteria for or against placement of religion in the infobox. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 09:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Very good. The cite mentioned above http://www.donaldjtrump.com/media/report-trump-prays-with-religious-leaders satisfies "publically self-identified." And religious affiliation is clearly relevant in American politics. For example the Weekly Standard cite that began this section says '...as Gary Scott Smith of Grove City College writes in his new book, Religion in the Oval Office, "Throughout American history many citizens have viewed strong faith as an asset, if not a requirement, for politicians, especially presidents."' And since religion is personal, it seems obvious to me that the weight goes to the self-identification but I don't have a cite or policy to back this up. Per Template:Infobox person, I propose religion be set to Christian and denomination set to Presbyterian. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 11:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Praying together for political points is not "publically self-identified." He does not go to church, does not follow his religious teachings and religion is not a part of his life. While he may be a member of that religion, he is not a religious person and it should not be in the infobox. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Sir Joseph, that is not one of the criteria for inclusion in infoboxes. Please stop saying that it is. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• SageGreenRider, the citation you reference does not contain any example of Donald Trump publicly self-identifying as a Presbyterian through direct speech. Please read the criteria more carefully and find references that meet each of them. Free clue: what happens when you type [ "Donald Trump" "I am a Presbyterian" ] in the Google search box? You also need a citation instead of simply claiming that "religious affiliation is clearly relevant in American politics". Keep in mind that the criteria for inclusion says that in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• I linked the anchor text above. See also for example http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/25/donald-trump-ben-carson-republican-debate ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 17:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Which part of "publicly self-identified through direct speech" are you having trouble understanding? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• The link I provided goes to a Guardian article reporting on the then upcoming GOP debate on CNN on October 25, 2015. The article reports Trump as saying during a pre-debate interview, "I am a Presbyterian." ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 18:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• My apologies. I somehow missed that when I read it. I agree that the self identification criteria has been met. Sorry about that. So, do we have sources that say that his being a Presbyterian is relevant to his public life or notability, according to reliable published sources? The answer is clearly no for notability (he isn't notable for being a Presbyterian) but I can see both sides to the "relevant to his public life" question. I think that the core question is whether claiming that religion is relevant to the public life of every candidate means that we should always include it in the infobox as opposed to the body of the article. Thoughts? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion of Trump's religion and Evangelical support within the media, as sources mentioned here have shown, definitely demonstrate the importance and relevance of religion in the public life of this presidential candidate, and similar sources can be found for others. Therefore I would argue we include it. SamWilson989 ( talk) 19:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

That does seem like a compelling argument. I would assume that he would get a lot less Evangelical support if he wasn't a member of a Christian church. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

No problem, @ Guy Macon. As to the relevance, the book I cited above Religion in the Oval Office says "Throughout American history many citizens have viewed strong faith as an asset, if not a requirement, for politicians, especially presidents." So clearly Trump's religion is relevant. And yes, the WP:BLPCAT principles apply to the infobox: These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 19:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I am leaning towards keep based on the argument that Trump has significant support from evangelicals. I am having trouble with the keep argument that says that we have to keep religion in the infobox for all US candidates because religion is always "relevant to their public life or notability". -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• The only issue here is this particular case. I'm not proposing a global ruling. I agree that other articles should be discussed on their talk pages as needed and on a case-by-case basis. I would point out that religion comes up particularly strongly in Presidential/Vice-Presidential races (JFK's catholicism, Joe Lieberman's observance of the Jewish sabbath, Mitt Romney's Mormonism, many others...) It's less important in lower offices. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 12:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Ugh. I also took part in the discussion about religion on the Bernie Sanders talk page, and it was a headache to say the least. (I see now that the "Religion" field has since been removed from his infobox.) Presbyterianism is Trump's self-proclaimed religion. Leave it in. I will say no more on the subject. Good luck to the rest of you. Kerdooskis ( talk) 21:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks! FWIW I think the Sanders case is much more nuanced than this one simply because Sanders' own statements are more nuanced: He seems to claim a Jewish heritage with pantheistic/humanist overtones IMHO. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 21:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Sanders failed the "self-identified through direct speech" criteria, and the evidence for meeting the "relevant to their public life or notability" criteria was very, very weak. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: I listed the criteria for inclusion above, and in the responses every criteria was supported by multiple high-quality sources. Meanwhile, the OP listed a made-up criteria foe inclusion which is not found in any Wikipedia policy or guideline. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per Guy Macon. SamWilson989 ( talk) 21:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose here and in Bernie Sanders. If somebody says they are of a certain religion, it's not for us to judge whether or not he is an "authentic" believer, even if there were objective standards for such things. I find this notion offensive. Gamaliel ( talk) 21:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• I clearly listed the criteria that determine whether an individual's religion should be listed in the infobox. Why are you bringing up another, made-up criteria which exists in no Wikipedia policy or guideline? Nobody asserted that anyone should judge whether or not anyone is an "authentic" believer. That is a straw man argument. Please don't pretend that someone made that easily-refuted argument when nobody actually made it. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• You're wrong. The OP (user Sir Joseph) made that part of his arguments above, at least a couple times. IHTS ( talk) 07:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Trump self-identifies as a Presbyterian, and his religion is relevant for inclusion because of the support that it has given him from many Christians. -- A guy saved by Jesus ( talk) 21:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm a Christian and I strongly oppose Donald Trump, because I think he's immoral and unfit for his position. However, Wikipedia's religion infobox field IMO should include what they claim to be, whether or not they actually are that, because we cannot make a judgement on it. -- AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• This kind of proves my point. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Your point, of course, being that you refuse [1], [2] to accept the fact that on the Bernie Sanders page religion was removed from the infobox because he did not meet the criteria I listed above, and you refuse to accept the fact that on the Donald Trump page religion was kept in the infobox because he did meet the criteria I listed above. Instead you remain convinced against all evidence that the Wikipedia community made those two decisions solely because Sanders is Jewish. And you managed to "prove your point" without violating your topic ban! It's actually an interesting theory, but a quick look at List of Jewish members of the United States Congress(starting at the bottom) clearly shows that when Jewish politicians meet our criteria for inclusion, religion is included in the infobox. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose "I am a Presbyterian" meets BLPCAT requirements for self-identification. The infobox is a summary of information in the article - not a section for analysis, interpretation, and BLP violating conjecture. -- Callinus ( talk) 07:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - If he identifies himself as a "Presbyterian" then we should trust him and add/leave it, As noted above we shouldn't really be judging and questioning him ..... – Davey2010 ^Talk 13:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - A no-brainer, explicit self-identification is the only criterion, which is satisfied. It's for others to question the authenticity/depth/sincerity of his religious identification. Pincrete ( talk) 22:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Call for snow close

Call for snow close by any uninvolved editor per WP:SNOW. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Closed as not changed: Overwhelming consensus to identify him as a Presbyterian p b p 00:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources, but very little of substance that could not easily be covered in 2-3 sentences in the main bio. Alternatively, it could just be deleted under WP:NOTSCANDAL. - Mr X 03:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Merge or delete It is important enough to mention in this article, but the standalone article is a smorgasbord of what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Not sure if I think it's a valid redirect for any reason. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 03:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Why is the merge tag being removed? The Short-Fingered Vulgarian article was specifically created about Trump. A merger has been proposed. Per WP:MERGEPROP a tag should be placed on the target article. Why is this being removed contrary to policy and precedent? Perhaps @ Floquenbeam: can explain the double standards? AusLondonder ( talk) 22:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • We are not going to have an article about a public figure with an extraordinarily prominent tag at the top tying him to the insult "Short Fingered Vulgarian". I'm only removing the tag, I'm not making any comment about the merge itself. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 22:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

No credible reason exists for uniquely removing the tag contrary to both the spirit and letter of policy. You are making editors less aware of the proposal. AusLondonder ( talk) 22:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP is the credible reason, duh. IHTS ( talk) 23:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

There is the BLP issue that clearly overrides procedural issues however, this is what the WikiProject has concluded from the various consensus discussions and merge articles we have;

"A merge is listed once a tag is placed on the article, such as {{ Merge}} or {{ Merge to}}. Removing the tag, delists the article. Never remove a proposed merge tag unless you are intending to delist the article and only do so when all issues have been addressed. If the proposer of the merge did not start a discussion for the merge, and it is not obvious why the articles should be merged, it is acceptable to remove the tags. If the reason for the merge is obvious, you can either merge the articles boldly, or start a new discussion."

For this proposal a tag was placed to list the articles for merge. Someone else removed the tag intending to de-list it. It is acceptable for any editor to object to the merge for any reason but as long as they have addressed the issues involved the tag can be removed. The justification for removal was;

Editing and merging during disputes

"Editors should not merge content during an AFD. AfD participants should not work "around" consensus by beginning a merge process on their own, before discussion. While preservation of content is a good consideration, copying may be contentious and may create additional steps and administrative work if undoing any copying is necessary. Such a merge also causes an attribution dependency breakage between articles that may require the merging of article history that would be lost if the source page is deleted. AFD participants may offer proposals and negotiate with the other participants during the discussion. If needed, editors may ask the closing admin how to rescue the content or what additional steps that need to be taken."

It was really all within the procedure. The actual merge discussion should be closed as there is a current AFD for the article that was suggested to be merged. It is there that any merge suggestions should be made and is the consensus discussion that will determine the outcome.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 05:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Merge: Could be mentioned here, but not worthy of its own article.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 22:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Do not merge here maybe merge into the spy magazine if notable enough. -- Malerooster ( talk) 23:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC). Nevermind, already there. -- Malerooster ( talk) 23:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Do not merge. The material is suitable for the Urban Dictionary (the dictionary not the article), not a BLP. IHTS ( talk) 23:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Do not merge Garbage name calling. Subject is victim of crude verbal attack. WP:AVOIDVICTIM ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 23:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment maybe let's keep discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Short-Fingered Vulgarian, since any merge discussion here will be moot if the page is deleted. clpo13_{( talk)} 23:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • So if the page is not deleted where does the merge discussion, currently underway, belong? IHTS ( talk) 23:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete it -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 09:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete' Lets not do this just to appease Rubio. ShadowDragon343 ( talk) 09:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete and salt per AfD. Frivolous page. Also BLP restraint. — JFG ^talk 22:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – Discussion about a potential merge is also occurring at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Short-Fingered Vulgarian. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• No merge Wikipedia is not a political battleground. It's a shame some folks use it that way.--v/r - T P 02:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed selective merge of only one sentence from Short-Fingered Vulgarian

Proposed selective merge of only one sentence from Short-Fingered Vulgarian: "Short-fingered Vulgarian is a phrase that originated in Spy Magazine in the 1980s as a description of Donald Trump. ^[1]"

• Support, as proposer. It is very well sourced. We don't need to add more than one source. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Do not merge As above, Trump is a victim of crude verbal attack. WP:AVOIDVICTIM ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 16:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - well sourced, some historicity to it, and a notable term for Trump. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 21:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose This is 30 years old satire unearthed for political attack. BLP trumps it :) — JFG ^talk 22:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - The sentence doesn't fit into the over context of the biography. It strikes me as little more than a trivial epithet, unworthy of space in a respected encyclopedia.- Mr X 01:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – Discussion about a potential merge is also occurring at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Short-Fingered Vulgarian. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as trivia. If we merged in every bit of name calling to every candidate, that's all we would have. NPOV and Encyclopedic are necessary for inclusion and this is neither. -- DHeyward ( talk) 02:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not justifiable for a BLP. IHTS ( talk) 06:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not appropriate for a BLP. – Davey2010 ^Talk 13:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• No merge Wikipedia is not a political battleground. It's a shame some folks use it that way.--v/r - T P 02:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Please feel free to add more as you see fit.

• 
  Image #1: The current infobox image, August 2015
• 
  Image #2: Another version of the current image, August 2015
• 
  Image #3: Previously used in the infobox, March 2015
• 
  Image #4: Las Vegas, February 2016
• 
  Image #5: Washington D.C., February 2011
• 
  Image#6: close up of Image#5
• 
  Image #7: May 2014
• 
  Image #8: Trump at CPAC
• 
  Image #9: Nevada, February 2016
• 
  Image #10: Edited version of the current
• 
  Image #11: Signing GOP pledge at Trump Tower, 2015
• 
  Image #12; April 2015 at Marine Corps event
• 
  Image #13; January 2016 in Ames, Iowa
• 
  Image #14; September 2015
• 
  Image #15; March 2013
• 
  Image #16; May 2015
• 
  Image #17; February 2011
• 
  Image #18; January 2016
• 
  Image #19; January 2016
• 
  Image #20; Edited version of the current
• 
  Image #21: Nevada, February 2016

• Image #20 Image 1 still looks good to me, with Image 1 or 10 being close seconds. Image 2 is far lighter than reality, as far as I can tell.- Mr X 04:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

  I edited the first image to achieve a look between the current version and #10 by William S. Saturn.- Mr X 16:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• I added Image 8 for consideration which I happen to like. My second choice is Image #7. Doorzki ( talk) 04:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
• The main issue with 5, 6 and 8 is that they are from 2011, thats 5 years ago and for someone who has been in the limelight for the last 5 years, its not good..It ok to use older images of people who rarely make public appearance but for someone like Trump, surely, its best if we limit it to 2014 at the very least? anyways i added 9 because its one of the few images which depicts his 'original skin color' (lol) [pinkish face, yellow hair].. most of his images, its usually orange face, yellow hair..I recommend Image 3 and MrX, Image 2 can be fixed, thats the good thing about it because its of a higher quality to Image 1 which cannot be fixed because touching it might make it worse....-- Ste moc 05:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

  They can all be fixed to a degree, but the fixing should always start with the original image, not a copy of copy. The main problem with #1 is the harsh lighting, soft focus, and over saturation. The image can be improved somewhat by starting with a calibrated display, and then reducing saturation, increasing overall luma slightly, increasing shadow levels, and decreasing magenta levels slightly. Unfortunately, Mr. Trump has an unusual complexion and speaking events frequently have harsh lighting. I saw an interview of on CNN where it looked like he had orange skin but his eye sockets and lips were bluish-purple.- Mr X 12:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment #10 now looks best to me tonality-wise, and I don't mind the crop, but why was the resolution reduced? This makes it nearly impossible to use in print.- Mr X 14:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I did it several months ago. Admittedly, I'm not a very good image editor so I'm not sure what caused the resolution reduction.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 20:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support image #13. Image #1 is currently in the series box, so for the sake of variety I support #13 which is recent (2016) and smiling. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 17:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Second choice is #1. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 20:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support Image #1. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
• As the creator of this discussion, I support Image #7. Image #1 should continue to be used on the election pages and in the templates. MB298 ( talk) 23:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support Image #1. There are others that are more flattering, but it is fairly current, and I don't think I can say with any degree of confidence that any other photo is objectively better or more true-to-life than Image #1. I don't think that we need to concern ourselves too much with making the color his skin more "average" or "normal", because I think he's known for genuinely having a markedly orange-ish hue in real life. If there's some evidence that the color displays more orange than it should, then certainly we should attempt to fix it. AdventurousSquirrel ( talk) 06:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support Image #13 - shows subject in a comparatively flattering light (smiling, shows upper body), very recent. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 07:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you serious? That image is awful. His face is bright red, he has a strange expression on his face because he's in the middle of speech, his eyes are only slightly open, and he's looking off to the side.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 07:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm being asked to compare a number of images of Donald Trump. They may not be nice pictures individually, but I think #13 is better than the other options. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 07:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

You picked the worst possible option. -- William S. Saturn ( talk) 07:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you picked one of the worst, William. Image #13 is standard for Wikipedia. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 14:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

It is not standard to use a very unflattering image of a subject. Image #13 is very unflattering and objectively the worst of the options above for reasons stated above and below.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 18:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support image #5 - this is the best available option. It should not matter that it is 2011. Why insist on always using the most recent photo rather than the best photo? If we did this throughout history (presuming photography has existed forever), the lead image for most bios would show the subject in a geriatric state. Hillary Clinton currently uses a photo from 2009 because that is the best available option. That is all that should be considered. Images #4, #9, #13 are completely unacceptable because of the irregular expression on the subject's face. Image #12 is unacceptable because the clothing item shown (bow tie) is not a common feature of the subject's attire. I see merit in all the others but I strongly believe Image #5 is the best.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 07:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

You're being dishonest by taking what I said about the image in a previous discussion out of context. I don't believe you're being objective. Any reasonable observer can see that Image #5 is not the opposite of a smile. It is a neutral expression. On the other hand, objectively, Image #13 shows the subject objectively with an open mouth in the middle of speech, objectively with a complexion redder than any other image above, and objectively with his eyes slanted and looking off to the side. I ask that you take your own advice and stop trying to place the objectively worst photo available in the infobox for candidates you do not like. -- William S. Saturn ( talk) 17:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Number 5 is a very flattering photo, with the exception the shadow over his black X-Files eyes that become more unsettling the more I look at them, and I'm not sure it's the most true-to-life, which I think should be the intent of a photo used here. This is, of course, pretty subjective. AdventurousSquirrel ( talk) 05:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support Image #1. CFredkin ( talk) 15:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support Image #5 - Has the most neutral and professional look of all the selections. Image#6 as second choice.-- Rollins83 ( talk) 18:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support Image #17, which in my opinion has better quality appearance-wise. He also looks proud in that one - not really smiling as such, but it almost looks as if he is. Image 9 made me laugh - he does not look particularly happy within that one! I do, however, support 1 as my second choice. -- Ches (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support image #14, because his expression is neutral and it's a recent photo. I realize that the exact same thing could be said about #1 (and the edited versions of it), but I prefer #14 because he is looking towards the camera more so than he is in #1. However, #1 (or any of the edits of it) would be my second choice, for the reasons I stated in my first sentence. -- A guy saved by Jesus ( talk) 05:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support Image #1 -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 18:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support Image #15 - Though not perfect, it at least shows Trump in a favorable light, smiling, and not too close up. There are some images included above that are awful i.e. crooked tie, terrible facial expression, caught off guard, etc. #15 at least has decent lighting and quality. Meatsgains ( talk) 01:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I think Image #1 is a bad choice, because apparently he looks so fierce, plus with a microphone in the foreground makes him look unprofessional. #2, #9, #11, #14, #16, #20 not good choices either, Support #18, neutral on the rest. It's a disgrace, other delegates such as Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz have more photogenic poses, complete with a formal pose to use as lead images in Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016. What a shame, we have so many other more decent pictures to select from Commons when we have to stick with a picture of Trump looking like a monster just because of "Consensus deadlock". It seems to me than Consensus is leading us to make a worse decision compared to us using simple common senses to see which picture is more formal or photogenic. Mr Tan ( talk) 08:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

In #10 the microphone has been removed. In #18 his eyes are nearly closed so that will never get consensus. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 11:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Then anything goes. I can propose #19. #1 is simply won't do, because that picture of him is simply too fierce. I'm comfortable with any picture that shows him with at least a smile:) I'm really wondering for those who choose #1, frankly this shows a perversion of plain common sense. Just go and take a look at Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016, all other candidates have smiles on their faces. I don't think that my argument is in anyway unreasonable. Mr Tan ( talk) 13:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• TRAINWRECK — Godsy^{( TALK} _CONT) 20:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support Image #1. Agree w/ user MB298's comment when he opened this new discussion: "I believe the current image is fine (but not great)". (I stated the same in the previous discussion when preferring #15 or #17. Some of the new photo additions are interesting [#8, #11, #16], but any/all have their own drawback[s].) Again re image #1, it's misleading to remove the mic or spin the orig since either/both those modifications remove orig meaningful context (Trump listening to a person's comment/question prior to responding). I understand the impulse to "make a photo better" but there are negative unintended consequences in this case. Changing color saturation/density/focus/etc. is fine as those mods don't mess w/ said orig context. IHTS ( talk) 18:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Under the section Presidential campaign, 2016, there's a 10,000 character essay (In response to recent...on the matter) that goes into detail about his Muslim ban, including international reactions, online polls, and a bunch of celebrities' reactions. Can we please just get rid of this part. It shouldn't be in his main life page at all, and if people really want to know more about it, they should go to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. ThiefOfBagdad ( talk) 18:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

This section was removed previously, i'm not sure why it is back. Sheepythemouse ( talk) 18:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'm going to have to Oppose - Trump's views on Muslims are what many people know him for - it is also what makes him a controversial figure. Taking this out would go against WP's neutrality policy - it therefore needs to stay. -- Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support This page is more about his personal life, there is a separate page on his political positions for that. Oppose getting rid of a couple sentence summary of it as it is notable. ShadowDragon343 ( talk) 22:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - It's 537 words about a subject that he has become notorious for. I'm not opposed to trimming it though. For example the name dropping and the comment from the Pentagon in the 6th paragraph; most of the 7th paragraph; and the parenthetical in the 8th paragraph.- Mr X 23:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per Ches. VictoriaGrayson ^Talk 00:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - People coming to the Trump article now are not coming to read his life story. They are coming to see what his views are in relation to his run for the Presidency of the United States. If they don't find them here I doubt they'll be digging up the 2016 campaign article. The section is thoughtfully written without violating NPOV or BLP rules and is very well sourced. The article is about a very important policy proposal of his and credible source criticism of it. There is precedent for including policy on pages of people running for office. Jackhammer111 ( talk) 01:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

You say "I doubt they'll be digging up" the 2016 campaign article as though that represents a lot of work, when in fact that article is a click away (wlink'd in the lead). And the first time I went to the Barack Obama article it was to find anything re his birth certificate controversy. (There was nothing at all, not even a "See also". So that indeed involved some doing to find elsewhere.) IHTS ( talk) 05:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Although, it could be more concise. His problem with people unlike him (Muslims, Blacks, Asians, Latinos, immigrants, women, the disabled) go back to his consent decrees over keeping Blacks out of his buildings. Appears to be a significant part of his life that started well before his campaign. Objective3000 ( talk) 13:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Some organization, please? Trump's 2016 run is a blink is his life-story, since only June. Specific campaign platform issues belong elsewhere. IHTS ( talk) 20:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose It seems some editors are determined to turn this article into some sort of glowing, promotional puff piece. The Muslim ban proposal attracted strong international attention and criticism. It clearly belongs in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AusLondonder ( talk • contribs)

@ AusLondonder: The overstated ad-hominem isn't terribly helpful. I don't see any comments here aimed at trying to turn the article into a "glowing, promotional puff piece". The second half of your comment is more relevant. ~ Awilley ( talk) 16:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support this article is about Trump and should have a little bit about his campaign. The main article to discuss this though, should be the Presidential Campaign article. No other candidate, that I'm aware of, has such a large campaign sub-article within the main article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Neutral. It is something of controversy but i don't think thats the only thing that he is known for. But I lean to oppose. Winterysteppe ( talk) 18:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose (as another editor mentioned it's 537 words) but support trimming off 1/3. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 22:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose but support trimming per MrX. Politrukki ( talk) 14:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support I believe the issue warrants a brief mention of ~2 sentences at most. CFredkin ( talk) 16:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support in theory - can be trimmed to a single paragraph, it shouldn't span over 3. -- Callinus ( talk) 16:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment The trend indicates a strong preference for keep with a reduction in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective3000 ( talk • contribs)
• COMMENT! There is a separate page for the CAMPAIGN, which has a separate page for Trump's POSITIONS. This article is about TRUMP himself. Hence, I think your conclusion is wise (and correct). -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 19:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
• Agreed as per above, Merge most of this section into the Political Positions article, and Delete the rest Sheepythemouse ( talk) 21:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)