Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2021

2601:441:4C00:59A0:A9CF:7904:5B11:DF51 (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

instead of "and by others because they harbor similar racist beliefs" could you change it to "and by others because they harbor similar beliefs" to make it sound a tiny bit more neutral, thanks

That does not seem more neutral. Just less specific. SPECIFICO talk 23:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Then establish any citation of his "racial beliefs" that they supposedly "harbor". You're entirely biased POV. It's not "less specific", it's more accurate. The sentence as is, is an unsourced lie. J1DW (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Add that Trump said that whites supremacists/nationalists should "absolutely" be condemned.

In the same press conference in which Trump uttered the infamous "many sides comment" he also responded to a question asking if white supremacists/nationalists should be commended, to which his response was "absolutely." Although it can be debated that his response may not have been serious, some on the left may argue that, while those on the right may defend his original comment. Regardless, the statement is relevant to the understanding of the more famous "many sides" comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foward123456 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I think he was talking about the people who opposed the removal of the statue but were not racists.1 I don't like Trump, but I don't understand why people insist to mention this speech outside of the context to imply that he was expressing a positive view about white supremacists when he made it very clear, in the same speech, that he wasn't. Lucasdmca (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Please review previous discussion in the talk page archives. There is little support for your view. SPECIFICO talk 05:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

"There is little support for your view." This is a demonstrable lie. There is plenty of source material supporting the FACT (not view) that Trump condemned white supremacists and you're intentionally taking his statement out of context. You are being biased and deleting anyone that disagrees with your lies.

"and you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly."

"There were very fine people on both sides, & I'm not talking about the Neo-nazis and white supremacists because they should be condemned totally." The two statements were separate, the second part coming later, after further questioning from reporters. 

"“We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides. On many sides.”..."“KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”"..."“I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups, but not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch.”"

"THE FACTS: Trump is correct. On Monday, NBC News tweeted that Susan Bro, the mother of the counter-protester killed on Saturday, had thanked Trump for “denouncing those who promote violence and hatred.”

These are from Politifact, USA Today, Factcheck, and PBS. Where are your sources? Before you suppress the truth and delete this again, where's YOUR citation that Trump didn't condemn white supremacists? J1DW (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I brought this up before and included links to fact checkers of the time including Politifact that prove he was condemning white supremacists, but as you can see they deleted my comments here on the talk page and as flagrantly biased user "Specifico" says "There is little support for your view." i.e. he's a leftist and won't allow facts get in the way of trashing Trump. Even when there are multiple fact checking sources proving them wrong. They'll just delete this once again and go on lying. J1DW (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors. You can make your points ("focus on content") without accusing people of censorship, and lying. Sometime people make a judgement call on what they consider disruptive editing, and it's not unusual to remove those comments, especially if they contain personal attacks, such as your most recent comment here. It's not productive or conducive to editing. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I've made my point here. There are many sources countering the information in this article. Numerous fact checking sites have shown this story is missing context. The site should be changed. I made this point months ago without any personal attacks, and it was all inexplicably scrubbed and apparently people are still gatekeeping this misinformation. Is there any recourse for this? J1DW (talk) 04:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

It appears as though all but one user on this page has expressed support for adding that Trump said White Supremacists should "absolutely be condemned" along with his infamous "many sides comment." The fact that in the same speech he outright condemned white supremacy is a highly relevant piece of context that must be included. If no further dissents to this change are made I will edit the article to include this context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foward123456 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

What are you proposing to add to the page specifically? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I am proposing adding that Trump specifically denounced white nationalism and white supremacy in his 2017 comments on the unite the right rally. I reviewed all of the archived talk pages and found high levels of support for this idea. I believe that this is a fair inclusion of context to what he said. As you see above there is significant support for this in the current talk section for it, with only one dissent, and that dissent does not provide any reasoning (I just went through all of the archived talk pages). Would that be reasonable to include? Foward123456 (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

counter to what user @SPECIFICO stated, I did not find that adding this context has "little support" and (you can review the archives if you wish to confirm this, and the current talk page expresses support for it. Foward123456 (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Bias

There is a heavy slant toward highlighting his "racially insensitive" statements and only a very light section on people defending him. This page is severely biased toward one view. 2600:8804:8B8F:9E00:94BF:B7AC:4699:EEB7 (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Lead sentence

The lead sentence was twice changed by one editor with no talk page engagement. This was a violation of the 24-hour BRD restriction and the editor declined to self-revert, so I have restored the status quo. SPECIFICO talk 23:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Biased Language

Listen, as I’ve said on the Trump page, I don’t like a Trump at all, but language such as “excused”, “harbor the same racist beliefs”, and “extremist” are not neutral by any means. Whether or not Trump’s align with mine does not excuse the legitimate biased sentiments that are being said in this article. Aardwolf68 (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Concerns such as this have been raised and rejected numerous times, because the article text is an accurate reflection of the WP:WEIGHT of reliable sources on the subject. Please review the talk page archives for details. The consensus text is longstanding and should not be changed without a new consensus to substitute different well-sourced, NPOV language. SPECIFICO talk 00:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

If Trump and other evil racists white didn't want us to show the world that they are a plague that the world must be cured of, they shouldn't have been born wrong. 88.106.234.104 (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)