Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump

Removal of Palm Beach clubs

@Signedzzz: Why did you remove this section? Consensus at Talk:Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump/Archive_1#Palm_beach_clubs was to include. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I actually did not notice the talk section. I removed it because it all seems to hang on other clubs not allowing blacks or Jews, but the refs don't confirm this. Another problem is stating that it "has been called "one of the more Jewish-friendly clubs on Palm Beach"" when that is not actually a direct quote, and the person who expressed the opinion is just someone who was strongly in favour of moving the embassy to Jerusalem, not a huge fan of Mar-a-lago specifically. zzz (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you support having the section included in someway but reworded or are you totally against its inclusion? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I certainly don't think it deserves a section, that is why I moved it to the "Defenses" section before deleting it. If you have a source that directly confirms the racism of the other clubs, then I have no objection. zzz (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I felt it was appropriate. I read the refs and what we have at Mar-a-Lago and it is my impression that it was a smart move on his part, besides the fact that he needed to open his place to those other than the old wealthy aristocracy if he wanted to get clientele, rather than a moral position. Never the less, he apparently did open his club to all. No one came right out and said that the other clubs don't allow Jews, though it was inferred. I wish we could find a good factual site on the subject as well... Gandydancer (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Having looked at the text, I think it does not currently belong in the article. I also don't see where it's declared "consensus". SPECIFICO talk 21:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

"But Trump undercut his adversaries with a searing attack, claiming that local officials seemed to accept the established private clubs in town that had excluded Jews and blacks while imposing tough rules on his inclusive one. Trump’s lawyer sent every member of the town council copies of two classic movies about discrimination: “A Gentleman’s Agreement,” about a journalist who pretends to be Jewish to expose anti-Semitism, and “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” about a white couple’s reaction to their daughter bringing home a black fiance." from [1] describing how Trump had to fight for his inclusive club in a way that the private clubs that excluded black and Jewish people didn't have to fight. Lin4671again (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

From the same article: "Wyett, who is Jewish, said he would hear Trump talk with pride about Mar-a-Lago’s nondiscriminatory policy, but wondered if it was a business strategy: “Was he smart enough to realize that Palm Beach is about 40 percent Jewish and he was not going to attract the old guard anyway?”" I have already done a revert today, but that addition to the lead definitely needs to be reverted.zzz (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Really? Is this article just setting out to deal with the evidence that suggests that Trump is racist or is it trying to deal with all evidence? Had you said you felt the addition should be moved to the 'Defences' section I may have thought the latter....Lin4671again (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The following text should be removed from the opening sentence of the lede: but, also, in the 1980's he turned his Mar-a-Lago mansion into an inclusive private club at a time when Palm Beach private clubs excluded black and Jewish people,[5] and in 2017 unequivocally stated that "racism is evil". SPECIFICO talk 23:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. This is anecdotal and does not belong in the lead. Trump's public remarks and actions are far more noteworthy than what someone claims they heard Trump say with pride.- MrX 🖋 00:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

What about outside of the lead? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you lot think that we should include this somewhere outside of the lead? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Bumping thread. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Support inclusion - and also include the fact that his daughter and son-in-law are Jewish. There are far too many holes in the anti-semetic, racist claims against him which are based on opinions. The results of lawsuits are notable but so is his position of no admission of guilt - we use the statements of fact in the sources, use in-text attribution for the opinions, and maintain a neutral dispassionate tone, with proper balance & weight. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

What about Trump's views as expressed directly?

I added a direct quote of Donald Trump saying "racism is evil", and was reverted by SPECIFICO, with an edit summary stating that the New York Times subsequently dismissed Trump's plain statement, and rejecting the source as primary. I believe that in an article titled "Racial views of Donald Trump", we should be able to document views about racism that Trump has expressed himself directly (yes, primary source, so what?), in addition to all the commentary from people who deem him racist. Removing this makes a mockery of our neutrality policy. — JFG ^talk 15:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Please put this in the section I opened immediately above to address this. BTW you did not cite the secondary source, so no you did not include any commentary or even any hint that there wasa such commentary. And the commentary is not about the label "racist" -- which we all know is a straw man. The whole reason we have this article is that his views are more nuanced and that the bare label denies our readers the detailed information they seek. You may move this reply of mine along with yours when you delete this separate section. SPECIFICO talk 15:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

If you feel that more context should be given, please feel free to WP:SOFIXIT. Blunt removal of this short quote was an utter violation of our NPOV policy pillar. — JFG ^talk 16:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

primary source, so what? WP:PRIMARY is policy. zzz (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, and if you read that policy, you will note that quoting a statement from someone without further comment is an acceptable use of a primary source. Otherwise we could never quote anybody. Anyway, this is nitpicking, because Trump's statement has been quoted by secondary RS, notably The New York Times. — JFG ^talk 17:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I've removed a mention of Trump's "racism is evil" remark that was primary-sourced to a video of his remarks that were widely reported as dissembling and that were met with renewed criticism of his reaction to the incident. The accompanying NY Times article, which was not cited, gives the full context of that televised snippet, which RS tell us follows a pattern of brief scripted politically correct comments preceded and followed by inflammatory and controversial remarks. In the wake of the video statement, NYT reports criticism among his staff, 3 executives quitting Trump's American Manufacturing advisory council, and far-right sources who said the video remarks were not to be taken seriously. Cherry-picked primary sourced content and used out of context as SYNTH clearly does not meet our editorial policies and guidelines. If any of this is in the article, it would need to use the secondary NYT article along with the video snippet and give proper weight to the thrust of that secondary report. SPECIFICO talk 15:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no SYNTH involved in quoting a speech without comment, as my edit did. — JFG ^talk 15:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

SYNTH is about context, and this was used in the worst possible way from a primary source without giving our readers the benefit of the context that was readily available from the same source -- namely the article that accompanied and explained the video for NYTimes readers that day. Not good. ##. Meanwhile, it's clear that primary assertions by politicians, even in the absence of an immediate secondary contextualization such as was ignored here, are subject to widespread fact checking. And especially for those politicians who are documented by RS to routinely spread false and contradictory statments -- both about fact and about their own actions and opinions -- this use of a primary source is really not even worth the effort to discuss. A balanced NPOV account is required. In the absence of that, the primary cherry gets unpicked. SPECIFICO talk 17:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh sure, our readers can't possibly make up their mind for themselves by reading a plain quote, they need The New York Times to tell them how they should interpret Trump's remarks. I see. — JFG ^talk 18:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

That's correct. That's why we don't just cherrypick primary sources and why we rely on fact checkers and of course that still fails to address the SYNTH misuse of that primary source which is also a core no-no. SPECIFICO talk 18:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Cherry-picking is everywhere on Wikipedia. This whole article could be construed as a giant cherry-picking exercise (see some remarks at the AfD). In this speech, and elsewhere, Trump has explicitly condemned racism. Apparently you don't want to admit it, and you are entitled to your opinion. Let other readers see what he said and make up their mind: some will see hypocrisy, others will see common sense, and neutrality will be upheld. I'm totally flabbergasted that you are sincerely advocating to remove Donald Trump's first-person statement about racism from an article called "Racial views of Donald Trump". — JFG ^talk 18:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

That's cherrypicking from a rejected AfD, so? WP:OTHERSTUFF usw. SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for not addressing my question. Why should Trump's publicly-expressed view on racism not be mentioned in an article titled "Racial views of Donald Trump"? — JFG ^talk 20:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you make busy with other things and let's just let other editors comment. Judging from the number of thank you pings I've received, I know there are several lurkers who will eventually share their views. Time to chill. Give it a week. (Or add the context as at the main Trump article.) Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with JFG it is silly to exclude Trump's statement. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Without reviewing all the sources (I am on vacation after all), I can see no legitimate reason for removing this comment, or for hedging it around with press commentary saying he didn't mean it. I think we should have the quote in the article, along with any context other than just three words (Was that the whole sentence?) I think the one notation we should add is that he said it "in prepared remarks". We all know that Trump reading prepared remarks is a very different animal from Trump speaking off the cuff, so that qualification should be included IMO. MelanieN alt (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, shame on you peeking here during vacation 😼. However the simple alternative is to properly contextualize POTUS' remarks, as e.g. in the Donald Trump article, using the NYTimes story that pointed to that primary source video. That way, our readers can understand what the primary source showed. In the initial insertion of the content primary-sourced to the video, the secondary article was not cited -- leaving our readers in the dark. Anyway the primary sourced bit without the secondary would be undue, since there are tens of thousands of such video clips of Trump on the internet. Why choose this one? The secondary article, not initially cited, tells us why, so we briefly summarize it. SPECIFICO talk 22:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Contextualize or editorialize so reader's can understand ... what? A particular POV? No. We publish in a dispassionate tone per NPOV what the article says...and keep in mind, news orgs are questionable sources when it involves opinions and not statements of fact...and it is at that point that we use intext attribution. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Atsme my love,👩‍❤️‍💋‍👩👩‍❤️‍💋‍👩👩‍❤️‍💋‍👩 have you reviewed the question at hand here?

A primary source video was used as a bare ref for one sentence uttered in the video with no context and no citation to the RS article that included the video. The article itself was not an opinion piece -- it quoted various notable individuals whose comments it summarized. SPECIFICO talk 23:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

This is very difficult to do when the basic facts can not be agreed upon. Establishing what the most simple baseline of factual evidence allows to build out to the most neutral point of view in the article. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

C.W., this thread is about a single narrow question. Whether a primary sourced cherrypicked statement should be used while omitting the full citation of the RS secondary source that published it and while omitting any of the relevant core information in that RS reference. You seem to be making a more general comment. SPECIFICO talk 23:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

It is a general statement and one that reflects on this narrow question. Trump has made many statements and many conflicting one; they conflict either with other statements or actions so it is very difficult to develop a baseline of which is factual and which are not. This is one of those cases, the statement was made, but given other statements and other actions, is it a factual statement? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

"Is it a factual statement?" Well, there is no question that Trump stated "racism is evil" in the cited speech; now, some people will believe him and some won't. NPOV requires us Wikipedians not to comment one way or the other, and let readers make up their mind. — JFG ^talk 00:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, what does the other evidence show about how 'factual' the statement is? Do his other statements and actions contradict this statement? Does this statement fit his historical actions in business and private life? If any of these are answered in the negative, then it brings the 'factual' nature of the statement into serious question and those contradictions need to be dealt with before accepting this comment as 'factual', IMO. Consider the Access Hollywood tape which Trump later denied, which of those statements is the 'factual' one? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

You appear to question Trump's motives or "true beliefs", that is not what is at stake here. It's a fact that he uttered "racism is evil", just as well as it's a fact he uttered "grab'em by the pussy". Each reader can make up their own mind about Trump's sincerity in both cases, that should not prevent Wikipedia from reporting what he said. — JFG ^talk 01:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

No, he's telling you it's UNDUE without the secondary source that demonstrates at least some suggestion that it's not UNDUE like other cherrypicked primary snippets and so there's what the Americans call Catch-22. You can't just grab a primary source and stick it where you please, because that fails WP:WEIGHT but if you want to claim due weight then you must cite at least one secondary source, and for some reason you decline to do so, even though it would in a sense relieve you of your immediate conundrum. SPECIFICO talk 02:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear SPECIFICO, while you seem to have time to intervene in a dialogue between another editor and myself, I'm still waiting for your answer to the central question of this thread. Again, I have no problem citing the secondary source and that is not the point. — JFG ^talk 02:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem with quoting Trump is that he says conflicting things [2] even on a single subject [3] so to ensure accuracy, more than a single quote is needed and it needs to be supported with actions; as with 'build the wall', that is a statement that is consistent and followed by actions, even though Mexico dos not appear willing to pay for it. The question on so many issues is which Trump quote is the 'Factual' one[4] so one must look at actions as well as the words to understand what the true intentions are and which statements to give weight worth quoting. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)🤗😘 SPECIFICO, I choose not to argue the RS argument...I've said my piece and have higher priorities on my list of things to do. I'll just leave with this closing thought (paraphrasing what a trusted admin explained to me in 2015 (and I wasn't too happy with his response at the time but I respected it): a major misconception is that a source can be declared "reliable", and that declaration is a fixed, absolute judgment. Reliability depends on two things - (1) the source itself and (2) how it is used. We have no way of providing a blanket approval that any source is reliable for all purposes. What matters is the greater context of the article. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

So true. That's why it's not ok to omit the secondary RS and cherrypick a few words from an internet video. SPECIFICO talk 23:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: The "primary source video" is a strawman argument; I already said I'm fine with adding the accompanying secondary article, and you could have added it yourself instead of removing Trump's quote. The real purpose of this thread, as I opened it, is to clarify whether we should plainly include Trump's directly-expressed views on racism or dilute them in commentary and opinion by others. So far, you have avoided answering the question. — JFG ^talk 00:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Please. You didn't open the discussion. You ignored my explanation of your primary sourced cherrypick and then opened a duplicate thread minutes later, now claiming (I'm not sure what it buys you) that you what? Own this thread? As I've already said -- your view is known. We need to hear from others about how to fix the problem. SPECIFICO talk 00:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

AGF much? We were writing our threads simultaneously; you happened to hit "Save" three minutes earlier. Now, will you answer the question I have been asking? I did answer yours. — JFG ^talk 00:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Support adding Trump's plainly stated view about racism in the article titled "Racial Views of Donald Trump." Seems to be a no-brainer. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

This [5]section is nothing but Trump stating he is not a racist, why do we need to add one more? Besides, when actions don't match the words, how many times do you need to quote those words? At least with building The Wall, actions and words match up, but not so much on racial issues. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. But just to state this in terms of our Wikipedia core policies: We can't cherrypick a single primary source out of the tens of thousands of statements from a public figure. So the initial edit clearly was wrong. But when we examine all the secondary sources that included that video or references to Trump's anti-racism revisionist statements, we see that the overwhelming weight of RS narrative is that Trump read those pre-scripted remarks to stem the firestorm of criticism he faced. RS then go on to detail how he was unable to stay on point with the anti-racism stance and immediately reverted to his initial inflammatory and racist narrative. That is what secondary RS tell us. That's why we don't cherrypick primary snippets. It's especially why we don't extract primary illustrations from a secondary RS like the initially cited NYTimes video, whose sole purpose in the source was to lay the background for the prolonged condemnation that followed the "racism is evil" words. MelanieN made a slight improvement by telling our readers that the "evil" bit was a prescripted remark, but that's rather oblique, when the fact it was scripted is significant only becuase POTUS reverted to his unscripted narrative in the following days and weeks. The cherrypicked content with no secondary sourced context is UNDUE. Citing it without the accompanying RS secondary narrative is even worse. SPECIFICO talk 16:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I do not know why that section exists. The defenses should be with the claims. Also only about half of it is actually Trump saying he didn't do it. PackMecEng (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

We need to keep things in perspective and abide by WP:BLPSTYLE, Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content. Next is WP:NEWSORG with regards to an author's opinion vs statements of fact. To say one's "actions" don't match the words when based on nothing more than media opinion is a bit of a stretch. As a wise admin once explained, media is the court of public opinion, not a legal court and their opinions are their own. When referencing the border wall, the reality is that it is a national security issue, not a racial issue, and a substantial number of American citizens support a wall. Sharyl Attkisson wrote a piece in The Hill about how polls have been conducted. Also see WP:LABEL which is important MOS guidance (my bold underline): Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

None of that applies to the edit, content or sources under discussion here. SPECIFICO talk 18:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The entire article is subject to it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Propsed article text

There is no consensus to reinsert the challenged content. I have removed a bit of text that was reinserted recently (a) without consensus, and (b) not conforming to statements in the cited source. I propose the following article text, cited to the NY Times story:

Two days later, responding to the wave of disapproval that met his initial remarks, Trump delivered a prepared statement, saying "Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs."

This text reflects the statements in the NYTimes article and reflects the statements in the cited source If anyone wishes to propose and alternative text, please put it up and we can discuss the relative merits. SPECIFICO talk 02:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

For comparison, the text I added, citing the same New York Times source, is:

Two days later, Trump forcefully denounced far-right violence, stating: "Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs."

Which one shall we add? — JFG ^talk 03:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources

If you'll examine every instance of "forcefully" in the NYT source, it's readily apparent that the article does not call Mr. Trump's tepid and temporary moderation "forceful". SPECIFICO talk 03:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure, the "forcefully" qualifier is not in the source and is not necessary, striking it. — JFG ^talk 12:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

You're disrupting the discussion to change it after you've posted it. The challenged content should not have been re-inserted without consensus and if you're also conceding that it violated WP:V then it's not helpful to take a second bite of the apple in the middle of the discussion. What would be helpful is to add a few words that convey the main thrust of the NYTimes source. To wit: Trump droned a few scripted words and then quickly reverted to his pandering to the far-right and racist elements with such ardour that a total of 3 individuals ended up resigning from his American Manufacturing panel, that iconic white supremacist Richard Spencer gloated that the remarks were not serious, and that he resumed preparations to pardon Joe Arpaio - famed birther, racial profiler, and recently convicted criminal. If you now admit that "sure" it's not in Verified by the cited source, then what possible justification could there be for inserting this false content into the artice? Please withdraw your re-jiggered text above and drop the stick. SPECIFICO talk 14:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem, as with the response to Charlottesville, he said one thing, then the opposite the next day, and then back to his first position the day after that; there is no consistency. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It is not a problem, we simply just the multiple responses. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

That's not WP policy. We reflect RS portrayal of events. In fact we could have a separate article that discusses all the disingenuous scripted statements his staff makes him read in between savage twitter attacks, coded dog-whistles to the most rabid of his "base", and unannounced policy decisions, such as staffing the white house with 100+ folks who lack the security clearance to get through the door. We are not his press secretaries. We need to present the NPOV balance of mainstream reporting here. "Fool me once..." Nobody, and I mean nobody -- friend or foe of Trump -- takes these anodyne interludes seriously. And it is highly alarming to see experienced editors doggedly inserting text that fails verification, that's sourced to a primary cherrypick, or that leads to SYNTH deviations from the RS narrative. SPECIFICO talk 19:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not saying that we should abandon RS portrayal or violate NPOV, but rather that we should not cherrypick what some editors would like the article to say about Trump when verified sources say otherwise even if that appears to lack consistency. Wikipedia is not meant to make Trump look "consistent" to readers but to show what the sources say. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support the wording proposed by SPECIFICO above. It's a much better representation of what the source says. Obviously Trump was in no hurry to disavow racism, and only did so under considerable pressure.- MrX 🖋 19:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, there is no consensus among local editors. #RfC: Racism is evil opened below to gather broader input. — JFG ^talk 21:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 16 February 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 02:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Racial views of Donald Trump → Accusations of racism against Donald Trump – According to an informal discussion above, the proposed title better reflects article contents. Almost all the article prose consists of perceptions of racism in reaction to statements or actions by Trump in relation to various incidents. There is however very little content documenting any "racial views" that Trump may harbor, and many editors have noted that his stated views have been hard to pinpoint. — JFG ^talk 02:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Note that a move request was closed two weeks ago as consensus not to move to "Racial comments by Donald Trump" (see Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump/Archive 1#Requested move 29 January 2018) but in the close I noted that it appears that there may be support for moving the page to a different alternative. Dekimasuよ! 06:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Support - A more accurate representation of what has been included in the article. PackMecEng (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support - the title more closely represents article content. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose It's nonsense to claim the proposed title better reflects the well-sourced content of the article. It's like Ruminations as to the possible toxicity of strychnine

  

  An 1809 painting depicting opisthotonus as in strychnine poisoning

  SPECIFICO talk 20:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose "...laziness is a trait in blacks." is not an accusation of racism. It's racism. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that is a good example why accusations of racism against Donald Trump is actually more accurate. Since that quote "...laziness is a trait in blacks." is a second hand account of what someone else said he said with no one else backig it up.[6] PackMecEng (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

What's the problem? Nixon was famously bigoted against various ethnic and religious groups. Why be so defensive about this? It's not as if Trump tries to conceal it. SPECIFICO talk 00:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

That is not an accurate representation of the quote. You could have at least read the part of the article that I pulled it from. Trump was asked if the book it appeared in was accurate, and said that it was. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

And you could of read the next paragraph that said “He made up this quote. I’ve heard the quote before, and it’s nonsense,” Trump said. “I’ve never said anything like it, ever.” PackMecEng (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I did. And I presumed that politicians lie. Was this a poor presumption on my part? (Hint: It's not). When someone like Trump -who can't take any criticism without popping his top- is accused of racism, they're not going to wait ten years to lash out at the person making the accusation, unless that person isn't particularly offended by the accusation. You know who's not offended by accusations of racism, don't you? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

They certainly do, all the dam time. But a few things. One he was not a politician at the time. Two when he confirmed it that was during a general interview on a lot of things and was not specific to that quote, hell he probably didn't read it. Three it still comes down to a disgruntled former employs word vs his, not something we could definitively say he said. More of a accusation if you will...PackMecEng (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Side note to the wait 10 years. It was two years in a different interview when he was asked about it. PackMecEng (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

One he was not a politician at the time. He was campaigning for a nomination at the time, therefore he was a politician. And if you think that Donald Trump on his own has more credibility than a politician, you owe politicians an apology.

Two when he confirmed it that was during a general interview on a lot of things and was not specific to that quote, hell he probably didn't read it. That quote had been one of the most visible parts of the book. Your implication that he didn't know about it is weak, very weak.

Three it still comes down to a disgruntled former employs word vs his Again; you owe disgruntled former employees an apology for implying they might be less honest than Trump.

More of a accusation if you will... I've already addressed this in my last comment.

It was two years in a different interview when he was asked about it. He was asked about it in late 1999. That's 9 years later, far closer to ten than two. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

With the timeline, he denied the comments right before dropping out. The book was 91, the probably true was 97, and the denial was 99. I was referring to the 97 to 99. So 8 years and some change, but like I said, do you think he actually sat down and read the thing? Also I don't know if the former employee is less honest or not, but it would be fair to label it an accusation instead of fact since there is reasonable doubt on both sides. Also dang it I take issue with the other politicians part, I'm from Illinois, we wouldn't know a politician telling the truth if they kicked us and then admitted it! PackMecEng (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, we're both getting a little hyperbolic (though it seems in a friendly way, which is fun but sometimes not so clear), so let me take it back to a more formal argument. 1) Yes, it is an allegation, I admit. It's not irrefutable that he actually said it, but 2) Donald Trump has a long history (hence our article) of making racist remarks, 3) though the remark itself got publicity at the time of publishing (see [7] and [8] for example), Trump admitted in 1997 that it was "probably" accurate, a statement which carries some weight because 4) Trump has a history of knee-jerk reactions to anything he perceives as insulting, and furthermore that 5) Trump's later refutation of the claim was entirely self-serving, as he was running for public office at the time. So I'm weighing probabilities here. There are several reasons to believe that Trump made that remark and no reasonable cause to believe his denial. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I think we have drilled about as far as we can go on his comments from 20 years ago, which would be in the scope of the article either way it goes. Personal feelings here, it would not be the least believable thing I have heard today that he actually made that comment. I'm also starting to get an intuition here about this article in general. Just how I see it. If something looks like bees, it doesn't matter if it is or isn't bees, you don't touch it. This article is defiantly reminding me of bees, so I'm going to try to not touch it for a bit. I doubt I will be able to keep to that, but bee stings stink. PackMecEng (talk) 03:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - This article is not about accusations; it's about Trump's 45 year documented history of racially-provocative remarks and racially-motivated actions. The word "accusations" is an expression of doubt in this context, and completely inappropriate for a neutral encyclopedia. We are obligated to adhere to WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. This is not creative writing where we try to turn the tables on reliable sources and try to make the so-called accusers look like the bad guys.- MrX 🖋 21:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

According to whom? Journalists who are biased against him? Meh. It is what it is - opinion, not fact. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

A relevant question here would be "Why are those journalists biased against him?"

Of course, the obvious and best answer is "Because of all the horrible things he says and does." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Whistle britches, you can't make this stuff up... ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme, it sounds like you don't agree with WP:V and WP:RS. Feel free to take your policy revision proposals to the appropriate policy pages and let us know when they change. Meanwhile, Trump's 45 year history of racism is well-documented, and that's the subject of this article.- MrX 🖋 22:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, MrX...just don't agree with it. And Trump colluded with the Russians...meh! ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: That doesn't address my point at all. You keep saying "the media is biased against Trump" and I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm saying that there's a reason they're biased against him. Just like the media is biased against Kim Jong Un and Jeffrey Dahmer. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It goes back a long way...I get it...we're barely beyond year one and it continues...I get it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

This is interesting, because I've stated my point as plainly as is humanly possible (twice now), and you still seem to have missed it entirely. I know you're rather smart, so you don't have difficulty understanding my meaning. And I'm assuming you're not intentionally ignoring it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, Mr. Pants...I get your point-y...twice now. I yield my remaining 30 secs to the gentleman from Star Trek: The Next Generation. Beam me up, Scotty. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

So you're not discussing this in good faith, then? You're using deception to win an argument. That's disappointing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• sigh* No, whistle britches...I don't play games. I'm far too seasoned for such nonsense. Show me verifiable statements of fact, not opinions, rumor or propaganda like that which is being force-fed to the public by propaganda machines, bait & click news orgs and political pundits. It's amazing what some people will say if you pay them enough...which may explain why I have little faith in politicians. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

You sit here and proclaim to have little faith in politicians... wait for it... While defending your faith in a politician. A politician who is demonstrably the most untrustworthy one to ever hold his office. You say you're too old to play games, but I don't see you doing anything but playing games in this thread. And while you may think your position is reasonable, I'm telling you right now: It's not. Nor will you be able to ever convince me that it is. All you have accomplished in this thread wrt me is losing a huge chunk of the respect I previously held for you. I wasn't exaggerating about being disappointed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

We write what the sources say...we don't editorialize...and we do our best to use sound editorial judgment when deciding what belongs in the article per PAGs. Common sense is a welcome collaborator. I still believe the title of this article should reflect its contents, and I'm saddened that it has caused you disappointment. Enjoy the weekend and be happy. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, Trump has been despised ever since he slithered through the Queens-Midtown Tunnel in the late 1970's to tear up and glass-plate the old Commodore Hotel on 42nd Street. There's lots of RS about how his mentor Roy Cohn taught him that any publicity is good publicity - even infamy. He has not suffered controversy and disparagement, he has courted and fomented it. Isn't that much obvious by now? Actually, I'm hoping you'll saddle up one of those ponies of yours and go lasso up a few of the 13 Russians the Grand Jury just put on the wanted list. SPECIFICO talk 23:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Indicted...and 13 is the lucky number! ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support - most of the article does not actually tell the reader about Trump's self-professed views on race, but rather how commentators and pundits interpret his statements and actions. The alternative is more neutral and more faithful to the content of the article. Maybe a third alternative like "Donald Trump and race" could also be considered, as it is likewise more neutral. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  Actually, only 29.9% (4081 out of 5822 words) of the article is criticism of Trump for racism. The other 71.1% are descriptions of Trump's actions, his comments, third party comments defending Trump, polling information, and other background information. The article is obviously not about accusations.- MrX 🖋 02:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think changing the title would be making it sound like he doesn't hold any negative racial views. After all "accusations" implies no one knows whether they are true. I don't think anyone can deny that he has said and done racist things, in fact that is more like a selling point for him. So the current title is NPOV while also being accurate as a description._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - I feel that the proposed title spins the matter in Trump's favor. Editors are correct that there is more verifiable meat behind these "accusations" than, say, those at Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. Other proposed or considered titles spin the matter the other way. The idea is not to spin the matter, and the easiest way to get there is by using as few words as possible. The essential words are "Donald Trump" and "racism". Thus, Donald Trump and racism.
  JFG, apparently you missed my comments[9][10] in the previous RM, or failed to see their obvious wisdom; It's a joke, folks. otherwise my suggested title would be what you were proposing here. I think it would be the least controversial and therefore the most likely to reach consensus, and if this fails I might (repeat, might) follow with my own RM.
  Re the image above, I hope that model was well paid. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The current title is neutral. For one thing it does not use the word "racism". And it allows Trump to speak for himself. The proposed title would lend Wikipedia's credibility to the notion or accusation of racism. MelanieN alt (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The first sentence is literally people calling him racist "observers across the political spectrum to conclude that he is racist". That is already lending Wikipedia's credibility to the accusation. The whole lead minus the last sentence of the second paragraph is accusations of racism. The title should reflect the content of the article, very little is Trump's personal views with most of it sources commenting on how they think he is racist. PackMecEng (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

No, the first sentence is literally Donald Trump having a "history of making racially-charged remarks and pursuing racially-motivated actions and policies", and that's why observers have concluded that he is racist.22:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes that is what I wrote, people calling him racist and what the first sentence backs up. PackMecEng (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per my last Oppose which I can't be arsed to find, They're not accusations they're racial views period. –Davey2010^Talk 21:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The subject of this article is Trump's racial views. That is the baseline. Then, yes, there are reactions to those racial views. Jytdog (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: That is the issue at the heart of the title change. The actual contents of the article is largely how sources think he is racist. Very little of the article is dedicated to Trump stating his views or even responding to accusations. PackMecEng (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

If only the man would ever give a straight answer. I think, though, that plenty of people hear his dog whistles well enough. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Somebody's actual racial views are not always what they say they are. Probably rarely. Self-reports are somewhat relevant. We must have had five major discussions last summer/fall about what to do with various white supremacists stating "i am not a white supremacist". The community consistently said that their self-reports were not much relevant. Jytdog (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed they could be dishonest with others or even themselves. But again if they are denying it and we have to rely on "dog whistles" aka peoples subjective guesses, we cannot really state as fact he is racist. PackMecEng (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The key fact is that Trump's core views appear to be quite consistent across time and space. There's a certain amount of text and data needed to sort the wheat from the chaff, but then once his "racial views" are clarified -- as the article does reasonably well -- we don't need much more space to state them over and over. It's natural that the bulk of the article would therefore be concerned with the applications, implications, and provocations of his views. The explication and reaction then provide profile and context for understanding his views. I don't see how the article could be structured any other way. It doesn't go against the title or the topic at all, IMO. SPECIFICO talk 03:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support per PackMecEng and Atsme. As well, it's neutral and has an encyclopedic tone. What's currently in place is neither. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The subject of this article is Trump's racial views. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

But the content of the article is largely accusations, so per common name the purposed title is more accurate. PackMecEng (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @K.e.coffman: Well, that's indeed the problem: the title says that the article subject is Trump's racial views, and the contents speak almost entirely about people's reactions to Trump's comments about one incident or another, calling him a racist. Almost nothing on his professed views. — JFG ^talk 22:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

No it doesn't. As I have already pointed out, only 29.9% of the article is criticism or condemnation of Trump's racism.- MrX 🖋 22:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@PackMecEng & JFG: There's no problem here. If the topic were "Accusations..." then we'd have sources that discuss others who accused DJT of racism. The article in present form discusses his views. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

COMMONNAME is about what name "is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". It is not about what title best describes what RS talk about. Misuse of shortcut, five yard penalty and loss of down. Not that it matters, really, which is why this is small. The stated rationale is the same as that given by multiple others. Just a bit of drive-by nitpicking to show I'm not ignoring you guys. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - After a fair amount of editing over several weeks I'm pretty convinced that the present title is the best one that's been suggested so far. "Accusations" would be a terrible choice, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

*Support Xerton (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Striking vote by blocked editor without reasoning. Jdcomix (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support – This title more accurately describes the article's contents. To get a full grasp on his exact "racial views" we'd need in-depth analysis and articles from academic journals, not just a collection of various controversial incidents and reactions from pundits and politicians (the article as currently written). ^Falling_Gravity 18:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support-ish - dislike to have a 'criticism article' or vague pejorative but it seems to more closely match what the article content is. To keep the current title would require start inserting non-accusations and racial views expressed by Donald Trump that are not 'racist'. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support- this article as currently written and titled has big problems. Nearly all of the sources are news articles. Such articles are written by journalists, who for the most part are not sociologists or people trained in analyzing someone's racial views. They simply report news stories. So we have a big collection of news articles, compiled by anonymous Wikipedia editors, that somehow can, with authority, attempt to fully describe the racial views of the President. This should be done by peer reviewed, scholarly analysis. As this article stands now, it should be titled according to the proposal. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose -this change, but think it needs to be changed to something less controversial like, "Trump and racism" that does not upset either the Pro or Anti Trump crowds. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Let's see, we just rejected one proposed move to water down the title. Then we just rejected misrepresenting the "shithole" smear of a couple dozen nations of colored folks as if it maybe didn't really really happen. And so now we are going to spend our time discussing whether to pretend the subject of this article is a bunch of "allegations" because -- who knows if any of this is true? SPECIFICO talk 21:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Sadly, this has become the norm for Trump-related articles and I have to say, it as pathetic as it is transparent. The fomula seems to be first, try to delete the article entirely, claiming it's an attack page and that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. When that fails, try to pepper the article with weasel words, cherry-picked quotes, and equivocations. When that doesn't work, try to change the title so that instead of the article being about Trump's well-documented racism, it becomes and article about accusations in which Trump is portrayed as the victim. - MrX 🖋 21:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Fortunately...as more information comes forward, more editors will realize why we should pay closer attention to WP:NOTNEWS. Wait for it...^{Atsme📞📧} 22:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the news will come out tomorrow that it wasn't really Trump who said and did all those things. Does this article even get into the thousands of Puerto Ricans he let die when he could have provided disaster assistance. And they weren't even "illegal". That's something well documented in RS. I'll check and maybe we can add a section about that. SPECIFICO talk 22:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

He let die? Provide RS please - my eyes and ears are open - constantly - wish they weren't at 3 AM. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

[11] Newsweek doesn't seem to take any issue with putting the claim right there in a headline, and then backing it up in the body. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

To be fair on the Newsweek source, it states that then attributes it at the end to people on the ground. The money and supplies are there with more money coming. But the infrastructure to do anything with it was lets say poor before the disaster and has not gotten much better. It would be a hard sell to say it was racially motivated. PackMecEng (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It would be a hard sell to say it was racially motivated. Apparently not that hard. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah because The Root and Vox are good neutral sources... The Guardian an article responding to a TV comedian and People quoting twitter to say hes racist... Seems fairly hard doesn't it? PackMecEng (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. First you claim nobody says this stuff, then you dismiss all the people saying this stuff so as to support your point that nobody says this stuff. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Nah more I just want reliable sources backing up crazy claims. I don't think I am asking to much. PackMecEng (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Needs more historical perspective and actual fact-based reporting. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, you know perfectly well that has nothing to do with the loss of electricity, potable water, transportation, and other critical life support systems. I'm giving you a giant trout for posting that off-topic garbage here. Please do better. SPECIFICO talk 00:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

It's time to get caught up on the facts - Vox’s Alexia Fernández Campbell reported that the Puerto Rican government’s own missteps in the reconstruction effort, including botching a massive recovery contract with Whitefish Energy, have further hampered the power restoration effort. See the article. Please, let's leave our biases at login and get back on point. This article needs to be renamed to reflect it's contents. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

You're on thin ice. I suggest you drop the whataboutism and the right-wing talking points. They don't change the mainstream reporting, which is all we care about here. SPECIFICO talk 01:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

FYI, I have friends and family there...I'm well aware. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

A look at the differences in the way the federal response played out in Huston and Puerto Rico, including Trump's actions and comments, is evidence in it's self. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO - What racial views are here that are not accusations of racism ? While it seems a rough match to WP:WEIGHT of current coverage and I do not think one could reasonably avoid cites using the word "racist", the article starts with that in line 1 and has all 14 items of the history about what others raised up as accusations of racism. The article is not simply what Trump has expressed on racial topics, nor a covering poll-like of various race questions, nor showing the current Presidential policy stances on racial topics, nor covering across nationalities what Trump has said about them. I'd rather one of the other approaches for more information and less partisan blurbs, but currently the article content is not a match to the title. Markbassett (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Trump's views, just as other articles are about Shakespeare's plays or about the climate of Angola. Such articles don't just post an anthology of primary source extracts. They are commentary interpretation and evaluation of the subject. Some editors here are tending to want lots of editor-selected primary source extracts, but that is exactly what we should not be doing. The concern that published negative evaluations of Trump's views are "attacks" makes no sense. Such views should be balanced in due proportion with evaluations that see his views on race positively. When we include those in proportion to their incidence in mainstream RS, we have a good NPOV balanced article. On the other hand, we don't have lots of positive fodder for such balance on a broad array of subjects that are commonly viewed as negative. Trump's racial views are only one such topic on WP. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment

As with nearly all polls on WP, there was some support for various other views, but there was nothing to suggest that there could possibly be consensus for a proposal like this. It's a distraction, and because there's no possibility of consensus for this proposal, it's just hurting all the other articles we could be working on. Instead we have to keep showing up to prevent edits and moves that obviously fail verification and cherrypick undue content and points of view. SPECIFICO talk 00:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Could we try reducing the words like "Trump and racism" or make it more general, like "Trump and racial issues"; the more words added the more 'someone' will find fault with the idea. Just my opinion - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I've been persuaded to sign up by this article

Hi all. Just to let you all know that reading this article has persuaded me to sign up as an editor. I have used Wikipedia for years and encourage my students to use this fantastic resource, but to use it carefully always ensuring that claims are always referenced by reliable sources, and watching for any articles where it appears an article has been written for a political purpose.

And then I came across this article!!!

I am not a US citizen and nor do I live in the USA (as millions of non-citizens do) so have no direct bias either way as far as Trump is concerned. But looking at this article as a neutral observer who has some familiarity with Wikipedia policies (and did some more research on this before signing up), it appears to me that this article is about as biased an article I can imagine without being tagged as such. Can some editors not see this or is it just that they are viewing this article through partisan eyes? In any case, let me make a couple of points:

If it is appropriate for an article on 'Racial views of Donald Trump', there should also be an article on 'Racial views of Barack Obama', even if that article found evidence suggesting that his racial views were entirely non-racist/antiracist.

If you are going to keep an article called 'Racial views of Donald Trump' rather than a more neutral title, at least structure the article with a more balanced approach.

And finally, the ACLU accusing Trump of racism is not exactly a reliable source.

In conclusion, I think it is clear that Wikipedia requires some more neutral editors to help improve articles so that it can continue to be a trusted, respected and amazingly useful resource for all. I intend to make a small contribution towards that end. Birtig (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Articles existing on Wikipedia are based on notability, which we determine by(amongst other things) the amount of significant on the subject matter. There has been a lot of coverage on Trump's racial views throughout the years, before his campaign, during it, and during his presidency. If there was the same amount of(or enough) coverage of Obama's views, then an article would be warranted on his views as well. It isn't about comparing President to President, its simply what can be determined notable through reliable sources. Also there is discussion on moving the title name right above here, which you can participate in. In regards to ACLU, in which references are you referring to. Or do you just mean the quote that was given, as that isn't be used as a source but simply quoting what was said by someone about the subject, the same as the Newt Gingrich quote or the others in the Defenses section. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello WikiVirus. When I read the subsection about the Pardoning of Arpaio it just seems to me that to accuse Trump of racism for deciding to pardon an 85 year old man who had served law enforcement for 50 years was bizarre. While Arpaio was found guilty of using racial profiling when ordered not to, deciding that he deserves a pardon after serving his country for 50 years is not automatically 'racist' in of itself. And just because the ACLU accuses Trump of racism for this decision is not proof that it was racism. Birtig (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The statement isn't saying he is racists, it is saying Arpaio is and the pardon is Trump forgiving, or in their quote 'endorsing', the racism. Nothing there is implying proof, it is stating what was thought about the action, from the ACLU, along with Speaker Ryan, Senators. That was the ACLU's statement. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

There are issues that have been/are being discussed, Birtig, but it's the editors who participate in local surveys, or an WP:RfC which involves wider community input that determines WP:CONSENSUS. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Forgive me making this point - I am new - but the ACLU tweeted "that this White House supports racism and bigotry". Due to its partisan nature, the ACLU should not be quoted. If a reliable source were to say the same thing that would be different, but the ACLU... Wikipedia must surely be better than this. Birtig (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The ACLU is a reliable source for its own findings and is acceptable with attribution. O3000 (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Birtig, you say you are not from the US. I am from the US. You say Argaio served my country for 50 years. Did you read the Arpaio article? Gandydancer (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The main applicable policy is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which "nutshell" states: "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias." ACLU is one of the sides, or part of one of the sides. They are a major player on that side. We don't exclude viewpoints because they come from partisan sources. What we don't do is take the ACLU's viewpoint and present it as fact. If you feel that the pro-Trump side is under-represented, you're free to propose new content for consideration under the sizable array of Wikipedia policy (which only begins with NPOV).
But keep in mind that Wikipedia does not define neutrality as parity, but rather strives to represent the sides in proportion to their treatment in reliable sources. If reliable sources over all tend to criticize Trump more than praise him, policy requires us to reflect that in our content—and that is not Wikipedia bias. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

This article is about 'racial views' and not religious discrimination

Hi all

The subsection on immigration had a paragraph that stated: "On Friday, January 27, 2017, via executive order titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, President Trump ordered the U.S border indefinitely closed to Syrian refugee families fleeing the bloody Syrian war. He also abruptly ceased immigration from six other Muslim nations - the order was for 90 days. A religious test was also implemented for Muslim refugees, which gave immigration priority to Christians over Muslims. Besides Syria, admission into the U.S. was halted for refugees from Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. Human rights activists described these actions as government approved religious persecution.[61][62]"

This may imply religious discrimination but it does not imply racial discrimination so I have deleted it. Birtig (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Y'all. I've undone your removal of well-sourced content and added a reference to the Fourth Circuit's attribution of the "travel ban" to Trump's racist statements. SPECIFICO talk 16:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the Fourth Circuit did not use the word 'racist' anywhere in its 285 page opinion, but a writer of an opinion piece in a newspaper says that the judgement was due to 'racist statements'. Birtig (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Please be more respectful of the author, Jennifer Rubin. We really don't need to disparage journalists or anyone else for that matter. SPECIFICO talk 19:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Apologies...on rereading you are correct. I have deleted the offending section from my post above. Birtig (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

You should strike it rather than delete it if an editor has already commented on it. Gandydancer (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I do not think it's necessary to attribute the word to Jennifer Rubin's column. It clearly summarizes the court's statements in the opinion and reflects the mainstream understanding of the ban and the court decision. Please remove your addition of the attribution, which was clearly premature for which you should seek consensus here on talk. You are editing in a topic area that requires caution and deliberate restraint. SPECIFICO talk 20:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Fine. Let's leave it misleading. I will do as you ask. Birtig (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The current wording "the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that Trump's "Travel Bans" implemented racist views" is misleading as one would easily interprete this to mean that the court actually used the word "racist". In legal decisions excast wording matter. The wording Rubin cites is "anti-Muslim bias", and I think there are also atter statements along that line in the decions. We don't have other examples of media choosing to apply the word "racist" when referring to the decision. Politico uses "anti-Muslim animus" and other media reports I can find also uses wording along that line. Choosing "racist" when we have one source for that and other media and court use "anti-Muslim" etc. seems like negative cherrypicking, and also misleading. The whole sentence is somewhat misleading as it doesn't mention that the Supreme Court had allowed the order they ruled against to go temporarily into effect. Iselilja (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree, Iselilja, and our NPOV policy is emphatic about us using nonjudgmental language, and that we present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. Several editors have detected editorial bias toward a particular POV. Another emphatic statement in NPOV that I also mentioned in the survey is that the NPOV policy (my bold) is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. Hopefully we can collaborate in a productive manner and resolve the NPOV issues. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Trump as an icon of multiculturalism and inclusiveness

In his book Devil's Bargain, Joshua Green includes a section (Bloomberg) on how Trump & The Apprentice became a symbol of a modern, diverse and inclusive America

• Trump and the show’s creators featured their minority contestants as striving, ambitious entrepreneurs
• They did a wonderful job of showing America as it was even then: multiethnic, multiracial, and multigenerational (Monique Nelson)
• The Apprentice was viewed by corporate America as the epitome of the forward-thinking, multicultural programming that all advertisers were increasingly seeking
• Trump and The Apprentice, up through the end of the decade, were considered by advertisers and audiences alike to be a triumph of American multiculturalism
• At his peak in 2010, Trump’s positive Q Score with black audiences was 27, while his positive score among English-speaking Hispanic audiences reached 18. Among nonblack audiences, however, Trump’s positive Q Score was just 8
• Trump had achieved by 2010 what Republican politicians had struggled, without success, to accomplish for the better part of 50 years. He had made himself genuinely popular with a broad segment of blacks and Hispanics

While indirect, I think this may be relevant for inclusion to give a fuller view on Donald Trump¨s relationship with minorities, which I think is the underlying topic of this article. Iselilja (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

This has to do with the TV show's advertising sales strategy, not with Trump's personal or political posture. I think it could go in an article about his work as a TV producer, but not here. SPECIFICO talk 21:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Have you read the WP article on this book? The reception section reminds me of posters about Broadway bombs with a few cherry picked words from terrible reviews to look like they are raves. Read the actual articles quoted in the WP article and they are extremely negative about the subjects of the book; hence the title Devil's Bargain. I would not trust this book to describe the character of the subjects. O3000 (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with Specifico here (wait, what? I actually agree with Specifico for once? Who'da thunk it?) In all seriousness, the things described by the book aren't really involving Trump's views on race, rather than the show's influence on racial conversations. Jdcomix (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree, Iselilja - it belongs in this article because it reflects his views equally as much as the biased sources do and will help correct some of the WEIGHT and BALANCE issues. What we've been experiencing here is reluctance to include as little as possible that reflects opposition to Trump being a racist, including the opposing views I've already pointed out that were published in the same MSM sources. The lede is a cherry-picked rendition designed to disparage Trump as a racist based on what biased RS have published less anything in those same sources that disputes the racist POV. Worse yet, not all are race-related. The following Slate article describes Tesler's analysis: Since 2009, Tesler has been chronicling what he calls the “racialization” of issues in the Obama era—the extent to which public opinion on topics unrelated to race have taken on a racial cast as Obama has staked out positions on them." We should be using editorial judgment to not include topics unrelated to race, such as the ban on certain Muslim countries that Obama first named, the border wall that prior presidents supported - they need to be removed as neither is racially motivated. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Nope. First, SPECIFICO is right that this is about a TV show not about Trump's racial views. Second, guess what? On Wikipedia we use the evil "MSM" sources, not "WMS" (wacky media sources). So that's a non-starter. Third, both the Muslim ban and the wall have racial components to them, as has been frequently noted by many many many many many reliable sources, so we're keeping that. Trying to remove it is also a non-starter. As far as Tesler's analysis - what's your point? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Yep - 2 to 2. Looks like an RfC is order. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Trump's reaction to Charlottesville

There is disagreement among editors about the way to mention Trump's second reaction to Charlottesville events. Two proposals are on the table, cited to the same New York Times article:

• Version A:

Two days later, responding to the wave of disapproval that met his initial remarks, Trump delivered a prepared statement, saying "Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs."

• Version B:

Two days later, Trump denounced far-right violence, stating: "Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs."

Which one shall we add?

For context, the disputed text would sit between current paragraphs:

In his initial statement on the rally, Trump did not denounce white nationalists but instead condemned "hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides". His statement and his subsequent defenses of it, in which he also referred to "very fine people on both sides", suggested a moral equivalence between the white supremacist marchers and those who protested against them, leading some observers to state that he was sympathetic to white supremacy.

and

Ten days after the rally, in prepared remarks at an American Legion conference, Trump called for the country to unite. He said: "We are not defined by the color of our skin, the figure on our paycheck or the party of our politics. Rather, we are defined by our shared humanity, our citizenship in this magnificent nation and by the love that fills our hearts."

— JFG ^talk 21:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Survey

• Version B, a straightforward quote of Trump's statement, with no comment or editorializing. — JFG ^talk 21:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• B - nonjudgmental language per NPOV; i.e., neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• B - whether the statement he made was pre-prepared or ad lib is irrelevant. What matters is that he choose to condemn and in a way that was quite unequivocal. Birtig (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• A - mentioning it was a prepared statement puts in into context of why Trump later went back to statements more in line with his initial statement that there were some good people on both sides. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• B - as per the above reasons. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• A - as it actually reflects what the source says. The source is not just about the quote, it's about the fact that the statement was made after the disapproval. To omit that fact is to carry out misrepresentation of the source (and POV) by omission.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• A - reflects the cited NY Times source about the prepared statement. It's important to read that source to see that the "evil" bit was read with a strange air of detachment and that Trump returned almost immediately to race-baiting remarks of various kinds, and that the "evil" bit was "not taken seriously" by observers across the political spectrum, etc. etc. Adding more and more sources, e.g. the much later cherrypicked Hill reference, does not change the facts surrounding the event at which Trump read the "racism is evil" remark. There having been no previous support for including this scripted air kiss to political correctness, the stated motivation of the current RfC appears to suggest forum-shopping. SPECIFICO talk 23:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• B - More natural, to the point, neutral without pushing a undue pov. PackMecEng (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• A - B is self-serving, and would tend to mislead readers. A is far more representative of the source (and other sources) in that it places Trump's dubious sentiments in the appropriate context. - MrX 🖋 01:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• A - I don't have assess to the NYT but I did read the Hill link. Ditto to what MrX said. Gandydancer (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• In Between A and B (A with language mod). I think that we should mention the very wide criticism the initial stmt received. However, it would be incorrect to state in our voice that Trump was responding and not delivering this of his volition - my understanding of his stmt is that he did not say he was responding to anything in particular. I suggest: Two days later, following a wave of disapproval that met his initial remarks, Trump delivered a prepared statement, saying "Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs."[1]Icewhiz (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: -- we need to choose one or the other for the purposes of this poll. If you re-read the NYTimes source cited above for both texts, I think you'll see that the connection between the initial criticism of Trump's equivocation to the prepared statement "racism is evil" is directly from the cited source. SPECIFICO talk 14:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

RfCs often closeout on a different option than what they started out with. I can not support A as it is currently worded, as responding has us taking a position on Trump's motivations (that I agree are likely per the sources, but I would not state it as a definitive). I agree that the outcry following his initial statements is highly relevant. If I have to choose between two (which for the record, I don't believe I do) - This is a !vote for B. I will support A with a minor language modification per my suggestion above.Icewhiz (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I think your proposed change actually does improve the text of A. I would support it. My only concern is that this is at least the third time that the cherrypicked POV version B has reared its head, and I am afraid we'll see endless repetitions of what's basically a settled issue. I don't know a good way to deal with this and switch to your improved text. In fact, that's a core reason why this formal RfC is so pointless. I suppose if all previous commenters agree, we could change the language to your version. At this point, we can't just add yours as alternative C because it will fork and diffuse the poll. SPECIFICO talk 15:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that WP:NPOV clearly states: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. It applies to statements challenged as noncompliant per WP:YESPOV, nonjudgmental language and no editorializing. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• A -- clearly explains why the shift occurred. Per Icewhiz, I would prefer: "...following a wave of disapproval", rather than "responding". --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Version B as more straightforward and neutral statement of objective facts and chronology as commonly reported. Version A is leading with a speculation about motive that is specific to that source. (For example NPR says it as "followed", AP/USAtoday/Philly Inquirer make no allusion, CNN says "in response" ...) Such might be in a second line following, but would be attributed as their opinion and not a general statement. Markbassett (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• B is clear and straightforward. But my faith in the consensus process on articles in this topic is waning. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• A - Option B statement does not contain in itself a clear reference to far right ideology. Option A is widely documented and more specific to the events Arcillaroja (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• A Version B is misleading, by means of excluding context in RS. zzz (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

It is completely and utterly false and deceitful to assert that the first version involves some kind of "editorializing" or is "judgmental" (sic). The first version is simply more accurate. Trump at first failed to denounce the racism of the rally, he was criticized and THEN he made the statement. The fact that the statement was made only AFTER the criticism is a key piece of information and including it is NOT "editorializing". And it is textbook POV and WP:AGENDA to try to exclude that information from the article with an apparent purpose of misleading the reader.

"Non-judgmental" means "present all the facts". "Judgmental" would involve cherry picking only some of them to portray them in a false light. And that appears to be the purpose of this RfC and some of the "B" !votes.

Also, please change the name of this section.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, let's see...the term "racially charged" first sentence in the lede is cited without in-text attribution while ignoring the opposing views in the only RS which is the NYTimes and it actually includes other views which were ignored, including: The White House rejected assertions that Mr. Trump is racist. “This president fights tirelessly for all Americans, regardless of race, religion, gender or background,” said Raj Shah, a White House spokesman and Mr. Trump’s aides and allies expressed frustration that his comments were interpreted through a racial prism. Other cited sources include The Nation, which is a progressive left magazine, then there is the Real Estate section of Fortune Magazine (which is owned by Time), and Rolling Stone magazine, which is known as a music magazine. Yet, in WikiVoice it states in the lede, "...that have led observers across the political spectrum to conclude that he is racist." How is that compliant with WP:NPOV? What political spectrum? The left's spectrum? Rolling Stone and Fortune Magazine's spectrum? Now that the breaking news hype is over, it's time to deploy neutrality such as this CNN article, and what about the entirely different view by Fortune, the Chicago Tribune, even Politico had to tone down their sensationalism somewhat. To say RS overwhelmingly justify the racist label in WikiVoice is simply incorrect. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

What? I honestly can't make any sense out your comment or understand what it has to do with the subject of this RfC.- MrX 🖋 01:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

My comment isn't encrypted, MrX, so you should be able to make sense of it. You know what kind of sources our PAGs require in order to include contentious and disparaging material about a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and I know you're aware of WP:SOURCETYPES - Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree. WP:NEWSORG - If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. I even provided a few quotes from the within the same cited sources, from updates of those same sources, and from sources that disagree with the contentious label used in WikiVoice in the lede. I've stated my position. If you need further information, please refer to the section below titled Recent edits - textbook SYNTH and WEASEL. Happy editing, MrX. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Your comment may not be encrypted but it is hopelessly confusing and completely irrelevant to this discussion. One more time - please watch WP:SOAPBOX.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

My comment isn't encrypted, MrX, so you should be able to make sense of it. - Chuckle. I don't think that follows at all, Atsme. I mean, considering that I read tons of unencrypted stuff in Wikipedia talk spaces that makes no sense to me whatsoever. Sorry for being so logical, carry on. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand Spock logic but prefer the more futuristic Data who had an "emotion chip" added to his positronic net, but let's keep that a secret from Cpt. Kirk. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not convinced by the same failed arguments. Oh, and all the condescension that has been directed at me isn't working, either. The issues with the article remain, several editors have challenged them, and we're getting the same resistance from the same group of article regulars who refuse to accept NPOV as the prevailing policy to which we all must adhere. Editorializing is neither warranted nor acceptable, and neither is cherrypicking only the derogatory opinions from RS to push a particular POV. It is beginning to appear very advocacy-like when editors refuse to adhere to NPOV. Any RS that is worth its weight will have opposing views and it is our responsibility to include them per policy. The very first sentence in the lede is so POV, I'm dismayed that admins have not acted on it because it clearly violates NPOV policy. There are mulitiple RS that have published articles which focus entirely on the denial of racism and there are updated articles in some of the cited sources that also reflect a more neutral position than what has been cherrypicked from the sources used in this article. I've already pointed that out and so have other editors above and below this particular thread. It's our job as editors to use editorial judgment (which is opposite of editorializing a source) in order to present a NPOV and not rely on a single POV that supports one's own. I cannot over-emphasize the importance that NPOV is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. Read the latter again. No one has suggested that we exclude the derogartory opinions sourced to biased sources (and advocacies like The Nation) but we must comply with PAGs which require in-text attribution to particular POVs that are opinion-based. If it's a widespread opinion we say that it is a widespread opinion, but we do not state it in WikiVoice like what was done in the lede. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Milady, it's not condescension, it's exasperation. Have you had a chance to review all the mainstream sources in the next little subsection thingy beneath this? What say you? SPECIFICO talk 17:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

working on it now...^{Atsme📞📧} 17:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

🙏 eternal gratitude. SPECIFICO talk 18:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Additional RS to consider

@Atsme, JFG, Emir of Wikipedia, Birtig, and PackMecEng: The overwhelming majority of RS reporting makes the connection cited in version A above. Please review and consider. [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. In fact, these sources suggest we should consider adding further context to the POTUS remarks, e.g. his public approval ratings hit their lowest levels of his presidency following his initial response to Charlottesville, and that there was sharp criticism from within his Republican party. SPECIFICO talk 16:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Adding old WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS to an already weighted article isn't the best option. I'd rather we summarize notable, encyclopedic events, not one-time episodes of MSM's news frenzy fed by the Trump, Obama or Clinton resistance (or the Russians). I like it better when biases are left at login and we are all collaborating productively to build a neutral encyclopedia. Regarding the sources you listed re: Trump's low ratings - well, ratings fluctuate, are not dependable (as Trump's election has proven), so what purpose do they serve? If you must look at ratings, look at the avgs & comparisons as what Gallup provides. It's best if we avoid citation overkill when we've confirmed there are multiple sources that share a similar POV (either hate Trump or don't hate Trump) so verifiability checks out just fine. I prefer RS that more closely represent an unsensational, realistic reporting beyond the bait & click headlines the news orgs have exhausted. Example: USA Today, (01-15-2018), CNN, (01-14-2018), the Time Magazine article, WaPo-08-14-2017 article & The Hill article you included above, this NYTimes article, the Chicago Tribune which brings another common sense perspective, AP via NBC News is another RS that presents both views and so on. The key is not even so much the sources but how editors apply good sound editorial judgment per NPOV. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have not looked at all the sources but for example the first source from my reading doesn't support A. The source[25] says Mr Trump was criticised for not specifically denouncing extremists in his initial comments on the violence., But some felt Mr Trump's comments came too late., and After finishing his remarks, the president quickly exited the room, as reporters asked why he had not spoken sooner. The president did not answer, but such questions will follow him in the days ahead. which don't verify the fact that it was responding to the wave of disapproval that met his initial remarks. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Just for a change of pace on this apparently immortal question, I gave you a non-cherrypicked list to look at, so I'd appreciate it if you could address the sources as a whole. Thanks for looking. SPECIFICO talk 19:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

To claim that it was responding to the wave of disapproval that met his initial remarks is a very specific claim and requires good sourcing. Keep in mind that this article is about Racial views of Donald Trump and not his presidency so if a detailed source like the BBC one doesn't make this clear then it is probably undue even if true. The Time source[26] says President Donald Trump sharply condemned racist, white supremacist, and neo-Nazi sympathizers on Monday afternoon, after nearly 48 hours of bipartisan criticism over his response to the weekend’s violent clashes in Charlottesville, Va. and Trump’s comments came amid censure from both Democrats and Republicans over his initial tepid response to Saturday’s violence in downtown Charlottesville. again showing the disapproval but not that his further comments was a response to disapproval of initial comments. Again with the NPR source[27] where it shows the disapproval of the initial remarks Almost 48 hours after violence engulfed Charlottesville, Va., President Trump called out white nationalist groups by name. Trump's remarks on Monday followed criticism that his initial statement about the clash of protesters did not condemn racist groups specifically.. These are the first three sources from the list you gave not some "cherrypicking" of my own. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't suggest you cherry-picked, just that I didn't censor the list of more or less the first search results I found. As to "responding" -- in the sense of doing something as a result of the condemnation he received -- yes I do think that's clearly supported by the bulk of the RS. @Icewhiz: suggested "following" rather than "responding to" above. Remember this whole bloated discussion began with a primary-sourced snippet that was cherrypicked and clearly misrepresented the even and the source. SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

"Following" is supported by the sources unlike the questionable "responding to". Even if that was changed A still suffers from mentioning that the statement was prepared, without any context as to why this is. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits - textbook SYNTH and WEASEL

• This edit whitewashes what the source says. The source says "numerous studies" - indeed that is the point of the article - not "some studies" [28]. In this case "tone it down" means "I'm gonna POV this".

• This, with a misleading summary "remove gossip", actually removes well sourced text. This is NOT "gossip", that's absurd.

• This is a clear cut case of SYNTH which juxtaposes two separate facts and tries to imply - via original research - that the first part of the claim is false. It also embellishes a bit on what is actually in the relevant source.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

"President has dime bars for breakfast" is gossip. "President makes sweeping racist statements while in the process of trying to enact anti-immigration laws" is certainly *not* gossip. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

According to the meaning of gossip when googled, "casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details which are not confirmed as true". Therefore the issue is not the importance or trivial nature of the information but whether the sources are identified and reliable or just unattributed hearsay. Birtig (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Read WP:YESPOV, particularly Avoid stating opinions as facts, and Prefer nonjudgmental language which states (my bold underline): A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. There is also Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views which is not being applied as it should. Opinions are not facts and allegations of racism are opinions. POV has been detected, not just but one but by several editors. Also refer to WP:NEWSORG. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

What exactly are you addressing? This appears to be just a random statement which has nothing to do with the issues raised above. Please watch WP:SOAPBOX.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree on all points. The first is a whitewash. The second has a questionable edit summary, although I'm not sure the article suffers for losing the material. The third does seem to run afoul of synth. It takes a cherry picked portion of the raw speech, and portions of two other sources and combines them in a way that suggests something new. There may be a source that makes such a conclusion, but those three ain't them.- MrX 🖋 02:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

As the author of the challenged edits, let me respond to VM's criticism:

• Regarding the first edit, the first cited source (The Nation) writes about ONE study, and the second source (Vox) mentions three studies -- that's "some" in my book, not "numerous". We could also say that these were cherry-picked studies from left-wing sources, but I'm not even bothering to look for counter-studies. My edit made the lead more neutral regardless. However, comparing the sources with our prose, I'm disturbed by a glaring misrepresentation: the Vox source says Trump’s rise was driven by racism and racial resentment, whereas our text says since Trump's ascendance in the Republican Party, racist attitudes and racial resentment have become more significant. That's an inversion of cause and consequence: the source says racism fueled Trump's rise while our text says Trump's rise increased racism. Very misleading!
• My second edit actually removed textbook gossip -- well-sourced gossip is still gossip, i.e. unverified hearsay, which has no place in our encyclopedia.
• In the third edit, the claim of SYNTH is unclear, and the article text could be modified to avoid any. Simply mention Trump's quote that is relevant to race: Whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots and omit any opinions about his speech, or list sources giving positive as well as negative opinions of it.

Looking forward to further discussion in order to uphold neutrality. — JFG ^talk 02:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Marek's opening comment and restorative edits are all that's needed to "uphold neutrality" -- no independent editor is objecting, so let's drop it now and move on per WP:OWN SPECIFICO talk 02:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• JFG, well, it may be "some" in YOUR book, but on Wikipedia we don't go by "JFG's book" we go by what reliable sources say. And these sources say "numerous", not "some". WP:OR. I agree on the inversion of the cause and effect though. How about we keep "numerous" and you can propose appropriate wording for taking care of the other issue?
• No, to call this gossip is absurd. "Well sourced gossip" is in fact pretty much an oxymoron.
• There's nothing unclear about it being SYNTH. To different claims/ideas are forged together to imply something which is not actually in any of the sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: 1. Did you forget about WP:BALANCE, WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD? The Vox source cites three studies linking Trump with racist feelings in the electorate, and calls them "numerous", we don't have to parrot their claims. Besides, the article text grossly misrepresents even Vox by inverting cause and consequence. This cannot stand, especially in the lede section which is supposed to summarize the gist of the article body. So if you want to keep this, please insert a proper representation of the source in the article body, add counter-studies, and finally write a balanced summary in the lede. 2. Gossip sourced to the New York Times is still gossip. 3. I proposed a way to avoid any appearance of SYNTH; what do you think? — JFG ^talk 04:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Um, no, it's just that WP:BALANCE would mean that you go and find sources which say there AREN'T "numerous" studies. And if a reliable source says "numerous", then yes indeed we have to "parrot their claim" - i.e. not misrepresent them as you're trying to do. I've already said that you can propose better wording in regard to the cause and effect so please stop red herringing this.

And no, please stop it with this "gossip" nonsense. Well sourced info is not "gossip". Indeed it is the opposite of gossip.

And your "proposal to avoid SYNTH" wasn't actually a proposal to avoid synth, it was a proposal to remove relevant text according to some WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. How does that work? How about instead of removing relevant text, we remove the SYNTH that you put in there? Problem solved. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

1. Fair enough that we'd have to find counter-studies for balance, and I can't be bothered to do such research right now. Whether three studies are "numerous" is a matter of personal opinion, and I agree to disagree; we could simply qualify the studies count more neutrally, by stating "Several studies have claimed…" rather than "Numerous studies…" or "Some studies…". On my other remark, glad to see you admit the misrepresentation, so how about switching to this text: Several studies and surveys have claimed that racist attitudes and racial resentment have fueled Trump's political ascendance, and have become more significant than economic factors in determining party allegiance of voters.

2. Looks like we don't have the same definition of gossip. Seems that this "well-sourced" hearsay is sourced to nobody in particular, and was denied by several participants. Contrary to the "shithole" incident which was confirmed, "forgotten" or not-really-denied by many named sources. So until somebody has the guts to say "I was here and I confirm Trump said that", it's just WP:GOSSIP, "scandal mongering" as our WP:NOT policy calls it, and we must remove it from the encyclopedia.

3. First of all, I wasn't the author of the original prose that had been removed, I just restored it without further editing, so don't accuse me of introducing SYNTH, a tactic I despise. The "we share the same blood" quote from the inauguration speech is eminently relevant to this article because it is one of the rare instances of actual direct expressions of "racial views of Donald Trump", so it deserves inclusion. We can either include it without comment, or with balanced comments from sources making positive and negative interpretations of his statement. Neither approach should involve any editorial synthesis. — JFG ^talk 04:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

1. You drop the "claimed" weaseling and that'd be acceptable.

2. Sorry, but this is simply NOT gossip. We have New York Times and Washington Post reporting on it. It caused a lot of controversy. You can't just make up arbitrary rules for what you think is "gossip" and then try to exclude text because you WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Anyway, this has been in the article a long time, and by removing this you violated the "consensus required to restore challenged edits" discretionary sanctions so please self-revert.

3. You may not have been the author but you put it back in (I didn't accuse you of "introducing" it, I said you "put it in there", which is correct - so how about YOU don't falsely accuse me of stuff, speaking of tactics). And you're still doing the SYNTH, just now on the talk instead of the article. Hell, you're essentially trying to hold the well sourced text hostage - "your choices are either to remove the well sourced text or let me do my SYNTH". No, these are not the only choices. The obvious choice is to remove the SYNTH. As was done before you reinserted it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

1. Okay, will replace "claimed" with "stated" and make the edit.

2. I didn't violate anything: I removed the paragraph, was challenged by you, came here to discuss. Textbook BRD. We happen to disagree whether this content meets the definition of gossip by WP policy (not "arbitrary rules"), fine, so be it. Will open the discussion to wider comments.

3. Look, it's not about me, you or another editor, let's stick to discussing the contents. The inauguration speech contains an explicit statement by Trump about race. Whether you like this statement or not, it exists, and is therefore relevant to an article called "Racial views of Donald Trump". Censoring it is POV. We don't need to add editorial comments around it, which the original text does. How about you suggest a wording that would not give any appearance of synth? — JFG ^talk 05:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:TE - This insistent denial reads as if the talk page is intended for bilateral negotiations to re-write basic WP policy. The fact is that Marek identified and documented the defects, including the textbook example of SYNTH with the paragraph that began "While..." and proceeded to concatenate two separate sources to lead our readers astray. Other editors affirm Marek's fixes, and it's time to drop it and move on to other issues. SPECIFICO talk 14:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

1. No, I disagree - it should be removed. This WaPo article states: "Obama’s race is largely responsible for the association between racial resentment and economic anxiety. And this racialized political environment undoubtedly aided Donald Trump’s rise to the top of the Republican Party." The 2nd WaPo article summarized the findings of survey analysts for Monkey Cage, WaPo and The Atlantic stating: "all of whom suggested that those voting for Trump felt what we would call white vulnerability, racial resentment, and mixed in with that, an anxiety about losing cultural status." The Vox article evaluates the Monkey Cage survey: "racial resentment is the biggest predictor of white vulnerability among white millennials." The Monkey Cage survey included responses from 503 African Americans, 510 whites, 505 Latinos and 258 Asian Americans. The questions asked to measure white vulnerability included: 1) whether whites were “economically losing ground through no fault of their own”; 2) whether discrimination against whites was “as big a problem as that against Blacks and other minorities”; and 3) if minorities overtaking whites as the majority of the U.S. population by 2050 would “strengthen or weaken the country.” The survey demonstrated discrimination against whites which ties in racial resentment and white vulnerability. The 12-15-2017 WaPo article linked racial resentment to "political attitudes" in a Slate article which states (my bold): "Tesler has been chronicling what he calls the “racialization” of issues in the Obama era—the extent to which public opinion on topics unrelated to race have taken on a racial castas Obama has staked out positions on them." None of what the survey demonstrated reflects in what our article states: Some studies and surveys have claimed that Trump's political ascendance has made racist attitudes and racial resentment more significant than economic factors in determining party allegiance of voters. Remove it, or state what the cited sources are actually saying.
2. Yes it is gossip, all opinion-based, not statements of fact.
3. We need a closer review of the contentious statements in this article to make sure the material accurately reflects what the cited sources say. ^{Atsme📞📧} 09:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, we've already addressed #1 - please read other people's comments.

No, it's not gossip, no not "opinion". It's reliably sourced. People, please stop making stuff up.

Sure - but in the meantime, we do not leave WP:SYNTH in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Who is "we" VM? Clarity is needed, not blanket statements reflecting only your objections...and please try to understand that MSM (most of which is circular reporting) does not get to make up their own facts. MSM even states that they are claims not facts, and they use in-text attribution to indicate who is making them. That is exactly what WP is supposed to be doing. I strongly suggest a refresher course in the first half of NPOV policy. No one is making anything up, and I can assure you that everything I've said is sourced to RS, some of which are the very sources from which the derogatory statements have been cherrypicked. Please read the most recent comments by other people who are arriving to this article and have challenged the neutrality of it. These outside views are important to achieving NPOV, and I am concerned over the OWN attitudes I've been subjected to here. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

"We" is Wikipedia editors active on this article, who else?

And yes clarity is needed - can you be clearer in your comments, because most of them are impossible to understand and other editors are forced to guess as to how they're at all relevant. Several people here have raised this problem with you before. In regard to my statements - they're perfectly clear. There's SYNTH. It needs to be removed. That's it.

As to "MSM", the sources are not making anything up. And no, it's not "circular reporting", whatever the hey that's suppose to be.

And these "other people who are arriving to this article" - are they the sketchy accounts with just a few edits who repeat standard talking disinformation talking points by any chance? Somehow I don't think that will help NPOV at all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, SYNTH, UNDUE, and POV content are usually sourced to RS, but that doesn't mean they conform to Wikipedia policy or guidelines. So basically everything you keep saying is irrelevant. This tread is wasting a lot of time, and the real issue has already been addressed -- at least 4 times now. SPECIFICO talk 17:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Referring to news articles in two of most highly-respected newspapers in the world as gossip is stunningly absurd. Such claims reflect on the competence of the editors that make them, and are only worthy of being summarily ignored.- MrX 🖋 18:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Do not confuse WIKT:gossip, which is a dictionary definition, with WP:GOSSIP, which is Wikipedia policy, by which all editors must abide. This entry qualifies as item 3 of the policy, "Scandal mongering". Yes, highly-respected newspapers can and do engage in gossip and scandal-mongering. Please note that only the New York Times story of 23 December 2017 actually makes the claims about a June 2017 meeting; the Washington Post only reminds readers of this earlier NY Times piece in January 2018, stating that the shithole incident "lends credence" to the NYT claims. To corroborate the statements made in our article, only the original NYT piece can be used, and barring any independent verification, this second-hand hearsay from unnamed persons does qualify as unsubstantiated gossip. — JFG ^talk 21:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Do not confuse policy shortcuts with actual policy, but do get your story straight because I'm feeling a little gaslit at the moment. The content in question does not fit into any of the five categories of using Wikipedia as a soapbox or for promotion. In fact it's so over-the-top to suggest that citing material in two blue chip news sources is gossip or promotion that I... I'm verklempt!- MrX 🖋 21:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Nothing personal, MrX. Just read the sources fully and understand my point. — JFG ^talk 22:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• The only problem with the inauguration speech section was the fact that it opens with While Trump was criticized for "running one of the most racially and ethnically divisive campaigns in American history", which has no semantic purpose if not to be contradicted by the rest. Plus, the use of quotes reads far more like scare quotes, so even that bit by itself implies a conclusion not stated in any source. So it's pretty blatant SYNTH per that, but simply removing that bit of text and capitalizing the next word would fix it. As for the rest, I agree with the OP: those are not good edits and should remain out. I'm okay with the "several studies have stated..." wording on the first.

Also -and I understand that this is tangential- there is no dichotomy between Trump's rise being fueled by racism and his ascension to the presidency fueling racism. Those are two separate causalities, there's no need for one to be false if the other is true. Think about being punched in the face. It can be a symptom of conflict escalation, and it can simultaneously result in even more conflict escalation. Alternatively, compare making love for the first time and romantic attachment. Or any of an enormous number of other situations.

And Vox is not necessarily wrong, either. It's pretty apparent to anyone versed in politics that the Obama presidency had an impact on racism in the US, including popularizing the perceived victimhood of whites; a phenomenon that could easily help explain Trump's win in the election. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@MPants at work: Thanks for your well-reasoned input. Surely racism among U.S. voters may have helped Trump's candidacy, and conversely Trump's rhetoric may have fueled further racism. The quoted Vox article made the first connection only and was therefore misrepresented. Following my discussion with VM, this issue has now been addressed in the prose.[29]

About the section on the inauguration speech, I agree with you that the "While… history" part was unnecessary, although this comment was made by a cited source (The Atlantic), so doesn't qualify as WP:SYNTH. But to avoid any impression of synthesis, I've been arguing that we should simply cite Trump's speech heralding patriotism irrespective of race, unadorned by external commentary. I would propose the following text:

During his inauguration address on January 20, 2017, Trump stated: "Through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other. When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice. […] Whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots."

Comments? — JFG ^talk 21:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but you can't use a primary source in that way. You can't decide what part of the speech is important or relevant to the subject. It's original research and it's forbidden by policy.- MrX 🖋 21:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, and I don't know where you're getting that interpretation of policy from. We certainly can pick out those parts of a primary source which are germane to the subject and selectively quote them, so long as they are WP:DUE, and we don't select them such as to change the meaning. I agree with JFG that this bit in his speech is due, and I don't think the selective quoting changes the meaning of those parts of his speech.

@JFG:Yes, it was culled from a source, but both that particular use of quotes and the context of it's inclusion presented very strongly implied conclusions that were not in that source. Indeed, that source's overall conclusion was that the inauguration speech was dark and deeply disturbing, doing all but calling it the death knell of democracy. I think that's far too much opinion to be useful here, so I think your proposal works much better. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Huh, you disagree but then you agree? Please clarify, because your second paragraph seems to support my point. WP:PRIMARY is clear: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." WP:SYNTH states "Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." Selecting a partial quote from a speech to pose an editor's counterargument that Trump is not racist is exactly what this policy is meant to prevent.- MrX 🖋 21:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

You're conflating the subjects of the two paragraphs. The second was not directed at you, but at JFG (hence why I started it by pinging JFG), in response to the comment they made directed at me. I am discussing two different aspects of this issue in the two different paragraphs, so no, they're not at all contradictory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

We can't cherry pick Trump's speech. Period.- MrX 🖋 23:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

MrX, this entire article is cherrypicked to fit a particular POV which is why so many editors have challenged it. To now say inclusion of Trump's own views on racism is not allowed because it is "cherrypicked" is a bit of a stretch. A statement that is used for its relevancy is not cherrypicked. There is no PAG that supports what you're saying. That's what we do - we use editorial judgment to determine what is relevant/encyclopedic for inclusion in an article and for you to say a relevant statement in a US president's inaugural speech is cherrypicking is well...absurd. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Nope on all fronts. You don't get to dissect a speech and put the gizzard smack dab in the middle of the article where the heart belongs. This is one of the reasons why primary sources should be avoided, in favor of secondary sources of which there is no short supply. Of course you know that, because of your renowned reverence for the PAGs.- MrX 🖋 00:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry - the dissecting was done by EuroNews which published "Key quotes from Donald Trump's inauguration speech" and did some extraction from Donald Trump’s first speech as US president. We certainly can use parts of what they published as a secondary source that fits into the context of this narrative. You might want to take a look at List of Trump–Russia dossier allegations and Trump–Russia_dossier#Allegations, which was published in its entirety in an unreliable source (BuzzFeed), and then with the use of SYNTH a separate list and a section in the main article were created using cherrypicked allegations that fit a particular POV narrative. What was proposed here is not SYNTH, it is editorial judgment that cites a RS and a relevant statement in the speech demonstrating Trump's views on race...and you are now trying to convince editors that doing so is noncompliant with policy? I suggest you cite the policy that supports your position because I say it does not. Trump's views belong in an article about Trump's views. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

MrX: you are not the arbiter of WP policy, and it's very clear that the three other people discussing this particular question all disagree with you. Further, I would bet good money that, were you to bring this to` a more public forum, the community input there would be the same that you're getting here. We quote excerpts from speeches, passages and publications constantly. Almost every single quote on this site is "picked" from a larger work. You have absolutely no policy ground to stand on, here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not the arbiter, nor are you—consensus is. Your understanding of the applicable policies seems flawed. With three editors opposing this cherry-pick, I don't see it going into the article anytime soon.- MrX 🖋 03:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Now you're just becoming obnoxious: There's only you and SPECIFICO opposing it and SPECIFICO's argument boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, while there's fourthree editors (myself, Volunteer Marek, JFG and Atsme) supporting it, and you have yet to quote or even name a policy that prevents us from quoting the speech, most likely because you damn well know there is no such fucking policy. I really don't understand what your problem is here, but you have no policy leg to stand on. You don't get to dictate what policy is to the rest of us with your "we're not doing this. Period" bullshit so just knock it off and either engage like a grown-up or go fuck off and edit something else, kay? Thnks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Pants, it's not constructive and it's not WP:CIVIL to accuse a colleague of putting personal preference above policy and article improvement. You know better than that. If my objection was unclear to you, a simple request for clarification would have enabled you to make a constructive criticism of my view. My initial comment got moved way down by folks interspersing indented comments. It was "That text is utterly vacuous and communicates nothing at all about anything at all." -- it's an amateur speechwriter's tangle of words that sound like they come from memorable speeches but don't refer to anything. There's some kind of metaphor about "our hearts" and "the color of our skin" and other things that sound like they might work in a memorable speech, but they're not used to convey any meaning. Nobody can parse what's intended by this remark. And that is why we don't have RS pointing it out as a noteworthy part of the speech or a noteworthy statement by Pres. Trump. It's cherrypicked nonsense. There was plenty of commentary about the address that can be used to characterize and illustrate what it was about and what POTUS had to say. SPECIFICO talk 14:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Pants, it's not constructive and it's not WP:CIVIL to accuse a colleague of putting personal preference above policy and article improvement. First off, I haven't done that. Second, you do it on an almost daily basis. Physician, heal thyself. Third, almost everyone else involved in AmPol editing does it with some regularity. Get over it, cupcake.

If my objection was unclear to you... It was quite clear. You said that Trump's comments were vacuous and meaningless, which is a value judgement and has no place here except as an example of an argument editors are advised to avoid using. Furthermore, if you want to make a WP:WEIGHT-centered argument based on a value judgement of those comments, it will become apparent that their vacuous meaninglessness is a reason for inclusion, not exclusion. If we exclude them, then it's up to the reader's imagination what the "other side" of this issue is. If we include them, then we make it clear that on one side, you have a large and diverse assortment of reliable sources saying "this is the most objectively racist president in modern US history" and on the other side you have said president doing the political equivalent of saying "I know you are, but what am I?" It helps characterize the nature of the issue, by demonstrating quite clearly that one side has far more logical and rhetorical substance.

You then claimed that Trump was talking about "open heart surgery or whatever" which is both entirely untrue and overwhelmingly bizarre. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

To set the record straight, Volunteer Marek does not support this [30], so my original statement that three editors oppose this cherry-pick was correct.- MrX 🖋 17:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I already struck that part of my comment, so we're sitting at 3 v 3. Well, the inclusion side has pointed out that these are comments Trump made about race; highly germane to the subject. I'm still waiting for a policy-based reason from the exclusion side, though I suspect that one won't be forthcoming. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

But you did not up the count from two to three opposing it only you and SPECIFICO... needs to be revised. SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

MPants, it's not personal opinion to note that the cherrypicked snippet from the Inaugural Address is meaningless. "Open heart" is on its face some sort of metaphor, but it's not clear what is meant by it. Then the snippet is full of abstract undefined terms, e.g. Patriotism (does this mean persons who support assault rifle ownership? People who oppose abortion rights? People who oppose the "travel ban"? People who favor a path to citizenship for Dreamers?) So if those words are to have any meaning at all to our readers, they would be included in respect of some secondary independent RS interpretation or comment on them. An encyclopedia article is not a stack of Tarot cards. Meaning should be clear. That cherrypicked bit is not conveying any "racial view" of Trump to an English-speaking reader. That's not a political point of view, it's not a personal preference as to what "I like" and it's not anything else that is deprecated in the link you use to dismiss my rejection of this text. SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

"Open heart" is on its face some sort of metaphor, but it's not clear what is meant by it. I'm glad to see you've finally realized that, although I have to admit it's still a little disconcerting to see an English speaker fail to understand an idiom many of us learned sometime around kindergarten. Perhaps this will help.

Then the snippet is full of abstract undefined terms, e.g. Patriotism (does this mean persons who support assault rifle ownership? People who oppose abortion rights? People who oppose the "travel ban"? People who favor a path to citizenship for Dreamers?) Umm, wow. Another disconcerting moment. Again, perhaps this will help. I can recommend some remedial reading courses if you think you'd find them useful.

So if those words are to have any meaning at all to our readers, they would be included in respect of some secondary independent RS interpretation or comment on them. I accept that you're having difficulty parsing the meaning of many of these words and phrases, but to project that same difficulty onto others is untoward. I think our readers will understand phrases like "open your heart" and words like "patriotism" without too much help.

An encyclopedia article is not a stack of Tarot cards. Meaning should be clear. In case you're not getting this: I don't see anyone else in this thread or anywhere else expressing the view that the comments quoted, or indeed the inaugural speech as a whole was difficult to understand. I think perhaps you may be confusing the typical insincerity of political speech with some sort of semantic vacuousness, but I assure you that the speech is -while undoubtedly as insincere as any political speech- perfectly intelligible.

That cherrypicked bit is not conveying any "racial view" of Trump to an English-speaking reader. On the contrary, it quite clearly conveys to me the view that Trump does not view himself as racist. It also conveys the fact that Trump's response to the overwhelming number of critics pointing out his own racism is to give a single throwaway line in his inauguration speech.

But let us assume for the moment that I am unnaturally gifted with the ability to read the obvious meaning of plain text and to consider the context when judging someone's meaning. Does that, then, mean that you have a reliable source stating that the views Trump described (that "patriotism can eliminate prejudice", mind, not "I'm not racist") is not his actual view? One sufficient to pass BLP muster? Because while we both may believe without reservation that Trump frequently lies about his own views of race, we cannot base our content decisions on our own original research. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

MPants at work...thank you for explaining in a manner that somehow kept eluding me. It proves once again that collaboration, voluntary or otherwise, is always the best option. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. What did I explain? (I've done a shocking amount of explaining in this thread so far, please forgive me if I can't nail down what part you're referring to.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Comments? That text is utterly vacuous and communicates nothing at all about anything at all. Let's move on. SPECIFICO talk 21:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

It communicates a racial view by Donald Trump, which is supposed to be the article's core subject, right? — JFG ^talk 22:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

No it's something about open heart surgery or whatever, but he's not a doctor and if we all bleed patriot-blood then what's the point of his message and to be perfectly blunt, this is so far from conveying any encyclopedic content that this thread is a pure waste of our scarce editor resources and cannot possibly produce anything of value tou our readers. Please spare us any OR as to your interpretation of the crypto-metaphor nonsense in the snippet and move on. SPECIFICO talk 22:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Open-heart surgery? Pity I can't have some of what you're smoking… Seriously, if you feel that your time is wasted by discussing article contents with your fellow Wikipedians, then you are totally free to leave this thread and be more productive elsewhere. — JFG ^talk 22:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

💔 😷 - dint feel a thing. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support - JFG you can use this source which is not a primary, and gives a world perspective...even better. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting the edit, but this Euronews source is no better: it just selectively prints excerpts from the full speech, and adds no commentary or "world perspective" that we can use. — JFG ^talk 22:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

As long as the source does the selecting, it is acceptable. I went through a similar argument last year. WP editors cannot choose "key statements" to use from a primary source but a secondary RS certainly can, and that is what makes the phrase and this source acceptable for us to use. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Adding - take a look at Trump–Russia_dossier#Reactions to specific allegations - more proof that as long as the primary was published by secondary sources, we can use a summary of key points RS used. The dossier probably includes blatant SYNTH to gather the commentary...I haven't checked it. No deadline. Ironic how the article is about Trump's views but we can't use his views? Ha! ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey Atsme, my nephew's beagle is white black and brown. When she has open heart surgery, will she bleed patriots blood too? Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 22:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO...I know you mean well, but mocking Trump's inaugural speech and comparing it to your nephew's beagle is quite a stretch, it puts your big toe right on the line. You know I appreciate the occasional "fun quip" and oh lorty I love an injection of levity when editing "volatile" articles...but this isn't one of those times. 🤗 Seriously, if we're going to stay with the title, Racial views of Donald Trump, then we need to include his racial views and less of what others claim are his racial views...or rename the article. Can't have it both ways. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)  

🐶 He bleeds the *best* blood. SPECIFICO talk 23:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

To give you the solemn reply you deserve, I see no mention of "race" in that green quote box. If POTUS makes 100 public statements and an average of 6 tweeters a day, which ones are noteworthy for encyclopedic exposition here? Not one a few editors pick out that, like, doesn't even mean anything. SPECIFICO talk 23:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Prejudice - it actually covers the sections of this article better because Muslim is not a race, immigration policy is not a race, the pardon of Joe Arpaio is not a race, and on and on. Major holes in your argument - will not withstand the test of time. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I think you hopped on the wrong tram, my dear. What section were you looking to post this?

You forgot what this was about? See #3 click on the diff, or scroll up to the start of this thread - a subsection in History.

I'm really sorry. I couldn't figure out what your comment had to do with any of the above and I thought you might have been chiming in on a different topic. never mind. SPECIFICO talk 23:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The quote from the speech is cherrypicked and not established noteworthy by the bulk of mainstream RS. Under the circumstances, to follow up on your statement that it communicates POTUS "racial view" -- could you please paraphrase that view to a) verify your claim, and b) lay the basis for a discussion as to whether that's related to his racial views. Bear in mind that "patriot" is not a "race". Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO - re: "patriot" is not a "race". Exactly! So happy that you get it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Gzz this is starting to look like bees. But for the most part I agree with the edits.

1 - Some is more accurate and the inversion needs to be fixed

2 - Does seem like unverifiable junk.

3 - As written is an issue, but can easily be fix with a period without dropping the whole section. PackMecEng (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

1. "Some" is not the word used by the sources. "Numerous" is.

2. Nonsense - the way to verify it is right there - click on the inline citation.

3. Let's see a proposal. In the meantime we don't keep SYNTH in the article just because some people like it.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

1-4 studies is not numerous.

2-Poppycock, two unknown people said something happen that has not been verified by anyone that was there.

3-Could just drop the first part and let the second stand on it's own. PackMecEng (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

"1-4 studies is not numerous." - your opinion/original research. Sources disagree since they actually use the term "numerous" (the "1-4" - which one is it "1" or "4"? - highlighted in the article are just representative)

That's not what "verifiability" means on Wikipedia. Or in real world actual. But feel free to keep making up rules that do not reflect actual Wikipedia policy.

No, it all goes.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

So how many people disagreeing with you would it take to end this? I mean dang look at this wall of the same stuff over and over. PackMecEng (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Here are my thoughts.

1 - RS aren't required to avoid peacock phrases to bolster their point, so "some" is an acceptable substitute for "numerous" for use in Wikipedia.

2 - I don't have a strong opinion whether this is included or excluded. Another option is merging this into another section (the one that talks about Haiti).

3 - Remove per WP:OPED. It's like writing, "While Hillary Clinton was criticized for ignoring Trump voters, she actually reached out to them in a campaign speech." Even if you could source both clauses, this should be removed. ^Falling_Gravity 18:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

1. "Numerous" isn't a peacock phrase.

2. (...)

3. Yep.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

What do these words have to do with "race"?

Here is the proposed quote from POTUS "Through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other. When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice. […] Whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots." @JFG, Atsme, and MjolnirPants: Please state how and why these words present a view about "race". Without guesses about what he really meant to say. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 18:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Well one thing I know for sure is that he was not talking about the millions of brown people who lived here long before we arrived because he said that the Americans settled between a great ocean and a vast wilderness, and he was not talking about the black people we imported as slaves because he said Americans have always stood for and always strived for freedom. Gandydancer (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You are alleging that his comments about "black or brown or white" are patently not referring to race? Is that it? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I am a little confused as well. Saying no matter the skin color we are all the same on the inside is clearly a comment on race. PackMecEng (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

My point has nothing to do with slaves or race, etc. My point is that political speeches are just a lot of happy horseshit that no one with their head screwed on right believes, including the politician that gives them. I'm pretty sure it was in Philip Roth's Our Gang where every time a politician made a speech Roth would just fill a half a page with blah, blah, blah, blah, blah... Gandydancer (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Excluding Bernie Sanders, of course. Gandydancer (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. But I fail to see how it relates to the assertion that comments on "black or brown or white" people aren't related to race. Whether or not a politician's speech is sincere has nothing to do with the topic of his speech, and I mean that to be taken quite literally in both possible senses; I wouldn't trust a politician telling me what he wants for dinner.

Excluding Bernie Sanders, of course. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

MPants, I was being sarcastic. You'd think that I would have learned by now that sarcastic comments are almost always misunderstood. (As an aside, I know we're not supposed to get too personal here but I can hardly say how pissed off I was at these words of his - How dare he speak for minorities considering his record of total disregard for all that is important to them. The Dakota pipeline for example where he reversed Obama's stop order on it just days after elected. This and the Dreamers comment made me grrr. The rest of it just ran right off my back.) Gandydancer (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

If you were being sarcastic about political speeches being "just a lot of happy horseshit", then you are saying that you believe it's possible Trump was being sincere. If you were being sarcastic about Our Gang, then I'm afraid that's not how sarcasm works (the literal truth isn't sarcasm). If you were being sarcastic about The Bern, then so was I and none of that affects my response. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

So we can assign folks to a "race" with a spectrometer? You know, don't you, that there are plenty of Sicilians whose skin is less reflective than plenty of North Africans and Tibetans? Even our WP articles on the subject of race would quickly convince a thoughtful editor that such an interpretation is based on nothing defensible. SPECIFICO talk 20:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Ahem... You are alleging that his comments about "black or brown or white" are patently not referring to race? Is that it? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Gandydancer, please...my family all the way back in time did not "import" slaves - they were slaves...and so were women of all colors and many still are to this day. Let's keep things in perspective. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources

• I think it's worth pointing out that Trump didn't write his inaugural speech. It was written by Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon. They're not Trump's words....and, as we all know, he has the best words.- MrX 🖋 22:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd dearly love to see you make this argument in every instance where a speech is quoted and attributed to the speaker, but written by a speech writer. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Back to the original topic

Volunteer Marek - JFG is largely right; #1 is not representative of the cite and I think should be deleted as a bad job rather than efforts to save it; #2 'someone said that someone said that Trump said' sounds a lot like gossip, and the inclusion here looks a lot like WP:GOSSIP scandalmongering, so it's at least debateable/removable as suspect; #3 - I'd say drop the lead-in as not in the cite, but that snippet was widely reported and highlighted. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

1. 1, No he's actually not. The text represents the cite IF it says "numerous" like the source does. JFG (and you) apparently want to change that to the weasel word "some" (which falsely implies that "some" studies found something else) which is NOT what the source says. It takes some chutzpah to advocate for misrepresenting the source and then claim that the original text "is not representative of the cite".
2. 2, No that's not what this is and this info is cited to reliable sources. One more time - WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT isn't an argument. It's not gossip. Please stop being ridiculous, since that sort of makes a serious conversation impossible.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, all. I’ve been gone for two weeks and came back to find this thread being discussed on my talk page. Right now I don’t have time or inclination to pick my way through the wall of text here. I’ll just comment on the three edits that started this thread.

1. Numerous studies and surveys have shown that since Trump's ascendance in the Republican Party, racist attitudes and racial resentment have become more significant than economic factors in determining voters' party allegiance. was changed to Some studies and surveys have claimed that Trump's political ascendance has made racist attitudes and racial resentment more significant than economic factors in determining party allegiance of voters.. I strongly object to the new edit stating that Trump’s political ascendance CAUSED ("has made") the increased importance of racist attitudes. That’s a classic example of post hoc ergo propter hoc - the logical fallacy that since these two things happened at the same time, therefore one of them caused the other. The original sentence states the corellation of the two things without suggesting that one of them caused the other, and IMO we should change back to that wording. I am OK with changing “numerous” to “some”. I don’t like “claimed” which is a classic weasel word; how about “suggested” or “demonstrated”?

2. I agree with removing this paragraph. It is supported by two anonymous sources and denied by three others; that’s too indefinite to include.

3. I agree with the suggestion here that we include the quote from his inaugural address, without the introductory clause intended to contradict it. Yes, it’s true he was reading from prepared remarks and may not have meant a word of it. But the words came out of his mouth, they were specifically about race and promoting racial harmony, and they should be included here. That is not “cherry picking” any more than all the other quotes we have include here (shithole countries, rapists and murderers, etc.) are cherry picking. --MelanieN (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

WRT to you point #3, there is big difference between taking a quote from a secondary source and a Wikipedia editor selecting a quote from a primary source. Find a good secondary sources that highlight this quote as indicative of Trump's view on race, and I will gladly support it. - MrX 🖋 17:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

See WP:SKYBLUE. Except for SPECIFICO, no-one in their right mind would question that this is Trump talking about race. We don't need a source to state that this is Trump talking about race, and we don't need for this quote to be accurate or truthful or written by Trump himself for us to quote it, else we'd never quote any politician. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Great, Mr. Pants. Now you're accusing me of being in my right mind?? Really? At any rate, in case MelanieN chooses to continue on this thread -- and I would not advise it, frankly, -- the issue about the Inaugural Address can be summarized as follows. An editor unapologetically selected a primary-sourced snippet from a NYTimes video of the address without also citing or including any of the secondary reporting that gave context and meaning to the cherrypicked words. Then the (secondary) accompanying NYT article was also cited but nothing from it was added or acknowledged for article text. So the issue is whether this article should be an editor-curated selection of quotes from Trump or whether it should present secondary discussion of his racial views according to the weight of RS discussion of them.

This article is about Trump's views, just as other articles are about for example Shakespeare's plays orGreek mythology. Such articles don't just post an anthology of primary source extracts. They present commentary interpretation and evaluation of the subject. Some editors appear to advocate lots of editor-selected primary source extracts, but that is exactly what we should not be doing. We need to present a balanced discussion of the subject, not a primary exposition of the subject itself -- and especially not one that's selected through the Original Research of WP editors. The concern that published negative evaluations of Trump's views are "attacks" makes no sense. We should balance such views in due proportion with evaluations that see his views on race more positively. We should look for such references. We don't have lots of positive fodder for such balance on a broad array of subjects that are commonly viewed as negative. The racial views of Trump is only one such topic on WP.

Finally, this inaugural address was widely viewed as a kind of hamfisted amateur speechwriting effort by Miller and Bannon and not very articulate about the views or policies of the new administration. But there are secondary sources we can use to discuss whatever racial view grist it may offer. SPECIFICO talk 19:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no question that Trump was referring to race. What is disputable is whether he expressed his actual views. One would think that if they were his actual views, it would be trivial for our army of Wikipedia editors to find some sources that say as much. Speaking of spectral analysis, skies can be black, gray, white, orange, yellow, red...- MrX 🖋 18:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

What is disputable is whether he expressed his actual views. I've already addressed this. The views he expressed were as follows: Patriotism overcomes or destroys prejudice and American of all races can be patriots. So find a reliable source that disputes that he actually believes those things, and you've started a reasonable argument for exclusion. But even then, you'd still need to find a policy-based reason not to quote deceptive statements. That first view is so incredibly naive and stupid that, personally, I have no trouble believing that he actually holds it to be true. The second one is just so obviously true that I doubt anyone who isn't a self-proclaimed racist fails to believe it. So you have your work cut out for you, if you want to defend this ridiculous position. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Status of disputed edits

Back to editing after a couple days break, I see that discussion is still vibrant around here… Just for the record, here's what happened to the 3 issues raised by Volunteer Marek at the beginning of this thread:

1. After some back and forth with Marek and other editors, I have corrected a few days ago the source misrepresentation (cause vs consequence) and changed the quantifier from "numerous" to "several".[31] Text currently in the lead is: Several studies and surveys have stated that racist attitudes and racial resentment have fueled Trump's political ascendance, and have become more significant than economic factors in determining party allegiance of voters. This version correctly paraphrases the cited sources and has not been significantly challenged by further comments; I believe we can put item 1 to rest.

2. There is disagreement among editors whether rude comments in a June 2017 meeting, as reported by the New York Times on December 23, are significant enough to merit inclusion. Some editors argue this episode is secondary hearsay which lacks weight, others insist that the source is reliable therefore the comments need to stay. Will assess potential consensus below.

3. A section I restored (originally written by somebody else), citing Trump's comment about patriotism being independent of race during his inauguration address, was challenged per WP:SYNTH. I suggested to remove the While Trump was criticized… intro which gave an impression of synthesis, although the cited source made that argument, so it's technically not synthesis. Regardless, it's probably better to simply cite Trump's speech without commentary: "Through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other. When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice. […] Whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots." However the unadorned quote was also criticized by some editors as "not being about race", which sounds rather weird. When a sentence starts with "no matter if you're black, brown or white", it's a pretty direct way to say "no matter your race". Given the paucity of actual direct comments by Trump about races and racism, I believe this quote is eminently WP:DUE in an article called "Racial views of Donald Trump" (noting that there was no consensus to change the title in the recent move request). However, some editors are strongly opposed to citing this part of the speech, so perhaps we need a survey or an RfC.

In brief:

1. Issue was resolved a few days ago already.

2. 6 editors have argued to remove the snippet (JFG, Birtig, Atsme, PackMecEng, Markbassett, MelanieN), 2 want to keep it (Volunteer Marek, Only in death does duty end). MrX and Falling Gravity said we can live with or without it, Mjolnir Pants and SPECIFICO did not comment on this question. This looks like rough consensus to remove, and I will proceed.

3. Debate about including Trump's unadorned quote has been blurred by considerations of the deprecated synth-looking commentary, and considerations whether we can select the relevant part of a speech at all, whether the words should be attributed to speechwriters, or whether white black and brown beagles also bleed patriot blood! I'll call a quick survey to clarify where we're standing.

Happy Friday, folks! — JFG ^talk 10:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

NY Times story relates to corporate advisors dropping Trump

Here. the corporate advisory panels were disbanded after mass resignations. SPECIFICO talk 17:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Why was the CBC info moved?

Why has the information about the CBC been renamed to "Reactions by the Congressional Black Caucus" and moved to the shithole section? Gandydancer (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Because it describes reactions by the CBC to Trump's "shithole" remark. — JFG ^talk 09:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It is irresponsible to make edits without even reading the article. You also removed information from the SPLC saying it had nothing to do with race, for example:

It was reported that there has been an increase in "verbal harassment, the use of slurs and derogatory language, and disturbing incidents involving swastikas, Nazi salutes and Confederate flags". "Nearly a third of the incidents were motivated by anti-immigrant sentiment and anti-black incidents were the second-most common, with frequent references to lynching.'

I guess you didn't read this either but rather just deleted it because you didn't like it. I will adjust the article. Gandydancer (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Attribute POV

@MrX: re: "Attribution to news sources is fine. Additional detail about who wrote the news articles is excessive." This is misleading for our readers. NBC News and Vox are the publishers, not the writers, of those quotes. See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. ^Falling_Gravity 15:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Attribution to specific journalists is only appropriate when the sources are opinion columns. In this case, the journalists are reporting on behalf of their news organizations, not themselves. It would be misleading to suggest to readers that some material only reflects the views of the individual journalists, when in fact there are backed by the news organizations themselves (researchers, reporters, fact checkers, editors, etc.).- MrX 🖋 16:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The proposed edit includes attribution to both the author and news organization, meaning it reflects both their views. ^Falling_Gravity 16:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I know. That's what I'm opposed to. It's excessive, obtrusive, and tends to cast doubt on the material.- MrX 🖋 16:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

No, MrX - that isn't quite accurate. In-text attribution is required for other reasons as well, not just "Op-eds", including any biased opinion in any article WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and per WP:V, If there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what the reliable sources say. Perhaps such a misunderstanding of our 3 core content policies are why we're having this NPOV issue? ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Of course, as no editor here is pushing a POV, that must be it. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, I never said that attribution was only required for opinion pieces; I said "to specific journalists" is not necessary, and I explained why. The writer of the source article do not own the views they write about. Also, are there actually sourced viewpoints in opposition to the text in question?- MrX 🖋 17:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

My offhand remark started a tangentially related discussion. FallingGravity 02:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"The writer of the source article do not own the views they write about." This is some rather mind-bending original research, but let's just stick to Wikipedia policies here. Also, since you seem interested in adding opposing viewpoints to the article, should we present these viewpoints from notable commentators, or should they just be removed because of "UNDUE"? FallingGravity 19:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC) We should include attribution even if they are from "opposing" viewpoints or not. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Any third-party commentary or opinion in an article like this should be supported by at least two or three sources, otherwise it's probably WP:UNDUE. If you're not able to differentiate journalistic analysis from commentary and opinion, then this may not be the article for you.- MrX 🖋 23:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Time to review the actual definition 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." Note that there's no "published in two or three sources" requirement, just a "published by reliable sources" requirement. FallingGravity 00:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC) How is it significant if it is published in only one place? SPECIFICO talk 00:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC) SPECIFICO, multiple sources are required to establish WP:N. If it's an article in WP, it has probably already met the requirements for N, so multiple sources are no longer required...unless it's subject to WP:PUBLICFIGURE, If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported. Credibility of a RS is determined by the credibility of the publisher, and/or credentials of the author. The depth of mention is also a consideration for inclusion. A common misconception is that when a source is determined to be "reliable" that determination is a fixed, absolute judgment - not so. Reliability depends on two main criteria - (1) the source itself and (2) how it is used. WP:RSN cannot say unequivocally that a source is reliable for all purposes. If material is challenged, or likely to be challenged, it must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. See WP:BLPSOURCE Atsme📞📧 02:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC) Exactly. 2-3 sources is a reasonable threshold for determining weight. I've mentioned this principle in many, many talk page discussions and I think this is the first time that anyone has expressed disagreement with it.- MrX 🖋 00:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC) It's also stated on many of our policy and guidelines pages and in numerous essays. We must refrain from cherrypicking primary content and finding the silver bullet fringe or clueless theory. There are many topic areas in which to edit where this is not much of a problem. But in politics and recent events articles it's no good. SPECIFICO talk 00:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC) MrX, choosing 2 or 3 RS that support your particular POV is not the intention of our PAGs. While we can use biased RS we must not limit ourselves only to those sources to determine UNDUE and BALANCE re:NPOV. Furthermore, the opinions I've seen that some sources are not RS because a particular group of editors prefer another source (which happens to support their POV) or because there are more sources that "appear" to support that same POV does not determine WEIGHT. Most sources mirror a single source which must be considered when determining weight. AP is cited frequently so while there may be 20 RS referring to an AP article/report, it is still only 1 RS. Atsme📞📧 01:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC) I'm not suggesting that editors choose sources to support their POV. Syndicated content should indeed be treated like a single source, but if the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and ABC News each write stories about Trump's racial history, then those have to be treated as separate sources.- MrX 🖋 01:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Any subjective statements or judgements made by a journalist writing a news story should rightly be attributed to the publisher, not the journalist. They write on behalf of their publisher, not on behalf of themselves. This is why opinion columns were traditionally given to highly respected, senior journalists; to reward their efforts with the ability to speak for themselves, instead of toeing the company line. So the statement "The writer of the source article do not own the views they write about" might not make sense to everyone, but it's certainly based on the actual workings of journalism. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Does Vox even have opinion columns? Most Vox articles I've read are a mix of reporting and commentary. Moreover, this commentary appears to be coming from the article's author, not opinions emanating from the monolithic Vox Media. ^Falling_Gravity 01:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Does Vox even have opinion columns? I don't believe so, but that's even more reason to attribute it to Vox, not the author. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be even more reason to also attribute the author (you know, the person who actually wrote the commentary), not just Vox (the website that edited and published said article)? We are doing a disservice for our readers by omitting the person who actually wrote the statements we're quoting. ^Falling_Gravity 21:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Not really. We give the citation which should always include the author's name when possible. It's not like we're hiding it from the reader. Besides, even if such a statement were entirely the product of the author (and I believe that most such statements are), the outlet itself (via the editors) has to endorse it for publication. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Weight & Balance issues

I broke the issues up into 3 sections of 5-5-7, so we'll focus only on the 1st 5, then Section 2, followed by Section 3 ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

UNDUE & IMBALANCE is a concern in the following sections, so rather than tag each, I thought it best to bring it to the TP, and point out the reasons this article is riddled with NPOV.

1. Central Park jogger case - imbalance by omission of Trump's actual views - we already have a main article about the crime/injustice which also includes perceptions of Trump's views but that article isn't my focus. My concern is over the omission of the basis for Trump's views which includes the Chief of Police report, and the position of the Bloomberg administration.
2. "Advantage" of well-educated Blacks - remove because it is editorializing; worse yet, the cited source is questionable at best as it is the Real Estate section of Fortune, hardly where one looks for a scholarly or expert analysis. The full quote is: “A well-educated black has a tremendous advantage over a well-educated white in terms of the job market…if I was starting off today, I would love to be a well-educated black, because I really do believe they have the actual advantage today. “ While it is not a politically correct statement, it is not WP's responsibility to Wikipedia:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. Our job is to use editorial judgment regarding what RS say and present them via NPOV.
3. Birtherism - remove, it has nothing to do with race. The articles in Politico and BBC (and others) clearly demonstrate the focus was about disqualifying Obama's candidacy based on Article 2 of the US Constitution, not racism. To say otherwise is editorializing based on speculation.
4. Hispanic judge - remove, not racism. Bias is not racism (to make a point, neither is partisanship which is also bias - to make it anything more is editorializing).
5. Somali refugees - remove, not racism. The cited source doesn't even mention racism. The focus was Islamic terrorism, and Trump was accused of disparaging immigrants. The sources are cherrypicked to push a negative POV while other sources like The Courant are not cited. It's easy to pull up nothing but negative sources in a Google search asking if "Trump is a racist" vs "Trump is not a racist" - both should be used in an effort to achieve NPOV, BALANCE & WEIGHT. Regardless, this section needs to be removed.

Section 2

Immigration policy - remove...it has nothing to do with Trump's racial views. Terrorism concerns have nothing to do with race. Black Caucus - more of the same imbalance and 100% negativity. If not written to achieve NPOV, then it really needs to be removed. The NYTimes' opinion that Trump's question "Are they friends of yours?" is somehow racially motivated is clearly opinion not a statement of fact. WP is not a SOAPBOX to promote racial advocies, or moral or racial equivalency arguments, regardless of whether they are right or wrong, a good cause or a bad cause. We write only the facts, and avoid editorializing. What the Black Caucus thinks of Trump belongs in Congressional Black Caucus, not in Racial views of Donald Trump. Pardon of Joe Arpaio - again, not racist. I fail to see how profiling Mexicans to prevent illegal immigration along the Mexican border is racist. It's profiling not a racial issue. Profiling could also include men with tattoos, people 5'9" wearing hoodies, or teens wearing their pants down to their knees. Charlottesville rally - He did not condone it. MSM expected his condemnation and criticism to be immediate, before anyone knew exactly what happened but how is that not a rush to judgment? I also understand that it shouldn't matter because some believe supremacists do not deserve any consideration, but that isn't how it works in the US (regardless of our personal views) and it certainly isn't what WP is all about (NPOV, dispassionate tone, etc) - our job is to present the facts in compliance with our 3 core content policies. Elizabeth Warren - not racist...political. It was a rude insult to a political adversary and a balance of sources chosen per NPOV explain why. Perhaps an article titled Rude comments by Donald Trump would be more appropriate for WP?

Section 3

"Shithole countries" - no proof he ever said that beyond anecdotal claims. We know he said something, but it is not WP's job to determine exactly what it was he said - we report what we know to be statements of fact. If a disparaging remark, we use in-text attribution, and we include the denials for BALANCE & WEIGHT. One Democrat attended that meeting and 2 Republicans denied the allegations made by that Democrat as did Trump. We aren't even sure the term was "shithole". Furthermore, it wasn't "racial" - it was disparaging toward poverty/war stricken countries. How is that racial? Common sense. Impact - remove, because it cannot be proven that any of it is a result of Trump's racial views which have not been identified in this article to begin with so what are we doing exactly? This section is total POV via editorializing. Imagine an article that included the "impacts" of Bill Clinton's extra-marital affairs with Lewinsky, where there is actual legal evidence and admission? There are plenty of news sources that blame the lack of follow-thru impeachment by the Senate on the continuing sexual abuse by politicians. Effects on students - remove. The sources mirror SPLC which is an advocacy. NPOV does not allow us to promote advocies. Reactions by the Congressional Black Caucus - remove - how many times do we include the Black Caucus reactions? Defenses of Donald Trump - if this article is about the Racial views of Donald Trump, why does he need to defend what has not yet been presented? What are his "racial views"? All I've seen are criticisms, most not even based on his "racial views." Analysis - remove...it is nothing more than detractors making derogatory comments based in political opinion. To even include an analysis by Journalists and pundits is POV and advocacy. Opinion polling - need I say more?

References
References

• The above are the challenged issues regarding the NPOV issues in this article. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with each and every one of these points. They're indicative of misunderstanding and/or misapplication of policies and guidelines, false premises, ipse dixit assertions, tu quoque reasoning, already settled matters, and original research.- MrX 🖋 00:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Disagree all - per MrX. We should close this thread. SPECIFICO talk 00:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, if you don't want to participate, that's fine. No one is holding your feet to the fire. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Disagree all - We can only stay with the RS on this issue and not create original material or base the article on biased reporting from agenda driven sources. I feel that an non-NPOV is being put forward without building consensus or in some of these points, basing it on available evidence. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• @Atsme: I agree that the article has some problems, but proposing mass section blankings probably isn't going to get anywhere. You should alert WP:BLPN, WP:NPOVN, or the talk page of WP:TRUMP, to your most urgent concerns. ^Falling_Gravity 02:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

FallingGravity, NPOV and WP:PUBLICFIGURE are inseparable from WP:BLP, all of which are at issue here. If I called an individual RfC for each of the 17 sections, it would take nearly 1-1/2 yrs. to correct the noncompliance and that is unacceptable. In addition to BLP issues that are created because of noncompliance with NPOV, editor consensus does not override our non-negotiable NPOV policy. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)  

^{I broke it up into 3 sections so it wouldn't seem overwhelming. That way we can focus on 1-5 first, then move to the next section of 5, then to the final 7. Atsme📞📧} 03:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Dividing it up, does not make a difference, given [32] and [33] and all the other very long record of actions and comments. Just focus for a moment on Birtherism and consider for a second that Sen. John McCain's citizenship was never called into question by Trump, even though he was born in Coco Solo, Panama. The fact is if even one of your parents is a U.S. citizen, you are by right a citizen from birth unless you give it up; it does not matter where you are born; unless of course you are a Black man running for President, it would appear. How else does Birtherism make sense but in the light of racism, for that is the sole differential factor, given Obama's mother was a U.S. citizen. We can go down ever point, but they will end the same way, with racial bias being a major factor in differential treatment. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

We don't editorialize, and we don't speculate that racism is the reason Obama's citizenship was challenged as a presidential candidate - being a natural born citizen is a requirement which has nothing to do with color or creed - the only race that's important is the presidential race. As for the citizenship of other presidential candidates being challenged - the citizenship of Ted Cruz was called into question and so was his father's past - had nothing to do with race. McCain's citizenship was called into question - had nothing to do with race. Barry Goldwater's citizenship was challenged when he was a presidential candidate in '64 - was racism an issue then? The Birtherism section needs to go as do the other sections in the article that have -0- to do with race. ^{Atsme📞📧} 07:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Barry Goldwater being Jewish, so yes it was, just as Ted Cruz being Cuban. If you are white in the USA, like John McCain, you are given a free pass so it seems. This differential treatment is not explainable in any other way, but racism. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, wow - did I read your comment correctly? What are editors supposed to think when you say white people like McCain are given a free pass? That is unacceptable in a discussion about NPOV issues in a BLP about a white president - I'm beginning to think we're getting closer to discovering the cause of our issues. FYI, then Senator Obama was a co-sponsor of the bill that cleared-up the confusion about McCain's citizenship. It had nothing to do with race. Read the Natural-born-citizen clause. McCain was legally a US citizen at birth, and so was/is everyone else who was/is born under those conditions - regardless of race. On the other hand, Cruz's mother was a US citizen but his father wasn't. He was simply employed in Canada when Cruz was born. Cruz held dual citizenship but because his status was challenged as a presidential candidate, he gave up his Canadian citizenship. Huge difference, and again, none of it based on racism. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

To pretend that racial bias does not exist in the U.S.A., is to be blind to historical reality. I recall a tale of an interaction between Obama and Biden; Biden noted that Obama had been slighted by someone, and was a bit upset; Obama reminded Biden that the racial bias in the U.S.A. works both ways and if it were not of that fact, he may not have become President. Obama said, "You have to take the good with the bad". This is honesty, but you are pushing a revisionist history that sees everyone as equal; which is not yet a reality, not yet. Of course, someone closer to the color-line sees a reality of racial privilege that still happens to this day; O', and it's not just the U.S.A., but many places and lands. Walk a mile in the shoes of a person of color and see; be it France or Texas, it is a different experience, this is what I have experienced as a Mestizo/Métis. Racial bias still exists. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

You missed my point, CW. WP is neither the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, nor is it a WP:SOAPBOX. Racial bias should not exist here on Wikipedia - we leave our biases at login. This article has NPOV issues, and thanks to the RfC (I assume) more and more editors are becoming aware of the problems. There are sections that belong elsewhere that are being used to describe racism and have nothing at all to do with racism. See my list of 17 items above. If editors are unable to determine the differences between racism and border security or terrorism, they should not be editing this article. I am very dismayed by your responses. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Racial bias exists out there, that is the point, and Trumps actions as well as his words are a part of that real world which your wishing can not erase. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

What MrX said in his first comment above. At some point this kind of time-wasting becomes disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Then please stop wasting our time. We have NPOV issues that need to be corrected. If you don't want to collaborate, then please stop interrupting others from doing what needs to be done. It is really beginning to smell like OWN. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Really? "I know you are but what am I?" That's your argument? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that the best way to stop these accusations as to whether things are "racist" is to clearly define the scope of this article. If we expand it to something broader then people won't raise these concerns again, but if we don't then we need to make sure we can defend the inclusions and omissions objectively. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The scope of the article is defined. It hasn't changed. It's Donald Trump's well-documented history of racially-charged remarks and racially-motivated actions. It's not a coincidence that a small minority of editors who tried to get the article deleted at AfD are now trying to get it deleted piece by piece by making broad, unfounded claims of WP:NPOV violations. These unfounded claims are based on original research and personal preference rather than reliable sources. It's starting to look like tendentiousness.- MrX 🖋 22:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Defined the way you want it to be, MrX - not the way it should be per NPOV. Emir of Wikipedia - I agree with you, so what is the next step. There is a small group of editors here who refuge to budge - WP:OWN - despite the fact that the majority of the subtopics in the main History section are unrelated to race, but have taken on a racial cast apparently to fit a particular POV. Worse yet, the article is not even about Trump's views; rather, it's about the views of his detractors and what they think of Trump, apparently to further their own political agenda. I'm not quite sure why this article hasn't been deleted as an attack page, but something needs to be done. I'm open to your suggestions - do we take it to NPOV/N now that discussion has hit a dead end? ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that the next step is to not discount other peoples views by saying that some small group or minority of editors are acting in a certain way. We should use this talkpage to comment on the content, if an editor or editors are stonewalling the improvement of the project then report them elsewhere. The scope of the article should fit NPOV, but whether it should be just about racial statements or something broader is not a neutrality issue. We can include commentary on Trumps views in this article instead of just simply listing them as long as the views are from RSs and not our own. This article survived a lengthy AfD but I accept that we can improve it. A RfC could be a better option than NPOV/N but lets give this another day or two of discussion, not everybody will be commenting in the first day. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not discounting the views of the minority, but we do work by consensus. The minority can try to influence consensus by making arguments that convey an understanding of our policies, or present new information from sources, but repackaging the same arguments with vague waves to policy shortcuts is a waste of everyone's time. I think the scope of the article is about right, but if there is a solid argument for broadening it, I'm all ears. The goal is to have an informative article of the subject that represents the body of available sources.- MrX 🖋 23:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: That's your opinion, and you notice that your opinion has not gained much traction as of late. The subject of the article was discussed on talk:Donald Trump. I know, because I started the discussion. If you want to influence consensus, you can't just throw around TLA's without any substance behind your arguments and make sweeping claims contrary to existing consensus, and expect to be taken seriously. A good content argument starts with a reasonable premise backed by reliable sources, and then builds on that foundation toward some level of consensus. That's not happening here.- MrX 🖋 22:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

"Shithole countries"

"Shithole countries" is not a racial statement; it is a statement about the level of development of particular nations. Not races. The UN's human development index is likewise not a statement about race. "Shithole countries" is obviously noteworthy, but it does not belong on Trump's "racial views" page; it belongs on Trump's political views or immigration policy page. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that anything Trump did or said that resulted in accusations of racism from or reported by RSes belongs on this page because we are not expected to judge whether or not such statements or actions were germane to Trump's racial views; we are expected to let the reliable sources judge that for us. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree - political opposition makes everything about racism when it isn't, and I have cited RS that have pointed out that fact on this TP. We are supposed to exercise editorial judgment, not blindly repeat what journalists and pundits say, especially when there are known biases. Our job is NPOV and getting the article right. I also pointed out in my list above where some RS that were cited don't even mention racism. It is a major problem, and it needs to be fixed. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

If RSes call it racist or report that it's widely called racist, then us not including it here is a form of WP:OR, as it's us basically disagreeing with those sources in order to determine content here. That's not even remotely acceptable. If the majority of sources don't identify it as racist, then we can say that. But we can't simply exclude this matter because some of us don't agree with the sources. For what it's worth, I don't think the comment itself is de facto racism: I agree that it's a comment about nations, and even that it's a comment based in a realistic summation of those nations' economic and social conditions. But too many RSes have identified it as a racist comment for me to suggest that we go with my own interpretation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Well all it takes is the first one. If one RS says it is racist then others can and will jump in and say that it's been reported as racist, and then that has been fully determined to be racist. That is the way our news cycle works now, and in a way it is its own form of citogenesis. I specifically say news cycle because this article is almost entirely sourced by news reports. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. Now, what does this have to do with anything? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

It has everything to do with it, starting with WP:NEWSORG and WP:NOTNEWS. We are an encyclopedia, not a SOAPBOX and or here to RIGHTGREATWRONGS by hammering our readers with allegations of the president being a racist. The real questions are not being asked, like what does a border wall to stop drug traficking and smuggling have to do with race? What does a ban on countries known for terrorism have to do with race? When Obama wanted it, he wasn't called racist. Why is Trump a racist for doing the same things? Those are the real questions that need to be asked here. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Mr.Ernie's opinion is 1) wrong and 2) irrelevant to this article. Same for your comment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

....and thunder rolled, and the seas parted.... - VM, you're argument is not convincing. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: - Fact much? SPECIFICO talk 19:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO Facts only ma'am. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

There are a couple that make the case the comments were not based on race. Mostly centering around Rand Paul's interpretation. Newsweek, Politico, and Huffington Post. But they are a minority view. PackMecEng (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

From my post above - Worse yet, not all are race-related. The following Slate article describes Tesler's analysis: Since 2009, Tesler has been chronicling what he calls the “racialization” of issues in the Obama era—the extent to which public opinion on topics unrelated to race have taken on a racial cast as Obama has staked out positions on them." We should be using editorial judgment to not include topics unrelated to race, such as the ban on certain Muslim countries that Obama first named, the border wall that prior presidents supported - they need to be removed as neither is racially motivated. To simply include misinformation because that happens to be what the (cherrypicked) sources say - I point to policy: WP:NOTNEWS As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Then there is WP:NEWSORG: Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis. Multiple sources should not be asserted for any wire service article. Such sources are essentially a single source. WP:BIASED states When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that... Common sense tells us that building a border wall has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with national defense to stop drug trafficking, smuggling, etc. - it's a topic that is unrelated to race and belongs in an immigration article. Claims of racism typically originate from biased sources which requires in-text attribution BUT if it's not racism, even though it's verifiable in a news source, our job is to exercise good editorial judgment and maintain the quality and credibility of our encyclopedia. We are NOTNEWS. Why do we need 12+ unrelated allegations of racism in this encyclopedia, some cited to biased RS that are publishing quotes by Trump detractors so he can be found guilty in the court of public opinion - and ne'ery a word about the opposing views in those same sources to provide proper WEIGHT & BALANCE. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

"Common sense tells us that building a border wall has nothing to do with racism" Right. How is the Canadian border wall coming along? - MrX 🖋 18:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Canada welcomes US citizens because they always go home. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Common sense tells us that building a border wall has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with national defense to stop drug trafficking, smuggling, etc. That's not common sense. That's self delusion. It's based on categorically false claims of terrorists coming over the border, categorically false claims of illegal immigrants stealing jobs from Americans, categorically false claims about the effectiveness of a wall and categorically false claims about at least a half a dozen other things. It only makes sense if you believe a bunch of obvious bullshit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, MPants at work, if you don't live along a southern border in the US, or within 100 miles of it, you can't possibly know what really goes on. If you think leftist MSM is going to tell you, think again. I have close friends who own land along the border - I lived a short 300 mi. from Brownsville - ask the people who live along the border what the real issues are as the drug cartels and smugglers go about their business in human trafficking and weapons trade. Texas doesn't have the resources to stop it. You say self-delusion, and that a wall is a categorically false claim - that tells me MSM has done a great job with their open border propaganda and keeping the American people uninformed via ommission. this is what happens when you get too close to the drug camps. See the stats, they're real. See the strategy for keeping the public uninformed and compliant, it's real. See the terrorist movement, it's real. We simply need to exercise sound editorial judgment, common sense and strict adherence to WP's 3 core content policies - they are our biggest assets in helping to keep WP neutral while rejecting all the SOAPBOX advocacies. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

if you don't live along a southern border in the US, or within 100 miles of it, you can't possibly know what really goes on. In fact, I have, (and far closer than you, if your comment here is accurate) but I appreciate you assuming the opposite because it supports your own preconceptions anyways. I didn't always live where I'm at now. Also, I really like the whole MSM conspiracy theory thing: If you're trying to eliminate any remaining vestiges of respect I have for you, you're doing a bang-up job of it right now. Finally your source which you claim proves that the terrorism threat is real says pretty much the exact opposite. You should really read those things before you grab a link. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Someone who believes in "MSM conspiracy theories" is in the wrong place and simply WP:NOTHERE. Same goes for someone who continues to use article talk pages as their WP:SOAPBOX.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, Rand Paul's back yard is a $**thole, according to the neighbor that clocked him. SPECIFICO talk 20:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Ha, yeah I remember that. Hope they worked it out. PackMecEng (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Yep, a $**thole that a single trespass by his neighbor may have cost him 21 months of cell time, and I'm not talking iPhone. Brilliant. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

He forgot the first rule of fisticuffs: never hit anyone who knows where you live. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• lol* 2nd only to "love thy neighbor". ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

No, it's the first rule. "Love thy neighbor" is the first rule of a completely different manner of using one's fists. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Back on topic, it is evident that saying that some *countries* are better than others is not a statement about race. Even saying that *people from some countries* should be welcome and others should not is not a statement about race; it's a statement about nationality. This is obvious. By putting this material on a page called "racial views" simply because some columnists have read into the statement what they wish to see (whether rightly or wrongly) is not the job of an encyclopedia. There is nothing about *race* in the statement. It doesn't belong under "racial views" except for a minor mention (and a link) indicating that many in the media ascribed the statement to racism. But the "Shithole countries" section itself should be included on the pages for Trump's political positions or immigration policy. That's NPOV. Bueller 007 (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

By putting this material on a page called "racial views" simply because some columnists have read into the statement what they wish to see (whether rightly or wrongly) is not the job of an encyclopedia. You are utterly incorrect. As an encyclopedia, it is our job to report what the reliable sources say, not our own interpretations, no matter how obvious. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, to be clear: NPOV and RS does not mean that Wikipedia's coverage of an event has to echo the *opinions* of journalists. The coverage itself should be neutral; we can then clearly indicate journalists' opinions about the event. In this case, the way to do this is to remove "Shithole countries" from the "Racial Views" page (since it does not contain any statement about race), to add it to another page, and to indicate that many in the media thought that the statement thought it was racist. By including it on the "Racial Views" page, we are suggesting that some journalists' opinions are right (and others are wrong) about this being a racial statement. That's POV editorializing of the type that Wikipedia is not supposed to engage in. Bueller 007 (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

You have already been quite clear that you believe your judgement overrides that of the sources. It also is clear that many people, including journalists and commentators have criticized this remark as being racist. Therefore, it doesn't matter one bit whether it was racist on its face or not because the coverage it has gotten has been mostly about whether or not it was racist, or -rather more accurately- mostly about how racist it was but also with some coverage of whether or not it was racist. Therefore, it is absolutely relevant to this subject and should be covered on this page. It may also be covered on other pages, where it is also relevant, such as the immigration policy page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The article does not have serious WP:NPOV problems. We don't substitute editor's views that something is not a racial statement for respected sources that say otherwise. This article is built on objective news sources and few book sources, so it's a non-starter to suggest that those news sources are "journalists' opinions". If there are news sources that represent a different take on Trump's shithole comments, those should be represented as well, but in proper proportion. - MrX 🖋 22:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, MrX, your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT argument is echoing. We've already cited various policies that explain why your argument won't stay afloat. There aren't many options left after discussion has reached this point so maybe NPOV/N is the best next step. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

My dear Atsme, I am listening and open to adapting my views. Please see my previous response to you. If you want to convince me with your arguments, you can't just make bold sweeping assertions. You are free to start a discussion at any of the DR noticeboards, or start an RfC, but word to the wise: don't bite off more than you can chew. A focused proposal or question is much more likely to reach a resolution than a laundry list of NPOV grievances.- MrX 🖋 23:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, haven’t yet had time to go through all of this as my PC melted like a witch on a rampart. But IMHO, a quick scan would suggest you listen to X’s wise counsel. O3000 (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Your "respected sources" are voicing *opinions*. There are other sources who opine that it was *not* a racial statement. It is not the job of Wikipedia to weigh columnists' opinions against each other. (With, of course, the opinion that *you* favour being the winner.) Whether or not Trump is a racist, "shithole countries" is obviously not a statement about race unless you read into it. And what you read into it may or may not be Trump's state of mind. We do not know. Journalists also do not know. That's why Wikipedia taking a stance on Trump's unknown state of mind (based on journalist opinion) is POV. Again, the NPOV approach is to move this info to a page with a neutral title and then describe how/why various journalists believe it was racist. Bueller 007 (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

They're not columnists; they're journalists. They're not opining; they're reporting.- MrX 🖋 15:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

This is easily refuted by the text of the article: Trump has been called a racist by a number of New York Times columnists including Nicholas Kristof ("I don't see what else we can call him but a racist"), Charles M. Blow ("Trump Is a Racist. Period."), and David Leonhardt ("Donald Trump is a racist"). ^Falling_Gravity 05:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't believe anyone is seriously arguing that there were no racial implications when Trump said he didn't like getting immigrants from "shithole countries" (in context, African countries and Haiti), and wanted more immigrants from "countries like Norway".[34] Even if some people on this board are blind to the racist import of that statement, it was obvious to virtually all the people who commented on it - not just journalists but leaders and politicians from all over the world. Come on, folks. OF COURSE this belongs here, as attested by virtually all Reliable Source coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Survey: inauguration address

Following some recent discussion, there is a suggestion to include the following text in the article:

During his inauguration address on January 20, 2017, Trump stated: "Through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other. When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice. […] Whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots."^{adding secondary sources 15:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)}

Sources

Could participating editors clarify whether they support or oppose including this quote in the article, with a brief rationale? — JFG ^talk 10:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Procedural note: In the hope of gaining time, I am not turning this question into a 30-day RfC. However, if a rough consensus does not emerge from local discussion, then we will probably need to start a formal RfC process to gather more input. — JFG ^talk 10:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: I went ahead and added a couple of secondary sources for good measure. JFG Please add secondary sources that quoted him and provided analysis such as CNN and Boston Globe to name a few. Some editors are confused by the single source cited in the above, thinking it's cited to the actual speech (primary, not that it should matter) instead of the secondary sources that pulled quotes and/or analyzed the speech.^{Atsme📞📧} 14:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Birtig, Atsme, PackMecEng, Markbassett, MelanieN, Volunteer Marek, Only in death, MrX, FallingGravity, MjolnirPants, MPants at work, SPECIFICO, and Gandydancer: Participants in the discussion so far are kindly invited to express their position here. Concisely please. — JFG ^talk 10:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia, Sir Joseph, C. W. Gilmore, Bueller 007, and Mandruss: also qualify as interested parties on various levels but probably have this article on their watchlist. ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Include – This quote is one of the rare direct "racial views" actually expressed by Donald Trump; this is the subject of our article, so this quote should be included irrespective of people's opinions about what he said. — JFG ^talk 10:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Include - Trump's words, high relevancy to the article, RS, his personally spoken view, aligns with policy in that it is in-text attribution, fail to see any valid policy-based reason to not include it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude dozens of sources, it turns out zzz (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC) per WP:PRIMARY, ie unless some RS noted it. No reason to include any cherry picked quote from long, rambling speech written by Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, that was noted for other reasons. zzz (talk) 11:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Signedzzz - added secondary sources. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

See below. zzz (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

zzz: Just an aside re "long, rambling speech": It was actually unusually short. "his brief 15-minute inaugural address was more concise than most swearing-in speeches throughout history".[35] --MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

We're not talking about his short inaugural address. Were talking about his long State of the Union message. Gandydancer (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Look at the section title. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude - primary source without secondary coverage/analysis; low usefulness to reader's understanding. Note that article already notes that Trump denies being racist. Neutrality^talk 12:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Exclude - We shouldn't use a primary source in that way. Editors shouldn't use original research to decide what part of the speech is important or relevant to the subject. We shouldn't try to distill Trump's views from a speech written by Bannon and Miller.- MrX 🖋 12:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

MrX, I added secondary sources, even though using a direct quote from a primary source is allowed. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The Boston Globe simply prints his speech without analysis. The CNN source is the opinion on Tim Stanley, but at least it offers some analysis, specifically: "Trump can be fairly accused of nationalism, but it's hard to find evidence in his public rhetoric of the kind of biological racism on display in Charlottesville. On the contrary, Trump appears to believe in a color-blind patriotism -- the view that all Americans are equal and bound together by loyalty to the flag."- MrX 🖋 19:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

MrX, you must be looking at a different Boston Globe than the one cited in the green box (footnote #3), the title of which is "An analysis of Donald Trump’s inaugural speech" dated January 20, 2017. To begin, that RS confirms that the speech was published in a RS, (and there are many), and it did provide an analysis for pretty much every section of the speech in the right-hand margin. Just wanted to make sure we're on the same page re: the sources. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, the format threw me off. Yes, there is an analysis for this quote:

"A new national pride will stir our souls, lift our sights, and heal our divisions.

It is time to remember that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget: that whether we are black or brown or hite, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots, we all enjoy the same glorious freedoms, and we all salute the same great American Flag."

Thank you Atsme for illuminating 💡 the fact that the quote in this proposal has been so manipulated so that it hardly represents the original at all. I have modified my !vote accordingly.- MrX 🖋 02:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

You must have turned on a 5 watt bulb, MrX because you didn't get full illumination. The CNN article sourced above states: He famously said: "whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots ... we all salute the same great American Flag." In the phrase JFG exampled above, you have to turn the wattage up a bit so you can see the following symbol […] which serves a purpose. It's rough draft editing, MrX, with markups. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• On the fence. On the one hand it is one of the few times he has directly addressed race - leaving aside who wrote the speech, we do not apply that to any head of state - and we routinely include comments by primary subjects. On the other as far as I can see no secondary source has picked up on it, which is surprising given his subsequent issues with the subject (The ABC source is just printing the full text). I am leaning towards yes in the spirit of fairness but its difficult absent comment to do much other than place it in somewhere absent context. Could use it as a framing quote at/near the top. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude - Agree with the rationales in the previous three excludes. Besides, flag-waving, jingoist rhetorical devices are commonly written into such speeches by the speech writers and do not provide a clear view into the mind of those reciting them. If any analysts had taken these words to be meaningful; we would have seen commentary. WP:WEIGHT O3000 (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Include - this page includes things like "shithole countries", which are not even statements about race. When Trump actually *does* talk about race, it is obviously something that should be included on his "racial views" page. Since other editors are either too biased or too lazy to actually look, here is a page where CNN claims that Trump "famously said" this quote: [36] Apparently "reliable sources" don't count if they don't say what you want them to say? Anyone arguing that "shithole countries" should stay because it is in RS should have no problem with this quote being included. Bueller 007 (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Include This is Trump making a statement about race. No matter how hollow it is, it's absolutely germane to this page.

@Only in death: See [37] for some third party analysis. It's pretty shallow, but it's there. The thing is; we're an encyclopedia. We're supposed to be thorough and detailed and cover all the angles. But since we don't hire experts to write, we have to rely on pre-existing sources. Unfortunately for us, those sources have different goals and methods. So they see a hollow, meaningless statement on race from Trump and ignore it because it's hollow and meaningless. But we can't be thorough if we ignore it. So the only thing we can do, is what it proposed above: present it without any analysis or narrower context than "Trump on race". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Pants, no. Actually we do ignore stuff that secondary sources ignore. That's how we know what's noteworthy encyclopedic content. When the whole RS world has more important things to discuss, we shouldn't make WP an anthology of the insignificant. SPECIFICO talk 14:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Would you do us both a huge favor and stop replying to me? Seriously. I'm sick of responding to you and your nonsensical arguments. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Your source says it's about "nostalgia for a country that has... fallen from greatness", not race. And that is obviously correct, when you see the full quote. zzz (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, when you combine that paragraph with the previous one, his point is about nostalgia. But are you asserting that "..whether we are black or brown or white..." is not a reference to race? Understand; the reason I support this inclusion is to show exactly how little Trump has had to say about about the value of diversity. The vast majority of the time when Trump refers to race, he's saying something either explicitly racist or something with racist undertones. What better way to present that neutrally to our reader than to document the thousands of words of explicitly or implicitly racist meaning, and then to allow that to contrast with the dozen or so words he's said about the subject that weren't racist? And, contrary to what SPEC says below; no-one is suggesting we engage in any OR. We're not offering any commentary on the speech, just the speech itself. It's not OR to cite something, even from a primary source. It's OR to come to a conclusion or to make a claim of fact or a value judgement that's not present in the source. None of which is suggested here, though the original version with the intro did do exactly that. Nor is it OR for us to use our judgement as to pick out what portion of the speech to quote, as it doesn't require anything but knowledge of English idioms to understand that the portion picked out refers to race. As I've said before, if WP is supposed to exactly parrot what the source say, then we can simply reduce every article to hyperlinks and quotes. Editorial judgement is absolutely a component of what we do here, else the WMF would have simply created a bot to do the work for us. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Passing off a statement about nostalgia for the days of slavery as an anti-racist statement is definitely not what we do here. zzz (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Pants, you're describing OR and a SYNTH presentation of editor-cherrypicked primary content to make an OR point. That's not a proper basis for inclusion. SPECIFICO talk 15:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Signedzzz Are you asserting that a reference to "black or brown or white" people is not a reference to race? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

You have already conceded that it's just an empty turn of phrase in a statement about nostalgia. That's the end of the story, as far as I'm concerned. zzz (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

So you are asserting that a comment about "black or brown or white" people is categorically not a comment about race. Is that correct? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude It's primary-sourced cherry-picked as noteworthy on the subject. That constitutes Original Research. In fact the statement does not mention race. It mentions "patriotism", not race. This meaningless extract has been rejected several times on this talk page. The exact same zombie proposal is put up over and over, not taking into account any of the policy-based objections that could have been used to create article text that better reflects the speech and RS discussion of it. Already, this poll has confirmed what we already knew -- there is no consensus to add this. That having been established, the poll should be withdrawn and no RfC should be opened. Well-sourced secondary references can support article text on the subject of race in the inaugural address, and this is not helping get us in that direction. SPECIFICO talk 13:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Suggestion to compromise Include it, but only with critique and analysis by a representative sampling of group that have historically been the subject of prejudice in the U.S.A. It is correct to include a statement by the President, but it is also correct to include the response to it from groups impacted, in my opinion for NPOV. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

CW, I understand your point, but let's not end up with another indecipherable, multi-dimensional thread here. I suggest that any discussion of possible alternatives be deferred until this poll is over. SPECIFICO talk 13:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Include is my vote, but with a caveat. I would rather have an encyclopedia with too much information, than not enough. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Include it's pretty clear that a statement that mentions race is a statement of race. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Include because the article should have some of Trump's views about race. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude - I question the way this quote was put together. From my work here it seems unusual. Reading his speech one finds that he said "At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America, and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other. When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice." and then later (after five applause breaks) says, "It’s time to remember that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget, that whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots." It seems to me that he is talking about patriotism, not race. Gandydancer (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

It is going to be included, so lets focus on keeping it balanced with views for communities where this U.S.A., culture has historical prejudices and their views of what Trump said. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Include This article is about his views. This was an on-the-record, widely reported comment by him. It was specifically about race ("black or brown or white"), deploring prejudice and calling for racial unity. Of course we should include it, all of it as proposed, suitably cited to secondary sources. And only it, not a bunch of commentators claiming he didn't really mean it. (Anyhow it was one of the very rare positive comments in that "American carnage" inaugural address of his; let him have it.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, you're stating your interpretation of his words. Various editors suggest different interpretations. Shouldn't we rely instead on RS that discuss the meaning of his words? Or are you suggesting that we include both the quote and secondary discussion of those words or the Address? SPECIFICO talk 16:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, when he says "Whether we are black or brown or white," it does not take interpretation to understand that he is talking about race. That is as directly as he could possibly have said "no matter what race we are", we are all patriots, we are all Americans. It's a call for racial inclusiveness, racial acceptance, non-discrimination, in the name of patriotism. I am suggesting that we include his clear words and not a bunch of secondary discussion about it or the Address. His comment is clear, it can stand alone. --MelanieN (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Melanie as always I do trust and respect your judgement, but in this case when you look at the full quote: "A new national pride will stir ourselves, lift our sights, and heal our divisions. It's time to remember that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget, that whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots. We all enjoy the same glorious freedoms. And we all salute the same great American flag.", I don't see how you can say that this quote is about racial prejudice. It seems to me to be a call for patriotism and not a statement about racial equality. Gandydancer (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

That's why we're not quoting that whole section, only the parts about race. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

As editors, we don't lift a snippet out of context and then promote it for what it might have said if it had not been said in context. We can't do that. SPECIFICO talk 18:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

You just can't help yourself, can you? Please stop replying to me. I'm not engaging you over this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• include, assuming that this article is trying to present readers with all relevant information related to Trump's views on race and not just those that seek to present his views in a negative light. Birtig (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Let me ask this a different way. If the meaning of this extract is clear, can you paraphrase it in one or two sentences? I would be surprised if the editors here could do that or at least could agree on the paraphrased meaning. From what you post above here, I disagree that he's saying all white brown and black skin people are patriots. That would contradict a lot of his other statements. He has various subsets of the colors that he repeatedly tells us are not patriots. But anyway, if you'll endulge me, can you paraphrase his comment (rather than interpreting it) in one or two short sentences? I think we all may find that a helpful way to further this discussion. If we editors don't agree as to what it means then none of us as editors should select it for the article. Just to be clear, if this were selected by the bulk of mainstream commentators that would be a different matter, imo. SPECIFICO talk 18:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't intend to paraphrase it, and you shouldn't either. His own words are straightforward enough and shouldn't be twisted by people trying to put in their own interpretations. He absolutely IS saying that Americans are Americans, patriots are patriots, regardless of the color of their skin. That's what he said, and we should include it. Without a rebuttal or an "interpretation". Sure, maybe he didn't mean it, maybe he has often contradicted that sentiment by his actions; many politicians don't match their rhetoric with their actions. Trump himself is notorious for contradicting himself. Let him say something noble for once and get credit for it. Almost the whole rest of this article stands in contradiction to these few sentences of his, let him have these. I am done discussing this. --MelanieN (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Consensus determines what will be included, SPECIFICO - and it won't be based on how you want Melanie to write it. JFG presented the statement this iVote is about, it's clearly stated in the green box above, and that's what will be used. ^{Clarifying - the quote box is draft form with mark-up so JFG will use the quote that is relevant to Trump's racial views. 04:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC) Atsme📞📧} 18:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Clarification @MelanieN: I was not asking you to write a paraphrase that we would use as article text. I meant to be testing whether there's a clear meaning that you can show us you're referring to and if so whether it's the same meaning that others see in this text. I meant it as a kind of ideological turing test, which is often a helpful device in discussions to out these content matters. Basically, the process of paraphrasing these words is one of the best ways to expose ambiguities, contradictions, or other problems that undermine its significance. SPECIFICO talk 19:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The more light the better, for differing views and differing perspectives, I say. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of why we shouldn't use primary sources for something like this. MelanieN says the quote is about racial unity; others say it's about race; others still say it's about patriotism. There have been volumes written about Trump's racial views. We shouldn't have to pick a quote from a speech and try to interpret what was said. Use a secondary source like we do for the rest of the article. It's not that hard. If we do end up adding this, you better believe we will add commentary about whether he meant it or not, as long is it satisfies WP:V and WP:DUEWEIGHT.- MrX 🖋 19:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN says the quote is about racial unity; others say it's about race; There is no dichotomy there. if it's about racial unity, it's about race.

We shouldn't have to pick a quote from a speech and try to interpret what was said. The only interpreting I see going on is editors implying that it's not about race. No-one is contesting that his point was about patriotism. But that doesn't mean he can't make a comment about race as part of making that point. It's perfectly clear to everyone -including those who are implicitly denying it, I contend without reservation- that his reference to "black or brown or white" people who "all bleed patriotism" was a statement about racial unity. And I don't deny that it was made for the purpose of a broader point about patriotism, which I will further contend was in turn was made for a broader point about his plans for his time in office, which in turn was made for the even broader purpose of making people like and respect him, which itself was done for the ultimate purpose of making himself feel good about himself. "Points" and "meanings" and "purposes" are not absolute, exclusionary things. They can be nested, paired, balanced, etc. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Editors can interpret whatever they want on talk pages, but editor interpretations don't belong in a articles. Like is says in WP:PSTS: "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."- MrX 🖋 19:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Your definition of "interpretation" here includes rote comprehension. And and plenty of secondary sources have been provided, giving their own interpretations. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

support that, primary sources lend themselves to cherry picking - if not even one secondary source can really be found (of the ones provided above, one is a opinion piece, the other does not mention specifically or in relation to race) on something well covered (inaugaration address) on someone so well covered, it fails WP:DUEWEIGHT Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: Re  if not even one secondary source can really be found: I don’t understand; are you implying that this wasn’t covered by secondary sources? Politico described it as “inclusive rhetoric”. NBC News called it “a call for unity under one American flag and national identity”. The Guardian says he “paid lip-service to those who have criticized him for emboldening racism and white supremacy on his journey to the White House, but only in the thinnest terms, expressing a call for diversity through the prism of nationalism”. Those are only a few selections - news reports, not op/eds - out of dozens. What is the problem? --MelanieN (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Was unable to find (only transcripts), and no-one else provided any sources. That is indeed a lot better, still unsure about weight. Galobtter (pingó mió)

The proposed text contains no interpretation. Our readers should draw their own interpretations as to the exact meaning. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Exclude per MrX Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: I don't think it really matters who wrote the speech, what matters is whether secondary sources cover it and what they say about it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The bulk of this article is based on journalistic opinions primarily based on the quotes by Trump detractors with limited (if any) verifiable facts. Of course we have different views - I see this article as conflating the POV of others with Trump's own views, not to mention all the non-racially related sections, and I'm not surprised the cherrypicked sources support that conflated view. It may also explain why some think the actual quote of Trump's own views seem UNDUE, despite this being an article about Trump's views. Jiminy Cricket! ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

These aren't "Trump's own views" on race. This is stuff he said in a speech, written by someone else.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Who writes Trump's speeches is not relevant - he is not compelled to read out any words that may be written by others; he is perfectly capable of ignoring a pre-written speech and delivering a speech ad lib as if feels it necessary; he may well have read the speech in advance and knew in advance what he would say if he stuck to the speech. Bottom line is that Trump choose to say those words, whoever may or may not have written them, so he made them his. Birtig (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not about who writes them but about the fact that this was a boiler plate political speech which may or may not reflect his views.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

VM, show me verifiable facts that he did not write that speech - not more of the same unsubstantiated rumors by "someone close to the president" or the like. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

And @Atsme: those are not secondary sources you've found -- one is about Charlottesville that links to the full text of the inaugural address and the other is just the full text of the inaugural address with little bubbles next to it. If that's the best you can do, it's another nail in the coffin of a non-noteworthy snippet. SPECIFICO talk 20:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Status There's clearly no consensus to include this, so OP should either drop it our launch the threatened RfC if OP thinks the current poll is not representative of WP editors' opinions. SPECIFICO talk 20:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• sigh* SPECIFICO, MelanieN has explained it to you as have other editors. Continuing your IDIDNTHEARTHAT position is wearing us out. Surely you're able to recognize the purpose of a secondary source when they publish a primary document, quote from it and provide commentary. If you don't, then may I suggest that you spend some time reading WP:RS, and while you're at it, go take a look at Trump-Russia dossier allegations. What do you think they used to list the allegations? Hmmmm...could it be the actual dossier? Oh, no. Ooops. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

You may share personal remarks on my user talk page, if you wish, not here. SPECIFICO talk 21:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Acknowledged. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Atsme, give a thought as a middle ground that allows Trump to speak and the words of the groups long effected by prejudice to also be heard. This will, I feel, gain support from most, except the wikilawyers amongst us. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

One day may not be enough to determine consensus. Give it a few days and if further views are not added then we can go to the next step. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but Emir, if you'll look through the history of this TP, it usually only takes the approval of 2 or 3 editors to be considered "consensus". Anything that is not negative usually requires a 30-day RfC closed by an admin. Consensus is clear - the exclude arguments are simply not based in policy - they are all IDONTLIKEIT. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Include - One of the few things in the article that fits the title and purpose of the article. PackMecEng (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Include per JFG, Atsme and PackMecEng. DoubleCross (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Exclude - reluctantly User:JFG, this just seems WP:UNDUE plus has problems in cites or unjustified selection. It's a bit UNDUE as coverage of racism accusations has far, far outweighed anything Trump actually said or policies under his administration, and this particular line is not really apparent in Googling or appearing above other potential phrases of his. (Saw only 5 hits for 'we all bleed the blood of patriots'. That's got to be a mistake as it is in the address... but still...) The cites are problematic as the CNN cite is bad as an opinion piece and also is not distinctly speaking to racial views, it is more pointing to his patriotism or law and order and color-blind on racial views after Charlottesville); and the Boston Globe cite highlighted many passages but not this one so it is a bit off for us to elevate it. Looking at BBC, there is no coverage of this line other than in the whole address, but I do see the inaugural line "no room for prejudice" noted by [BBC] after Charlottesville. But again, mostly the searches I've tried are just winding up with far far more accusations and bits on 'shithole' or 'Pocohantas' than anything covering Trump policies or views. For example, coverage of a meeting with leaders of Historically Black Colleges focused on Kellyanne Conway having her feet on the sofa while taking a snapshot or campus backlash towards the leaders for going there, and mention of the Executive Order is not readily seen. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Markbassett, when I Googled his quote "we all bleed the same red blood of patriots" it brought up 1,690,000 results. They even have T-shirts with the quote. It is indeed notable - many secondary sources covered it as MelanieN pointed out above. I'll add Vox, The Atlantic, and EuroNews which listed his key quotes, and on and on. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - To those saying that this proposal doesn't interpret Trump's remarks or that we should not twist his words, I would like to point out the difference between the proposal and what he actual said:

This Proposal

What Trump Actually Said

"Through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other. When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice. […] Whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots.

"At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America and, through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other. When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice. […] A new national pride will lift our sights and heal our divisions. It's time to remember that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget, that whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots.

This raises the following questions:

1. Why should we omit Trump's call to nationalism evident[38] in the the actual complete sentences uttered by Trump (and written by Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller)?
2. What is the justification for violating MOS:PMC?
3. How is this selective quoting not an interpretation prohibited by WP:PRIMARY?
4. Why does this proposal turn parts of sentences into complete sentences?
5. Can anyone quote any secondary source that includes this parsed version of Trump's speech?- MrX 🖋 12:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, putting aside for a second that the proposed quote is incorrect, I find the complete quote quite scary. O3000 (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm glad it's not just me.- MrX 🖋 13:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Trump wrote his own inaugural speech - the claim that Bannon & Miller wrote it is unsubstantiated gossip originating from an anonymous "White House official" - first red flag. It's pretty sad that MSM is reading a lot like The Daily Mail and The Sun ...second red flag, and what WP:NEWSORG says to avoid; i.e., Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors. CNN, WaPo, NYTimes with some pretty obvious disinformation in their annotations. Regardless, the push to keep Trump's own racial views out of this article lends credence to it being an attack page. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Title editorializes

The title should not be "racial views" of Trump because none authoritatively speak to his views on if certain traits are more likely to be in some people rather than others based on unchangeable traits like DNA/brain makeup. Views that relate to that are the only views that can indisputably be said to be "racial." The title should be more along the lines of "Donald Trump's Views on Race-Associated Issues" for purposes of NPOV.Atrix20 (talk) 03:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yep, but the survey results brought a different result - scroll up the page to the section titled, "Requested move 16 February 2018". ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Not really a "different result", just no consensus on a specific title request. ^Falling_Gravity 06:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)