The photos of both candidates were chosen for the Clinton and Trump biographies; the Washington Post reprinted them (among others) in order to highlight why these ones were chosen. We republished the same ones, not to make our own independent editorial judgment, but to represent what has been chosen (thus far) by Wikipedians. As of now, the same lead photos remain on both bios, suggesting some stability. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope Trump gets a better photo when he takes office. Of course the intention will be to give him a dignified portrait, but I can't picture how that will look at this point.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Hillary Clinton was also vandalized earlier although I have seen no comment on it in the previous Signpost or anywhere else. I saw it on my cell phone right after midnight (US-EST), after the VP debate, which was Oct. 4. The article was obscured by a slick image (I could see the list of languages faintly underneath it.) It showed a pornographic image of a woman having a device applied to her. There was some text attacking gay and transgender people, referred to in offensive terms. Then an exhortation to aid the Trump campaign. SeoMac (talk) 05:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
← Back to In the media