Talk:Mug shot of Donald Trump/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Etsy

Do we need to mention Etsy specifically in the introduction? Seems like an unnecessary detail. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

No. I agree to remove it CleanUp128999 (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2023

Fultonians33 (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Donalñd Trimp long predicted jail https://twitter.com/majfud/status/806563710206676992

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 16:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 August 2023 (2)

Small grammatical error in this line: "...state indictment of himself and others..."

The state can indict him but not himself. Please change the line above to "...state indictment of him and others..." Diadromy (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Done, thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Resolution

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

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

Lead paragraph

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

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

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

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

Original page name seems correct

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

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

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

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

Mugshot or Mug Shot?

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

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

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

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

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

Should the “leak” be included

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

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

Satirical/humorous tone of article

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

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

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

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

POV analyses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should we mention the Wikipedia Editor article debate?

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

Perhaps a small part like:

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

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

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

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

"Completion date" in infobox

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

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

Please add the UK Daily Star’s reaction

The UK newspaper The Daily Star had a great front page with the caption ‘Donald Grump’. See this BBC link for snapshots of all the front pages https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-66623560 MaryPercival (talk) 11:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Former president

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


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


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

IMO that would sound like sitting and/or people who later became president have mugshots. I'd argue that he is the 45th president. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Either way is correct. VintageVernacular (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Photographer?

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

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

What is the name of the photographer?

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

All sources attribute the photograph to the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office. It would probably be a WP:BLPNAME violation to single out the person who actually took it. Not to mention it's inconsequential given all mugshots are taken in the exact same manner. It's not like whoever took it had a creative impact on the photo. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn
The photographer is the Fulton County Sheriff.
Employees are exempt from naming. TEMarc4real (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Naming the civil servant who uncreatively "clicked" the "shutter" while simply doing their job would expose that person to the most intense harassment imaginable. Why, Randy Kryn, do you yearn to expose this innocent person to such life threatening harassment? Cullen328 (talk) 06:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I really don't think that was Kryn's intention, but I do get what you mean about why it should be strongly withheld. SWinxy (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
All editors need to think deeply about the WP:BLP implications of what we add. None of the reliable sources, to my knowledge, discuss any creative input by the shutter clicker. That person was just doing what they were instructed. Cullen328 (talk) 06:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Cullen328, what a strange and pessimistic comment. My intention was to graciously credit the photographer who, in the course of doing a routine job, accidently took one of the most iconic photographs of the 21st century (see List of photographs considered the most important). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
For now, I support the artist being the jail/sheriffs office. If the name of the person who activated the shutter leaks, we should not include it, as they were doing their job, and had no free-will on being involved in this event (I think there’s a guideline WP:ONEEVENT). But, if the shutter-activator, publicly comes out themselves by their own free will, we should open up a discussion whether the artist is them or Jail/Sheriff Office. Relevancy is also important, Buzz Audrin isn’t commonly attributed to being an artist/videographer the moon landing footage, even though he was the one who started the camera, because all he did was press a button. The shutter-clicker had no creative control. The creative control is decided by the jail/office, so I’d be more inclined to list them as the artist. CleanUp128999 (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

(Redacted) credits “(Redacted)” as author (Redacted)

(Redacted)

(Redacted)

(Redacted)

If we start a discussion, we need to be clear that we do not look for the identity. Even if easily accessible, we can’t syndicate sources. For now, the shutter-clicker (Redacted) is reliably sourced only as “(Redacted)”. CleanUp128999 (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, some sources have also credited the image to (Redacted)
(Redacted)CleanUp128999 (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
(Redacted)
(Redacted) and some sources credit “(Redacted)” as author. CleanUp128999 (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
The name of the author should be omitted per WP:BLPNAME. ––FormalDude (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I’m on the fence. The name was part of the (Redacted), on what grounds would it need to be reacted? If it was “leaked”, then yes- but the authorship was (Redacted). Surely the wikimedia file should be updated to correctly attribute author?CleanUp128999 (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
The author is the definition of a WP:LOWPROFILE individual. Their full name has been intentionally concealed. It is especially preferable to omit the name when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. In this case including the name has no value and provides no context. I'm concerned that you naming them here may even be a BLP violation. @Cullen328: thoughts? ––FormalDude (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I’m personally assuming that they were unaware this (Redacted) exists. But as Wikipedia editors are we also able to make these assumptions?? Note again, (Redacted)CleanUp128999 (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
You said “full name has been intentionally concealed”. Are you of the viewpoint that they were aware of this (Redacted)? And does that suggest we can use (Redacted), as they did not conceal the whole thing? CleanUp128999 (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't the copyright belong to the department anyway? VintageVernacular (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I’m struggling to find anything in the MOS that specifically talks about author attribution. I guess this is an edge-case CleanUp128999 (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Someone clarify this for me: does copyright = authorship or ownership?? CleanUp128999 (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Ownership. They would have been working on behalf of the police department, so I think the ownership goes to the department. So, I think their authorship is pretty irrelevant. Who cares which officer took the photo? VintageVernacular (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
License holder and original author are separate WP:IUPC
I’m still unsure about this scenario tho. CleanUp128999 (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Omit from Wikipedia MOS:CREDITS What about Creative Commons??? Do we also need to redact it and redact it from previous versions of this page? CleanUp128999 (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I believe the image for the Will Smith slap attributes authorship of the image to the actual cameraman of which the frame is taken https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Will_Smith_slaps_Chris_Rock.jpg#mw-jump-to-license CleanUp128999 (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I’m certain it’s not notable for Wikipedia, but photographs, such as the one on the MOS page (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dornberger-Axster-von_Braun.gif) do attribute authorship to the shutter-clicker on Creative Commons with a separate section to the copyright holder.
What should be done? CleanUp128999 (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
This mugshot also attributes authorship to the actual police officer which clicked the shutter: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bertillon_selfportrait.jpg CleanUp128999 (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Out of your three examples, one is a Reuters photojournalist with a public profile on their website, and the authors of the other two are dead (thus WP:BLPNAME doesn't apply). Also, those credits appear on the *file page*, not the mainspace article. VintageVernacular (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree it’s not relevant for Wikipedia, just unsure about attribution elsewhere CleanUp128999 (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
On the file pages, it might be acceptable, though I don't know either. You can raise it on the file's talk page if unsure. VintageVernacular (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Let’s look at the mugshot this one dethroned, and base it on that?
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mug_shot_of_O.J._Simpson.jpg#mw-jump-to-license
License is attributed to State of California.
Who is attributed as author? CleanUp128999 (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Ignore that. OJ is public domain, but Trump’s is not public domain CleanUp128999 (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
This clearly falls under work for hire and the employer is legal author. I’m assuming this was a clerical error, so I have redacted all references to the shutter-clicker as per WP:EDITDISC. CleanUp128999 (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
@CleanUp128999: Despite no longer being able to edit war on the page itself, you continue to make up the vast majority of the comments on this talk page, in what still comes off a little like WP:OWN behavior. Accusing people of using AI because they (poorly) rewrote a paragraph that you had (poorly) written, and now violating WP:BLPNAME by opining on and casually misidentifying the employee who took the photo — going from asserting such naming was reliably sourced to brushing it off as a clerical error over the course of just a few hours. I'd again encourage you to take a step back from this page for a bit, or at least to exercise better judgement in choosing when and what to comment. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:BC13:1813:386B:B474 (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Most of their edits are in the past week, experience-wise they appear to be a newcomer. I would advise them to try to limit the amount of individual talk page edits, taking more time before publishing edits (especially if you're dumping your stream of consciousness onto the page), and consolidating multiple points under each if possible as there's no particular rush to reply. People shouldn't be discouraged from participation. However this page falls under contentious topics, so it should be known that some more caution while editing is necessary. VintageVernacular (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, and the protection of the page was in part prompted by their edit warring, so it should be clear to them by now that more caution is required here. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:BC13:1813:386B:B474 (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
WP:bludgeon may have been what you were thinking of rather than WP:own, although both may be relevant. VintageVernacular (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
I meant OWN; given the offense taken above at someone editing what they repeatedly refer to as "my" (their) paragraph, the aforementioned edit warring over content they added, the fact that they made up a substantial amount of the edits to the page before it was protected, and that they've dominated the talk page. I was thinking BLUDGEON too, given that last part, but figured OWN was more the root of the issue here. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:BC13:1813:386B:B474 (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit request: paragraph modified into unreadability

Paragraph 2, which I originally wrote, has been re-worded terribly. I’ve modified my original. Sentences read to be too lengthy with one of them containing two ‘and’ clauses. Should talk about his own contemporaries, not all contemporary politicians (as this means every world wide politician alive today!) Edit request for paragraph 2 to be changed to:

Commentators have considered the contrasting motivations for the photograph's adoption by different points of the political spectrum to be a clear illustration of aspects of Trumpism. With it highlighting Trump's distinctive public image and his enigmatic and polarizing presence in American politics, which has the ability to survive controversy more effectively than his domestic political contemporaries.


CleanUp128999 (talk) 12:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks like someone has reworded this with AI. It’s now incoherent and reworded as though AI has changed the words individually. I’ve changed my mind and ‘weather’ is more accurate, but doesn’t need to be plural to refer to it as a whole. Whoever (or whatever... or botever) doesn’t use the info in the sources. One source says the mugshot is on brand for Trump and will be welcomed by followers of his eponymous group of philosophies, so ‘illustrate’ makes more sense than ‘represent’, as this is a specific example. Things like Maga hat ‘represent’ Trumpism. The other source only says it’s rare for both sides to perform the exact same action (in this case adopting the photo) for opposite reasons. The use of “ensuing responses” firstly is a tautology (as a response is always as a result of something) and is too vague, so doesn’t refer directly to the source, as the source specifically comments on the photos adoption. The use of “representation of different facets of Trumpism” firstly doesn’t include the non-Trumpist reactions needed to make the sources point, and “facet” refers to the parts of the actual ideology itself: it’s opinions/viewpoints, style of governance and use of power- and “aspect” refers to the parts that exist because of the facets: behaviour of supporters, loyalty etc. In my original, the source I used only mentions that there was a stark-contrast of reactions that rarely happens, showing aspects of Trumpism (such as cult-like mentality, but detail not needed), the source doesn’t talk specifically about any specific way it was reacted to, it only comments on the wide and contrasting range. Also the rewrite has ignored sentence readability. The word “furthermore” seems overly analytical for brief introductory overview. If you’re going to get AI to write text for you, also input the context please:
“Commentators have interpreted the photograph and the ensuing responses as a distinct representation of different facets of Trumpism. They've noticed the diverse reasons behind why the photograph was embraced by various political factions. Furthermore, they've emphasized Trump's polarizing presence in American politics and his ability to weather controversies more effectively than most contemporary politicians.”
Edit request still stands for the second paragraph to be changed back to the human-worded one, so it can be read by humans:
“Commentators have considered the contrasting motivations for the photograph's adoption by different points of the political spectrum to be a clear illustration of aspects of Trumpism. With it highlighting Trump's distinctive public image and his enigmatic and polarizing presence in American politics, which has the ability to weather controversy more effectively than his domestic political contemporaries.” CleanUp128999 (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. That can be done in this talk page section, but the request shouldn't be reopened until consensus has been established on the talk page. The second paragraph wording is a point of contention between you and other editors (and that contention is a part of why this page was protected in the first place).

On a separate note, I would highly advise that you avoid casting aspersions against other editors. I see no evidence that an LLM was used to write the text (and I am pretty experienced with LLM output, which for the major models does often resemble the standard voice used on Wikipedia articles since they tend to use Wikipedia articles in their training sets). If there are specific concerns you have with the text, I recommend pointing them out, and if you're going to decry someone else's writing as unreadable, I recommend carefully checking that your proposed alternative is written using (at a minimum) complete sentences. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 19:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I made no actual accusation, I merely commented on what I personally saw as a robotic rewrite that, I believe, disregarded the flow in the way I believe a human would read it.
Here is a breakdown of how I would improve the paragraph:
1. Replace 'represent' with 'illustrate'
Source says the mugshot is on brand for Trump and will be welcomed by supporters ‘illustrate’ makes more sense than ‘represent’, as this is a specific example. Things like Maga hat ‘represent’ Trumpism.
2. Source is misrepresented
The other source comments on the rarity for both sides to perform the exact same action (in this case adopting the photo) for opposite reasons, rather than its focus being on anything specific.
3. Remove “ensuing responses”
a. it's a tautology (as a response is always as a result of something)
b. is too vague, so doesn’t refer directly to the source, as the source specifically comments on the photos adoption
4. Remove “representation of different facets of Trumpism”
a. it doesn’t include the non-Trumpist reactions needed to represent the sources point
b. I would advise against using “facet” to describe Trumpism, as it is not a clearly defined ideology. The term refers to a general framework attributed to Trump. Could possibly be stretched to refer an ideology itself: it’s principles/viewpoints, style of governance and use of power. But I prefer “aspect”, as the words broad usage accommodates Trumpism’s unclear definition, which includes: behaviour of supporters, loyalty etc.
5. The specific reactions are predictable and commonplace, so not noteworthy:
Source notes that there was a stark-contrast in motivations to the same action (the adoption) which rarely happens. This shows aspects of Trumpism (such as cult-like mentality, but detail not needed). source doesn’t really focus on any specific way it was reacted to.
6. The word “furthermore” seems overly analytical for brief introductory overview.
Here is what my original paragraph with a few modifications:
Commentators have considered the contrasting motivations for the photograph's adoption by different points of the political spectrum to be a clear illustration of aspects of Trumpism. With it highlighting Trump's distinctive public image and his enigmatic and polarizing presence in American politics, which has the ability to weather controversy more effectively than his domestic political contemporaries. CleanUp128999 (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm afraid your modified-original paragraph is poorly written as well, and is unclear and awkward to read.
This paragraph does need a rewrite, but I wouldn't use either iteration as a starting point.
Also, I made no actual accusation — statements don't have to be phrased specifically as "I accuse editor X of doing Y" to qualify as casting aspersions. Looks like someone has reworded this with AI and If you’re going to get AI to write text for you, also input the context please are clearly insinuating that whoever edited "your" paragraph did so with an LLM. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:BC13:1813:386B:B474 (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I fail to understand why a consensus needs to be built to correct objective incorrect usage of words and to fix clear grammatical errors, such as the tautology? CleanUp128999 (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Consensus is always needed, it's just that in most cases you can assume consensus, and then discuss if that assumption turns out to be wrong. Other editors disagree with the statement that the grammar and usage is objective[ly] incorrect, so you don't have consensus here.
Also it's funny, all of the sudden I see something on this page that looks a lot like LLM output. Probably just the wind, though. If that was to make some sort of point, don't do that. You'll get further if you try to listen to other editors and understand their concerns.
Oh, and I was a bit hidden in the way I hinted at this above, so lemme try this part again too. Your requested change includes the following:
With it highlighting Trump's distinctive public image and his enigmatic and polarizing presence in American politics, which has the ability to weather controversy more effectively than his domestic political contemporaries.
Everything else aside, that is not a complete sentence. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 03:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Fulton County Georgia Racketeering mug shots?

Shouldn't this article be named and about the mug shots of all 19 individuals that were prosecuted as part of the same case? While Trump's mugshot is the most memed of all of them, a lot of sources covering Trump's mugshots also cover those of the other suspects, including Giuliani, such as this New Yorker magazine that analyzed them in general. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 17:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, maybe there should be another, broader article about that topic as well? But I think the Trump mugshot deserves its own article, as evidenced by the outcome of the previous AfD discussion. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 August 2023

After the sentence 'In the accompanying text, Trump wrote "MUG SHOT — AUGUST 24, 2023", "ELECTION INTERFERENCE", and "NEVER SURRENDER!"', insert some version of the following:

Two days later, this became the most liked post in Trump's history on the platform when it reached the milestone of 1.6 million likes, surpassing the post in which he announced his positive test for COVID-19 https://web.archive.org/web/20230000000000*/https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1694886846050771321 CapitalOfTexas (talk) 04:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Not done. Twitter is not a reliable source, and in this case is a primary source. If a reliable secondary source comments on the amount of likes on the post, it can be included. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
A Washington Post article published on 8/24/2023 mentions that "With 1 million ‘likes,’ the tweet still is not Trump’s most popular. That record is held by the tweet that announced his positive covid diagnosis."
As of 8/26, this is no longer the case. CapitalOfTexas (talk) 06:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Please show consensus for this change before re-enabling the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm new at editing so I'm not familiar with the processes here. Any specific objections to adding this? I feel like if we're mentioning the tweet/post this would be an interesting fact to add. CapitalOfTexas (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
We need a source that says "it is the most liked tweet by Donald Trump on Twitter" or something like that; combining a source that says "X is the most liked tweet" and the like counts of two tweets is improper synthesis. It'd also be ideal to have that statement in the article body, not the subheading (generally information only available in headlines is not treated as reliable). The information does seem noteworthy, so my guess is there will be a decent source mentioning it eventually, and there's no rush to get it into the article before that happens. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 18:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 August 2023

Please remove the see also section. The link to the "List of photographs considered the most important" article has led to several editors attempting to insert this photo to the list. It does not yet meet the criteria and will not until an authoritative source lists it as such. The mug shot has been added and removed several times from that article and it has has now been protected to prevent such attempts at inserting it.

The link to that article has been removed before for the aforementioned reasons but has since been restored. It seems redundant and misleading to link to the article when no authoritative source has referred to it as being among "the most important" photographs and it does not appear on the list. 195.213.106.24 (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 01:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Original quality is 1.2megapixels and was edited using Canva

https://web.archive.org/web/20230827144447/https://jimpl.com/results/nqAfkqdLPHJkMUbjrbnH2sFB?target=exif (Edit: this link is now from original URL, previously it was an upload of a download of the original).

I think it’s noteworthy to mention the photographs original quality is 1.2 megapixels and that the mug shot was edited using Canva, as per the original and official files metadata. I’m not sure if Canva is noteworthy on its own, at the moment. But if we verify the camera (something that is article noteworthy), it may be warrant a brief mention if there’s a broader focus on the photo and its creation process- as people are naturally inquisitive about the process of things. As the file gets copied and copied, this info will get lost in time. Should we make a note of this this on the Wikipedia File or Creative Commons file description perhaps? with the photos size and dimensions etc.

Again, this is not original research as this data was immediately available to me when I opened the file (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump#Donald_Trump_booking_photo_Fulton_County_Georgia) in Preview.

CleanUp128999 (talk) 05:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The original resolution of the image and the software it was edited in seem to be completely inconsequential and not worth mentioning. Not to mention that "this data was immediately available to me when I opened the file" is original research. Unless it's reported by a reliable secondary source, and that source explains why the resolution and software are important/relevant, there's no reason to include it. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes. It's notability for the article may not be all so relevant.
I fail to see how why this could nee classed as original. WP:NOR. The source of the data is a reliable, published source (the Sheriff's Office). I simply viewed the information that is from the source. There is no analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources, as the primary source clearly says CreatorTool: Canva.
The information is a directly from a published sources that is directly related to the topic of the article and directly supports the material being presented. Does the un-cited reading of things like painting inscriptions (for example here: Plimpton Sieve Portrait of Queen Elizabeth I) count as original research, is Wikipedia to purge itself of un-cited Epigraphy related articles where the editor simply reads what is inscribed? However, I did upload my download, so it did pass through my computer. Is this what classes 'original research', as I could have tampered with the data? In that case, here is the original URL, with not intermediates:
https://web.archive.org/web/20230827144447/https://jimpl.com/results/nqAfkqdLPHJkMUbjrbnH2sFB?target=exif
What part of this fails to meet it as a reliable source WP:SOURCE?
The work itself: it is taken directly from the primary source of the very articles primary topic.
The creator of the work, the publication, and the publisher of the work: Fulton County Sheriff's Office is an has been used as reliable, reputable, trusted source.
Guidelines say that "straightforward reading of such media is not original research" WP:ORMEDIA. And that "any form of information, such as... tables may be used to provide source information". CleanUp128999 (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
You can always start a Fandom wiki on the subject. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
I think it’s noteworthy to mention the photographs original quality is 1.2 megapixels
Not noteworthy.
and that the mug shot was edited using Canva
Not noteworthy.
But if we verify the camera (something that is article noteworthy)
Not noteworthy.
Should we make a note of this this on the Wikipedia File or Creative Commons file description perhaps? with the photos size and dimensions etc.
No. Not noteworthy. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:8D59:1B9A:87D1:5966 (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes. It is clearly noteworthy and relevant. Skcin7 (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Copyright

Can we add something about the copyright status of the image, and how - since it is apparently not freely licensed - Trump is able to monetise it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

That's a great question. Have any reliable sources commented on this point yet? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
There's some commentary on copyright at https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/08/trump-threatens-fellow-unauthorized-mug-shot-merch-sellers.html . VernoWhitney (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
I've added that, thanks. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Does this really need to be its own article?

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

Look at Capitol Hill's mystery soda machine and tell us what's more important. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
@Pyraminxsolver: Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Di (they-them) (talk) 01:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
No comment Pyraminxsolver (talk) 02:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. (Oinkers42) (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
We have many articles about historic photographs. This is among them. Let the article develop. Cullen328 (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Very few (potentially none) were created within days of when they were taken. Also, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. (Oinkers42) (talk) 02:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
So? There's no other mugshots of former U.S. presidents either. There is not really an easily comparable example here. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
This discussion may be better suited for the ongoing AfD rather than on the talk page. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes Keep: According to the New York Times this image is "the de facto picture of the year. A historic image that will be seared into the public record and referred to in perpetuity" [1]https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/25/style/trump-mugshot.html ..... Like it or not. This image of Trump will likely be the one the that is forever associated with his name. Not including it on Wikipedia would be omitting history for political reasons.Pbmaise (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
thats true but the reason it's true is because the iconic historical pictures that became famous overnight were all before the internet was a thing. Tank Man's photo became iconic within days of being released yet wiki wasn't around back then. Afghan Girl was way before wiki's time. So it's not like there's no precedent for pictures to become well known and iconic overnight, it's just that the last time they did was before Wikipedia existed. Yadinbro (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it clearly warrants its own article, and its notability extends far beyond the prosecution in Georgia. It is the best known photograph ever taken of a US president, iconic, historic (as it has been described by countless sources). --Tataral (talk) 02:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Absolutely. Completely notable and a monumental moment in history. And the coverage and commentary surrounding the photograph has only just begun. It wouldn't just be stupid to delete this page, but utterly premature. 222.152.25.14 (talk) 05:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Whatever the case and whomever each one has a bone to pick in this matter (I hope none of you do), least we forget that this is an unprecedented point in US politics & justice system, and given that he was the 45th POTUS is of far greater importance than anyone wants to admit now, while the proverbial strucked steel is red hot. Years into the future, this'll be the 20/20 hindsight opinion.
If this will be merged with his Wikipedia page or not, for now, it should remain up for, at most, a month or two. Trexerman (talk) 08:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I believe its WP:Notable because he's the first president/former president in atleast 150 years to be arrested, although the mugshot having its own article is kinda Wikipedia:Silly Things it should maybe be renamed to "Prosecution of Donald Trump" or something like that, and have the whole page be about his arrest and the timeline and the events that occurred so people know what happened, sort of like Arrests of Ulysses S. Grant sexy (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I think we are forgetting that Donald Trump and handshakes exists... CleanUp128999 (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
The reason it deserves it's own article is because it is iconic and will be a big part of history. This is more in the league of the Tank Man photo or the V-J Day in Times Square picture. It will perhaps go down as the most well known American history picture. Therefore, while it might seem not as important now and apart of just Trump's legal troubles, to the next generation this picture will become way more well known than the legal issues. Kids a decade or so from now will google "Trump mugshot", not "Trump legal cases", therefore it does deserve its own article Yadinbro (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
well said Jjazz76 (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
But how do you know that? Jack Upland (talk) 06:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
I have to agree, this does not warrant its own article, not everything he does is independently notable. Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
  • We just had a SNOW keep deletion discussion, which was actually snow closed twice because it was reopened only for the snowball to grow even larger. That was the avenue for discussing if the article topic meets the notability guidelines. This is not.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
    I'd support closing/archiving this discussion. We just had an AfD discussion... ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes this really needs to be its own article. Reason: this is a handsome article, wonderful article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombie Philosopher (talk • contribs) 00:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Many people are saying that, the best people. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
This article will be one of the most viewed articles on Wikipedia ever. Very historically relevant topic at hand. Needs to be translated into all the languages on planet earth. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
9 languages and counting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

First use in attack ad

Should this article mention the mug shot's first appearance in an attack ad, with or without mention of Chris Christie?

---Another Believer (Talk) 15:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems worthy of mention, especially given that it is the first broadcast television ad to include the mug shot image. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes -- and both Trump's fundraising and the use in the pro-Christie ad should be part of the same section (possibly in subsections, since it's reasonable to expect that there will be further use of this image for anti-Trump political purposes). The "Reaction" section should probably be renamed -- Trump's fundraising and the attack ads are reactions, but the contents of that section are something along the lines of Critical Analysis or, with the front page section, "Media coverage" ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 01:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Mug_shot_of_Donald_Trump#Appearance_on_newspaper_front_pages section

How about if we summarize this to a general sentence and merge it into the "Reactions" section above? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Are there any sources that say exactly how many major newspapers (globally) have published the mug shot on their front pages? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Well, here is a source for "every front page":[2] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
I didn't think to look at the Talk page before doing exactly that. I think it's sufficient to say "many". Some of the newspapers are listed in more than one cite, they don't all have the image on the front page, and the lists are likely incomplete. The sources also mention only print issues. So far, I haven't found any source on the reporting in online publications. I also haven't found any sources more recent than the initial reporting frenzy. We can update if and when there's further reporting. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Alleged removal of descriptors

Randy_Kryn, if you compare the before and after, you'll see that I did not remove "a good part of the descriptors of the article", as you said in your edit summary when you reverted my edit. My edit removed Jesse Watters's comment on a Fox talk show, cited by the Daily Beast as another example of idiotic Watters comments (the archive-url of the Daily Beast article had about 700 extra characters which account for half of the 1,463 bytes I removed, and the link doesn't work with or without the extra characters). I removed one of the two CNN mentions because the cited source was just a link to a video clip with a single sentence. I combined the two mentions of the same AP cite without deleting any text. I moved a couple of comments because they came one (Dowd's) and two (Saltz's) days later than the others and shortened and expanded some quotes. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

(no subject)

We also need an article about the mugshot of Frank Sinatra. Unknown0124 (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Meh, we don't even have an article on the 1938 arrest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Celebrity mug shots may be possible, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

(
)

Created by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk). Self-nominated at 21:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Mug shot of Donald Trump; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

  • Date, size, refs, hook, neutrality, copyvio spotcheck, all ok. QPQ AGFed as not necessary (review of author's talk page for several years past did not show any DYK notices). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
    Note that the nomination is somewhat inaccurately filled in. Nom did not create this page and does not appear to have edited it at all ([3]). Not sure if this is an issue or not. QPQ check shows this as their fourth nomination ([4]), so lack of QPQ seems fine. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 20:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
    Dylnuge, Thanks for catching that, I missed that detail. I think it's fine procedurally although an admin will likely need to correct the 'created' paramter and/or add others so that proper credit is given to User:Tataral (creator) and possibly other main authors [5] (User:Susmuffin has the leading character count with User:Cullen328 and User:Space4Time3Continuum2x being close behind). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
    Is the term "self-nominated" the problem? I think that's the user saying that they themselves nominated the article, i.e., they created the nomination. I don't see any point in mentioning the character count as that is likely to keep changing. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 10:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
    It's automated language that comes from a standard fill-in of the form (Wikipedia:Did you know/Create new nomination), and I suspect they just missed filling it in properly (i.e. changing the "Author" field there). You can see Template:Did you know nominations/Chelsea Waterside Park for what it looks like when the nominator fills in an alternative author. It's not an issue; the point in raising it was just to ensure the people who created and wrote the article get credit for the DYK. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 00:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mug_shot_of_Donald_Trump/Archive_1&oldid=1182651298"