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)

@Atsme: Do you have a proposed wording regarding the Palm Beach clubs? I think his daughter and son-in-law are not appropriate for this section. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it belongs in this article, Emir. In fact, it carries WEIGHT, because (1) multiple RS support his views, and (2) what he did is highly notable and groundbreaking - see the PBS article which explains how he smashed the white-only membership policies of Palm Beach, Florida. See Trump's words in the Vanity Fair article: I said, ‘Of course!’ Do you think if I wanted to be a member they would have turned me down? I wouldn’t join that club, because they don’t take blacks and Jews.” Another RS is The Houston Chronicle quoting Ronald Kessler's July 2015 interview: “When Donald opened his club in Palm Beach called Mar-a-Lago, he insisted on accepting Jews and blacks even though other clubs in Palm Beach to this day discriminate against blacks and Jews. The old guard in Palm Beach was outraged that Donald would accept blacks and Jews so that’s the real Donald Trump that I know.” There are many more which for whatever reason have been either overlooked or dismissed. Give me a bit of time to propose the wording. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:38, 2 March 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)
• modifed A (Summoned by bot), per suggestions of Icewhiz and K.e.coffman. Specifically 'following' rather than 'responding'. B is neutral to the point of being anodyne. Pincrete (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Modified A(Summoned by bot) per Icewhiz and K.e.coffman. Implying a causal link is a bit much, but we should otherwise say what the source says. Vanamonde (talk) 09:47, 4 March 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. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. 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[10] 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[11] 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[12] 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)

Survey: inauguration address

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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".[13] --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: [14] 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 [15] 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) striking per sources MelanieN gave above which I wasn't able to find, I think weak include as it is something he expressed.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:20, 24 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)

Oh please. You do know speech writers are thing, right? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:10, 24 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 (struck out to Neutral 2/25) - 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)

User:Atsme - thanks for spotting my typo in googling, and the Euronews and Vox cites (not the Atlantic) are excellent support cites, removing my objections. It seems I am just getting odd results though because when I google "we all bleed the same red blood of patriots" I am seeing just 29,500 hits but at Yahoo I see 47,100,000 hits and at Bing I see 47,000,000 hits. Trying "When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice" I get 51,200; 36,200; and 4,060,000. I will strike out my Exclude due to the unreliable results so I am not able to tell if UNDUE and the Vox and Euronews cites are not problematic. From the BBC usage and highlights in some cites here that the second phrase is a bit more prominent and that both are better portrayed as a call for unity in patriotic nationalism, but do not object if either (or both) are used. I do see commentary that reviews this call for unity as being as "color-blind". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:47, 25 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[16] 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)

You are comparing The NYTimes and WaPo to The Daily Mail? You are claiming you know who wrote the speech without any source for that claim? In any case, the full quote sounds more like a Prelude to War than anything related to Trump’s views on race. O3000 (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Hold your nose and read the Daily Mail & Sun articles; keep holding it while you read HuffPo, Newsweek, and Independent - compare for yourself. The NYTimes was far more subtle in its presentation saying "it highlighted the influence" of Bannon & Miller. WaPo was a bit more bold but not to the point of sensationalism, stating Bannon & Miller "had a hand in crafting Trump’s speech". Had the former and latter been cited we wouldn't be reading the exaggerated claims like what some have made about Trump not writing his own speech. I provided sources that support my position; specifically Trump quoted as saying unequivocaly that he wrote the speech. The sources that credit Bannon & Miller as authors are spreading gossip from an anonymous "White House official", who could be an intern for all we know. I consider it shoddy journalism per WP:BLPGOSSIP, Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. There's also a lot of circular reporting - it's usually an AP report that gets circulated, but WSJ gets the credit for starting the speech gossip. I think the Chicago Tribune nailed a big part of the problem with the negativity and POV issues. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

So, your source that supports your position is solely a self-serving claim made by Trump. And, you ridicule the reporting of the NYT and WaPo, both of which have enormous records of reliability and fact checking? And based on that, you claim that the NYT and WaPo are gossip-mongers comparable to The Daily Mail? And then you pull out of thin air something about this having a connection with the AP and/or WSJ and/or Chicago Trib? O3000 (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

03000 - what are your reading? I did NOT "ridicule" the reporting of NYT and WaPo, I provided the sources that support my statements, and I find your comments to be very combative. I will not partake. Good day. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

You stated that they reported disinformation. Your sources supported nothing of the sort. And, you are yet again casting aspersions. O3000 (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

MrX I noted the same problem in my decision to vote to exclude. Plus I noted that the quote not only uses portions of two sentences, they are quite some distance apart in the speech - five applause pauses. Gandydancer (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that's pretty obviously WP:SYNTH ("Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.")- MrX 🖋 19:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude - the first source given does not discuss the speech in the context of the subject of this article (racial views of Donald Trump). The second source given does but it's all about pointing out how the things in the speech don't jive with his other statements and actions. So just taking the quote on the basis of the second source is just cherry-picking and misrepresenting a source. You need to either find other secondary sources on the speech and how it fits in with this topic, or we keep the quote out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trump donated Wall Street office space to Jesse Jackson's PUSH Coalition

Just a small point. In the 'defense of Donald Trump subsection it says that 'he announced that he would donate'. I have found a source in which Jesse Jackson is quoted as saying that he followed through on that promise. [17] I suggest the subsection is amended to state that he 'donated' rather than 'announced he would donate'. Birtig (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think any of that relates to the topic of this article. SPECIFICO talk 17:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow! He actually did donate to something? Usually he promises, but doesn't follow through. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Well not him -- remember it was a slow-selling condo conversion of an old Wall Street office building. Anyway, this is apparently a right-wing whataboutism meme or "some of my best friends are former civil rights leaders" or something or other. It's in the NY Post and Tucker Carlson helpfully found some old coverage. SPECIFICO talk 17:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The five sentence article refers to a video link that does not work and a Daily Caller article with the same bad link, and which is not RS. I looked for sources before changing the text. O3000 (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

In reply to Specifico's I don't think any of that relates to the topic of this article – Trump supported Jesse Jackson by donating office space to his Rainbow/PUSH project. Given Jackson's focus on anti-discrimination activism, this does look relevant to an article about Trump's "racial views". Not liking it is not an argument for deleting the information, so I have restored it. Surely, better sourcing can be found. — JFG ^talk 18:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Better sources needed, as none of those are RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

" Given Jackson's focus on anti-discrimination activism, this does look relevant to an article about Trump's "racial views"." <-- that's about as blatant of a violation of WP:SYNTH as you can get.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Actually, the sentence was already sourced to The New York Times, so references to Daily Caller et al. are irrelevant. — JFG ^talk 18:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

If we're going to dig out passing comments by Trump 30 years ago to support accusations of racism, we might as well dig out passing comments by Jesse Jackson 30 years ago showing his support for minority activism. WP:NPOV, WP:BALANCE, etc. — JFG ^talk 18:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

JFG- Your reinsertion is a DS violation and I ask you to undo your edit and engage seriously here. I stated my objection both in my edit summary and here on talk. Your dismissal of my challenge as "i don't like it" is uncivil and unconstructive. We editors cannot infer a view of Trumps from an action one of his business ventures made 20 years ago. Please undo your reinsertion without consensus. SPECIFICO talk 18:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

"We editors cannot infer a view of Trumps from an action one of his business ventures made 20 years ago"...You mean like when Trumps' business was sued in 1973 for housing discrimination? Birtig (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

JFG - cite this NYTimes. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, that's a good ref for Jackson's intentions and Trump's promise, but where are sources documenting that Trump actually followed through? With his track record, our default position must be that he never did it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The New York Times citation is already in the article. — JFG ^talk 18:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

After you revert and get consensus here to add the material. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. When I challenged Specifico's removal of well-sourced and relevant material, I didn't notice the sentence had been added very recently. I just self-reverted pending discussion outcome. — JFG ^talk 18:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

While trying to find sources, I did see two NYTimes articles. But, they only reported Trump said he would donate. I found no sources that said there was a donation or record of any actual office space. O3000 (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Which is fine, because the article says "announced he would donate". We can amend the article to says he "donated" if/when good sources are found for that corroboration. — JFG ^talk 18:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

No, not that way. His consistent track record shows deceptive promises to donate to charities and other causes, and then a failure to do so, or even worse, using the monies for personal use. Including promises, without anything else, leaves the impression of a wonderful and generous person, when reality is something else.

We should only include when he has actually done so, or, if he has promised and not done it, document the promise AND failure to do so. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

For more on this, see the work which won a Pulitzer Prize: David Fahrenthold#Reporting on Donald Trump donation claims and the Trump Foundation -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes he did follow through - Jackson said: “When we opened this Wall Street project,” he continued. “He gave us space at 40 Wall Street, which was to make a statement about our having a presence there.” There's this NYTimes article that also verifies it. There's a C-Span clip here showing Jackson giving Trump an award. As one might expect, today's left-leaning MSM will not relent from their onslaught in their war against Trump which is constantly fueled by Trump calling them "fake news". That's why as WP editors, our editorial judgment is paramount to sift through the political rhetoric, rumors, and unsubstantiated allegations. RS will publish both sides and/or all views available via ethical reporting. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Caller isn't a reliable source for anything political (pretty close to the "fake news" Trump complains about), but the NYT and C-Span are RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I found it: "At one point, he gave free office space to Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow PUSH Coalition." The article is also of relevance on the subject of Trump and racism. It's a mixed bag, with comments for and against him. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Is that the same C-Span clip where Trump says he offered the unrented space in his struggling project to Jackson at $40 a foot, but Jackson refused? BTW, they are personal friends so I don't know how you impute a racial view to this whole business. The project was not in 40 Wall for long. The building was rented out and Jackson's project is now up in a remote location at an old building in the Garment District on 7th Avenue. SPECIFICO talk 20:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Text being discussed

For clarity, here is the material being discussed:

In 1997 he announced he would donate Wall Street office space to Jesse Jackson's civil rights group, the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, stating of Jackson: "He's out there pushing for a lot of good things".

Sources

In my opinion, this event should be placed together with other anecdotes in chronological order in the "History" section. — JFG ^talk 18:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

We just need to distinguish the difference between (1) generosity and (2) words and actions indicating a racist or non-racist mindset. In this case we have words which don't show a racist mindset. Whatever happened with the promised office space isn't really necessary here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support - although I would prefer to see the article properly weighted and balanced with statements of fact like this one interspered throughout the lede and body per NPOV rather than hidden away in its own separate section at the bottom of the page. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

My proposal is to add this event to the "History" section, like other events, not in the "Defenses" section where it was first placed. — JFG ^talk 21:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

And so what is the historical "racial view" and its RS secondary citation? SPECIFICO talk 21:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support ONLY his last quote, unless RS document he actually did it. Otherwise it would only fit his pattern of promises of charitable giving and failing to do so. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

BR - see this NYTimes article, and I also included 2 others in the section directly above. He did follow through on the Wall Street Project as promised. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - If we are going to add an example of a black leader saying complimentary things about Trump 20 years ago; shouldn’t we add what that same man has said about Trump recently? It would seem that only the former would be a misleading statement about that leader’s opinions. O3000 (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Isn't it the other way around, ergo Trump about Jackson? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it's a bad reflection on both, but true to the political arena. I prefer to contribute encyclopedic information that will maintain the quality and integrity of the project and not sink to the level of political mud slinging. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I fail to understand how it is unencyclopedic to include only a statement from 20 years ago without more recent statements made by the same man directly related to the subject of this article. Statements by Jackson about Charlottesville, shithole countries, and NFL players. This leaves a false, POV impression. For example: "The Rev. Jesse L. Jackson said Mr. Trump had effectively challenged athletes of all races to rise against him, by using language Mr. Jackson described as displaying a 'slave-master-servant mentality.'"[18] O3000 (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

What you're asking for is not unreasonable O3000, and pretty much mirrors what I and others have challenged in other areas of this article beginning with the lede, except from a different perspective. Negative opinions of Trump published in news sources shape the context of this article creating UNDUE and BALANCE issues because it simply does not "indicate the relative prominence of opposing views" per NPOV policy. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support seems reasonable to put it, rationale for removal was a rationale for moving the text Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

What secondary source do we cite and what "racial view" does it describe. We are not journalists observing and reporting on what we see. We need to cite RS that describes a view. Incidentally, "donate" is not what this is about. "Donate" doesn't describe a landlord who offers a brief rent reduction on vacant space, followed by the tenant leaving for inferior space elsewhere. "Donate" is giving something, not letting them use it until a paying tenant comes along. SPECIFICO talk 20:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Read the NYTimes which should be cited. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Which part - the part where it says he offered his unrented office space to Jackson as a personal friend, the part where his girlfriend dodges the question of whether he's a racist and discounts his "elbow-rubbing" with influential Black folks, or did you mean the part where she "despaired over Trump's stoking of racial tensions"? The most interesting line in that article is the quote from the guy who observes that Trump doesn't care about race one way or the other - he only cares what kind of deal he can get for himself. That actually should be in the article, because it's typical of many observers' reactions and it explains what his critics would call his indifference to racism. SPECIFICO talk 21:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Read the parts that don't align with your POV - that's how you arrive at a NPOV. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Did you mean to post that in this location? It makes no sense. SPECIFICO talk 21:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• sigh* Yes, it's posted in the right place. When you asked "Which part - " and then included parts that fit your POV about Trump, which is no secret, and ignored opposing views, including Kara Young's statement, “I never heard him say a disparaging comment towards any race of people,” or the NYTimes comment, "While there is no evidence that Mr. Trump personally set the rental policies at his father’s properties," or that Trump's lawyer was quoted as saying there was “no merit to the allegations” or that MSM determined in the court of public opinion that Fred Trump's infamy was inherited...and so forth. That is what I was referring to but it's all stale now. We have bigger fish to fry. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose unless Jackson’s several, recent statements directly related to this article are also included. WP:NPOV O3000 (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Several of us would like to see that same formula throughout this article - starting with the lede. Maybe together we can make it happen? ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

You can argue other sections elsewhere. Your opinion that there is a lack of BALANCE elsewhere is not relevant to this suggestion. O3000 (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Possibly, with modification - I could probably support this is we didn't start it with "He announced...", if we excluded the direct quote, and if we included a little more context. Their friendship should be mentioned, and the reader should be told how this is a counterexample of Trump's racism. We should simply state that he donated the office space, rather than that he announced it.- MrX 🖋 21:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support (edit conflict) No need to reason censor this just because I or another editor doesn't like it. It is original research to claim that Trump failed to donate, and even still the proposed text just says he announced he would not that he actually did it. We can include recent statements by Jackson too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support - had an editor found evidence that Trump had opposed the work of Jesse Jackson and the PUSH Coalition, you can guarantee that it would find its way into this article as evidence suggesting that Trump was racist. Well we have found evidence showing the opposite - it equally deserves to be in an article that claims to be examining Donald Trump's racial views. Birtig (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

You would need to demonstrate that reliable secondary sources state that this brief rental to Jackson and Trump's friendship with Jackson relate to or demonstrate "Trump's racial views" -- if you have such a case to make, this is the time and place for you to do so. Please review WP:OR SPECIFICO talk 23:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

All Birtig has to do is cite a RS, and use an inline citation. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, we find the sources first and then we evaluate their statements for article content. SPECIFICO talk 23:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I certainly hope that is the case. WP:CIR comes to mind. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, you've just contradicted your own words 1.4 cm above. SPECIFICO talk 15:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

You still don't get it. ☎️ Hello? You initially referenced (my bold), "reliable secondary sources", plural, and I responded with a singular - all he has to do is cite A RS, and use an inline citation. Now do you understand what I was saying? Sorry, but I don't know how I could've made it more clear. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I realize you don't know how to make it clear. That's the crux of the problem. (insert emoticon here) SPECIFICO talk 16:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• This event is being brought up by RSes in stories about Trump's racial views. Any suggestion that this is not about his racial views is pure OR. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Can I see these stories? The source provided is NY Times from ... 1997 and says NOTHING about Trump's racial views. Where are the sources? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Seems fairly straightforwards and uncontroversial for this article that he donated property to a prominent civil rights group. PackMecEng (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

(ec) The NYTimes article appears to be the best source we have. It doesn't support the text that started this thread, but there's certainly good reporting there from which to create some article content. Its mention of Operation Push is incidental, but the main point is one that's consistent with lots of other reporting on Trump's racial views. Namely that he associates with people who he believes can be useful to him -- including wealthy or powerful people of any sort -- and that he has no particular concern, moral, civic, or otherwise, about racism. According to the narrative of that article, racism is just not something he cares about -- so focusing on it as key determinant of his statements or actions is slicing the cheese inside-out. SPECIFICO talk 15:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - the source provided is about something else entirely and only mentions this in passing. This is quite obviously a case of someone looking for "a time when Trump said something nice about a black person" on google, dredging the internet and then finally finding such an instance. It's clearly cherry picked, off topic and undue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose After reading the new "Where are the sources" section I have changed my mind, especially considering that the reason I ended up using was very poor - perhaps just an excuse to get off the fence after sitting there for so long.Support with further information, perhaps make the paragraph as long as Warren's section. I hope that I don't regret this decision as it was not an easy one and goes against the suggestions of several editors that I admire for their judgement. Plus I really did not find much in the "Support" thinking that was of a lot of help. What mostly swayed me is the fact that several of our sections that support Trump's racism that may seem iffy to some (not me) are included, so perhaps this iffy one should be appropriate as well. Gandydancer (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This is another cherry-pick special from the endless orchard. Any article text would need to take account of all the detailed objections and qualifications that even the "support" !votes have raised here. It's an unproductive tactic to use purpose-built text to insinuate POV before a broad discussion of the surrounding issues or ignoring such discussion where it's already on record. SPECIFICO talk 18:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Conclusion

The survey indicates a pretty strong consensus to include this event. Will proceed. — JFG ^talk 18:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

 Event included — JFG ^talk 19:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

 Please don't close your own RfCs.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

* Bold text! PackMecEng (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• NO -The survey shows some support, but with modifications. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Bad close

It's really not good form to close one's own disputed poll after 4 days and then not take account of the amendments and sourcing discussed in the now-closed thread. If there's indeed consensus to include this bit, then it should not be a problem -- and would avoid any possible appearance of POV-pushing or gaming -- to let an uninvolved party review it after a decent interval has elapsed. This is really not constructive. SPECIFICO talk 19:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Consensus to include this event is nearly unanimous, with just you and Objective3000 opposing, and everyone else (9 people) supporting. This was not a formal RfC, just a quick survey following your challenge of the material. Suggestions of additional text by various editors can be worked into the article by regular editing. — JFG ^talk 20:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

If there is consensus, it is not nearly unanimous. Since your close of your own discussion is being challenged, it would be best to re-open it and let an uninvolved editor close it. That said, it would not be unreasonable to read the discussion as a rough consensus and insert the material into the article on that basis.- MrX 🖋 20:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that this "close" lays the groundwork for POV ratcheting to skew the article in a certain direction. It's obvious from the sources discussed above that there is detail and context omitted from the "consensus" language. If we now set about making the article consistent with all the discussion and sourced coverage of this matter above, the same tactic -- filibuster poll, filibuster, poll -- will end up chipping away and cherrypicking more and more misleading language into the article. Once an issue has been raised on talk, it's not constructive to chip away at it, rushing to put bits and pieces in the article and hoping to grab another piece later. Issues need to be aired in a broad context to prepare a neutral, balanced, and neutral version. SPECIFICO talk 04:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I almost always wait for a few days when I'm not sure about a decision so as to benefit from the views of others. It was not right to close this discussion so quickly, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 06:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, we can also leave the discussion open, I have reverted the archiving. The material stays in, though. — JFG ^talk 15:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree with SPECIFICO, it's disruptive to close an RfC you started (and you can pretend that it's not an RfC but a "straw poll", but that's just WP:GAMEing policy). ANd four days is not enough - I was busy and missed this discussion and obviously I have an opinion on the matter. And there's no reason why it should be included while discussion continues. This looks like a straight up attempt to railroad preferred POV into the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Bad because it didn't go your way perhaps, but status quo stonewalling is much worse because it is disruptive. The consensus is clear, besides this is not a formal RfC - it's local consensus. Do I need to provide all the diffs where just 2 or 3 of you have decided "local consensus" and add or remove things from the article without consequence? *sigh* ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Can we have one day go by without you attacking other editors and sarcastically adding “sigh” to an edit? O3000 (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake - will you stop trolling me? It's worse than my grandkids constantly asking "are we there, yet?" Go find something to edit. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

And once again you tell an editor to go away and engage on condescension. And once again, you add your sarcastic "sigh" to an edit summary. Seriously, editors are allowed to disagree. Attacking the faith of VM's edit was out of line. O3000 (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Uh, where are the sources?

Am I missing something or is the only source here the NY Times article from 1997 which says NOTHING about Donald Trump's racial views? A couple commentators make the claim above that sources which link this occurrence (renting to Jesse Jackson) to DT's racial views exist... but I can't find a single one here. Unless such sources are provided, this is pure WP:SYNTH. (And no Daily Caller or whatever fringe batshit crazy conspiracy source somebody dredges up do not as they're not reliable).Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@JFG:, @MjolnirPants:.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Here's what I found: [19] Lots of historical analysis of Trump's relationship with the black community in there. Would certainly be useful elsewhere in this article too. — JFG ^talk 16:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

So, um, after claiming that there were multiple sources which link this occurrence to Trump's racial views on race all you got is a single, vague, sentence ("Mr. Trump does have a small handful of close friends, but most are people he has done business with over the years. At one point, he gave free office space to Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow PUSH Coalition.")? No way, man. This is UNDUE and SYNTH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it's always necessary to restate the problems several times in these POV bit pry-ins. The 40 Wall space was empty space in a struggling conversion that Trump Org managed. Trump asked for $40 a square foot from Jackson, according to a video of Trump linked above. Jackson refused and told Trump he should give a rent-free deal. As to who was making the donation of unrented (and arguably worthless until the second-last space was rented) offices, that's not discussed in the cited sources. It would ordinarily be the owner of the building whose space is being "donated" rather than the managing agent. At any rate, the NYTimes article has good reporting that describes this (short term) provision of space as an attempt to court favor with the NYC power elite who themselves associated with Jackson due to his high profile within certain NY constituencies. The Times piece shows us that this was not about Trump's racial views at all but rather that it was about keeping his name and access in front of NYC decision-makers. It's actually a rather favorable explanation of Trump's motivations as a businessperson who was motivated only by financial self-interest and who was not motivated one way or the other about race in his public actions. SPECIFICO talk 17:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, there's the other NYT story. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's THE SAME ONE that JFG just linked. And it's a single vague sentence which doesn't link Trump's racial views to renting of the space to Jackson. It's a couple words out of hundreds. But above you claimed, quote, "This event is being brought up by RSes in stories about Trump's racial views. ". Where are these RSes? Come on @MjolnirPants: I expect much better from you. If you can't find all these ethereal RSes then please revise your comment and !vote.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly, other sections in this article say nothing about Trump's racial views. For example, this whole subsection says nothing about Trump's racial views;

"Immigration policy

On January 27, 2017, via executive order, which he titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, President Trump ordered the U.S border indefinitely closed to Syrian refugees fleeing the civil war. He also abruptly temporarily halted (for 90 days) immigration from six other Muslim-majority nations: Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. A religious test would give immigration priority to Christians over Muslims. Human rights activists described these actions as government-approved religious persecution. The order was stayed by Federal courts.[68][69]"

I assume you also want sources that link Trump's ban on people from 6 Muslim majority countries (while not banning travel to the USA by Muslims from most Muslim majority countries, including the world's largest, Indonesia) as being linked to his 'racial views'? Birtig (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

1. It's helpful to specify who's "you" in talk page discussions. 2. It's not helpful to make "assumptions" about other editors' views. SPECIFICO talk 17:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Jesus fucking christ, you people can bring this to ANI if you want, but I'm a fucking liberal who hates Trump and I agree with motherfucking Breitbart right now that you fuckers are bending over backwards to push you POV into this article instead of making even the slightest good faith effort to be an encyclopedia. He donated office space to Jessie fucking Jackson, and the RSes explicitly fucking bring it up in articles about Trump's racial views. Every objection to this material except for the one about the 1997 source has been pure bullshit (and that one was half bullshit) and everyone editing this section damn well fucking knows it. Grow the fuck up or stop editing political articles. And don't bother whining on my fucking talk page about it either. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

One more time. Where are these "RSes" that you keep talking about? You got one article from 1997 that doesn't say jack shit about his racial views. And you got another article which, yes, is about Trump's racial views, but the renting of space to Jesse Jackson is a single fucking sentence - 14 words out of 1557, or less than 1% - made in passing and in a way which is actually unrelated to whatever it says about Trump's racial views. How about you actually present these "RSes" that you claim exist, or you stop making up bullshit about "his event is being brought up by RSes in stories about Trump's racial views", which based on sources provided so far is completely false.

And seriously, just step back a moment and look at this from a wider perspective. What is the actual claim that the text is trying to insinuate? That Trump can't be racist because he ... rented space to a black dude. Fucking seriously. That's the level of argument and POV pushing here. It's bad faithed and even more idiotic than the usual "some of my best friends are black" trope. Do you seriously want something this stupid in a Wikipedia article? Because you want to seem "even handed" or play the tragic role of "look at me, I'm a liberal but not like those other mean liberals on Wikipedia"? POV is POV and UNDUE is UNDUE and nobody has actually provided these magical sources which supposedly tie this in to Trump's racial views.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

And fucking a', renting space to somebody is NOT "supporting them", which is what the piece of shit lying section heading claimed before I changed it. It's, like, what you HAVE to do if you don't want to get your ass sued for racial discrimination.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you should read the fucking discussion: I've posted the source twice now, once in direct response to your bullshit question, and I'm not the only one to directly answer it, either. And yes: giving someone something for free instead of making money off of it absolutely is considered "supporting" them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. Maybe YOU should read the discussion.

You said "RSes", plural, not "source", singular. You claimed there were multiple sources.

The one, single source you posted, has and had already commented on. Several times. And that's because it's the same source as the one posted by JFG

And that source, as I already pointed out twice only mentions the Jesse Jackson thing in one sentence, in passing - 14 words out of 1.5K.

But yes, you're right, my bad, he didn't rent it, he "donated it".

The fuck that still has to do with his racial views? It's still the "he has a black friend" argument. And there are still ABSOLUTELY NO sources which link this to his racial views.

Like, why did he do it? Maybe because he appreciated Jackson's work as a religious minister. Maybe because he liked Jackson's "brand of capitalism". Maybe because of something to do with his racial views. But we don't fucking know which one of these it was because no source given talks about it. So it's total UNDUE and SYNTH.

I'm guessing what happened here is that you read Atsme and JFG's and this new account Birtbig comments, made the mistake of taking their claims about "multiple RSes" on good faith (plus, sure, we don't all have time to fact check everything), so you agreed with them even though they were all trying to BS their way through this, then when it was pointed out you were wrong you decided to double down and started insulting people to parade your "I'm a liberal but unbiased" credentials. We all do that sometimes. But seriously, if you want to prove to the Wikipedia community, or Breitbart or wtf that you're "liberal but can edit neutrally" this is a strange battle to pick - because the proposed text really really really is that stupid. I'm sure you can find a different article to instrumentalize for your purpose.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

AND, the recent NY Times article cited repeatedly here makes clear that Trump's personal associations with colored folks -- like more or less everything else he does -- have to do with things like, wait for it: whether they are useful to him. Also Mr. Pants, it's hard for churchladies and old nanas like me to hear you when you're cussin' and a-cusin' like that. Time to chill. SPECIFICO talk

Jackson was out of that office as soon as the rental market turned around and a paying tenant came along. And once again, Trump did not own the building, just managed it, so who did the "donating"? If there were any detailed sources they would likely explain that this was the managing agent promoting this dog of a building by getting a bunch of free press. Smart business move, nothing about his views on race. SPECIFICO talk 01:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't read the NYT due to a paywall so I must try to go by what I find here. After reading this section I very strongly feel that a JJ section is not appropriate for the article. Though, speaking of appropriateness, I did find the excessive cussing appropriate as it helped to give emphasis to the thoughts being offered. Gandydancer (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Crazy Americans. SPECIFICO talk 01:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Wait... Weren't you just giving Atsme shit about analyzing sources and deciding what to include based on that? I know I was, and if you think I care whether it's coming from someone I agree or disagree with on whether Trump's a racist, you don't fucking know me very well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey VM, next time you decide to say something stupid about both sources being the same, you might want to click on them, or at least hover your mouse over them and look at the URL, first. Last time I checked, the New York Times and the New Standard Press weren't exactly the same thing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

You're right, it's the same source Atsme linked, several times, not JFG. So what? The point is that you ain't got shit for sourcing. You got one source which says nothing about Donald Trump's racial views (from 1997!). You got one source which is about his racial views and which has a throw away line (less than one percent of the article) about how he once did something for Jesse Jackson. And that's it. And you want to include this text based on that? Gimme a fucking break.

Now, how about instead of trying to find ways to insult people, you actually address the big fat issue at hand - there is no source for this stupidity.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Pants you are so excitable. I am worried. Maybe you could go visit Dr. Jackson for a checkup before this gets any worse? SPECIFICO talk 03:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: The source I linked is not the same as Pants or Atsme's. It also includes a rather long analysis of Trump's relationship with the black community over decades. In particular the Jesse Jackson support is made quite explicit. Snippet from source:

In 1984, Reverend Jesse Jackson became the first African American to run a nationwide primary campaign for the Presidency of the United States. He ran again in 1988.
At the time, many rich white people disdained the black man running for President. Yet among those who legitimized Jackson’s efforts was Donald Trump. Looking back, Jesse Jackson said that Trump “created for many people a comfort zone when I ran for the Presidency, in ’84 and ’88."

Please read sources before dismissing them, and let's see how we can write relevant and balanced article text. — JFG ^talk 18:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The source you linked to [20], while not the same as Pants' or Atsem's, is utter garbage. Having being around for awhile, I'm sure you're aware of that. So why are you posting it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek (talk • contribs)

Here's a bio of the author of this piece, Alberto Martinez, a professor in the department of history at Austin University.[21] Why do you consider his analysis "utter garbage"? — JFG ^talk 15:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Is he a WP:NOTABLE authority on the subject? There are approximately half a million college teachers in the USA alone. I'm sure we could match at least a dozen of them up with just about any POV on the planet. SPECIFICO talk 15:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Not policy compliant

This article doesn't quite fit the description of WP:ATTACKPAGE, and probably would not be a successful candidate for AfD because it actually can be fixed. Per NPOV, 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. With regards to how others view Trump's racial views (which is actually the context of this article), Roll Call, published some interesting results from The Economist/YouGov polling, which further substantiates the partisan divide regarding claims of racism. The results of the poll after Trump's alleged "shithole" comment showed 44% of respondents said he was racist, 16% were unsure, and 40% said he is not. An MSM poll showed 48% said Trump's comment was racist which is not the majority as it relates to mainstream. As editors, it is our job to use editorial judgment in what should or shouldn't be included in the article but that judgment is influenced by our PAGs, and the biggest influence is NPOV, V and BLP policy, followed by NEWSORG. Inclusion of opposing views is required, use of in-text attribution is required in certain circumstances, and per WP:EXCEPTIONAL "exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources" with a red flag waving over ...claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. Polling demonstrates the contradiction in claims of Trump's racism, and there's also the COI issue with the sources used as explained in footnote 8 of the same V policy. Politico nailed it in this article, and NYTimes journalist Daniel Okrent nailed it in his Op-Ed. Those are issues WP editors cannot ignore.  

It has been a struggle to get consensus to simply add the most obvious policy compliant additions per NPOV policy and an even harder struggle to get noncompliant material removed. Following is a list of concerns:

1. One-sided coverage as clearly evidenced by the lede which is noncompliant with NPOV
2. Lack of responses by Trump, official spokespersons, and other supporters as published in RS.
3. Reads more like a POV social justice essay with judgments from the court of public opinion rather than an encyclopedic entry with verifiable statements of fact.
4. Inclusion of material that is unrelated to race and incorrectly presented with a racial cast.
5. Multiple sources asserted for either a wire service article, such as AP, or primary source articles published by other news orgs such as NYTimes, WaPo, or WSJ, etc. "Such sources are essentially a single source" per WP:NEWSORG.

I remain optimistic that we can work through these issues in a productive, collegial manner and avoid (like the plague) what we've seen happen with other highly controversial topics. I am open to suggestions as to how best to proceed. I think we should start with the first subsection in the History section, work our way down, and then fix the lede. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

If you have a specific problem with a specific section where you have not already failed to gain consensus for your positions, then you are welcome to present it. I see no need for an overhaul of the entire article. O3000 (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

My problem with this article is that several pieces of information that have been added in the Defenses of Donald Trump section have been deleted. The result is an article that is 95% against Trump and in no way could be described as objective. For the record, Trump is accused of being anti-immigrant (rather than merely anti illegal immigrant), yet the claim that the fact he married an immigrant shows he is not anti-immigrant has been deleted; Trump set up his club in Florida to be an inclusive club at a time when all other clubs in the area discriminated, but the reference to this fact has been deleted; Trump donates Wall Street Office space to the PUSH Coalition which in particular focused on helping minorities, but that too gets deleted. A bit of a pattern here don't you think? Birtig (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

These arguments are all invalid and have been refuted, some of them repeatedly. So you can rest easy and move on to finding good, well-sourced article content. SPECIFICO talk 17:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Your claim that the arguments are "all invalid and have been refuted" is overly generalized, if not false in its entirety. If your purpose here is not to discuss solutions to the issues other editors wish to discuss, please allow the discussions to continue without further interruption. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

If your purpose here is not to discuss solutions to the issues other editors wish to discuss.... Please stop casting aspersions. O3000 (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

A bit of a pattern here don't you think? Yes there is a pattern in your examples. I’m not going to respond to each of these as they have each been discussed at length. I will say that they all remind me of Roy Moore’s wife saying he couldn’t be anti-Semitic because one of his lawyers is a Jew. (Turns out he was a Christian, but that’s not relevant.) This type of argument is covered at: [22]. O3000 (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The same applies to you O3000, if you are not here to discuss the issues, and prefer instead to attack editors, you need to move on. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Please stop casting aspersions. O3000 (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

So rather than reporting the arguments that have been used in Trump's defense you decide that they are not valid arguments and should not be included? That's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work - at least I thought it was about what the sources say and not whether editors agree with the arguments. Birtig (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I said nothing of the sort. I said that each of these has already been discussed at length, and I had nothing to do with any decision on these. I was responding to your statement about a pattern, which appears to insinuate editor bias. O3000 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Another section calling the entire article non-policy compliant? This is disruptive and disrespectful of all of the experienced editors who helped write the article, and who each have a reputation for understanding and adhering to our policies and guidelines. Please either make specific, well-referenced edit proposals, or stop creating these walls of meandering text. This is nothing more than a WP:REHASH. Please stop!- MrX 🖋 18:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed. Make specific, SMALL, well-referenced edit proposals. Generally accusations are unhelpful. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Someone uninvolved should hat this. Not only is it a rehash; it is a laundry list of bad faith accusations based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. O3000 (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I have taken this issue to NPOV/N. I also consulted Masem who agrees the article is not compliant. Those who do not wish to participate in these discussions are kindly asked to stop disrupting them by attacking other editors. I will not partake in the PAs. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Hopefully editors actually try to address these problems, rather than just complaining whenever anybody raises POV concerns. I don't even like Trump, but that doesn't mean we should edit-war in our own POV to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. ^Falling_Gravity 20:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I dread setting foot in this discussion and am unlikely to stay around long, but about whether he is anti-immigrant versus anti-illegal immigrant, it seems to me to be significant that his current stated position is that there should be significantly fewer immigrants overall, beyond just fewer illegal immigrants. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Trump's wish to have fewer immigrants is not, in itself racist (which is what this article is supposed to be about). It would only be racist if he were to place restrictions on the right to immigrate based on race - but the reality is he wants a merit based points system similar to many other countries, and the number of immigrants linked to the needs of the economy. Birtig (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

A change to merit-based implies a lack of merit prior to the change. And he certainly has supported restrictions based on religion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Restrictions based on religion would only be racist if they were designed to either benefit or disadvantage Jews as that is the only religion that is also a race. Otherwise, religious discrimination is religious discrimination - not racial discrimination. Birtig (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

...Jews as that is the only religion that is also a race... I don't think you'll find much support for that one. SPECIFICO talk 23:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

To be fair going to a immigration plan that mirrors Canada's for the most part is not exactly racist. PackMecEng (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, at least there is some acknowledgment of noncompliance with NPOV at NPOV/N. Masem said: "If I had sole authority here, I'd delete and salt this page in a second; I think it is far too premature and the like and can't be anywhere close to the type of neutrality WP strives for until many years after Trump's out of office." Read the remainder of his comments which basically summarizes standing consensus to keep the article, words of caution to avoid implying implicit bias, and to try to work collaboratively to fix the NPOV issues. Perhaps we should make a concerted effort to focus on one paragraph at a time, and fix the most glaring issues first, beginning with the lede, and slowly work our way down? I've also thought about preparing a survey for each paragraph and taking it to Village Pump for a wider view. Thoughts? ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

While I respect Masem's views, they have no more weight than the views of any other experienced editor. It would be inappropriate to export this content dispute to the Village Pump. It would be very helpful if involved editors would respect consensus and stop WP:REHASHING resolved matters.- MrX 🖋 18:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Atsme, there was no validation whatsoever and no suggestions of any improvement to this article. I note that Masem forthrightly explained what I believe is his dissent from WP's current NPOV rubric, at least insofar as it applies to this article. You write that we shouldwork collaboratively to fix the NPOV issues but not a single such issue was identified by you or Masem at that noticeboard. So, nothing to fix here. SPECIFICO talk 18:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Some examples of what I and others think are NPOV, namely the lack of direct quotes by Trump on his own actual "racial views" are routinely shot down by you and MrX. There have been several proposals to include Trump's stated views, which you can still see above. I do not understand why the article called "Racial views of Donald Trump" would not contain any of his actual stated views. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The last attempt to insert a "direct quote" turned out a) To be scraped away from a secondary source that discussed it without even revealing that the secondary source existed, and b) Was carved out to pretty much say something that was very different than a straight quotation of POTUS' words said. But direct quotes have been used here "I am the least..." where secondary RS have discussed them. Do you have any additional instances of direct quotes cited by secondary RS as showing or explaining POTUS' racial views? If so, let's consider whether there's potential article content in them. SPECIFICO talk 20:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

If you want to see a line item list of the issues, revisit the section I created above titled Weight & Balance issues. I won't repeat them because then I get accused of repeating myself...of repeating myself...of repeating myself. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Is this evidence of Trump's racial views?

Hi all. The article currently contains the following in the first subsection:

"The Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino was fined $200,000 in 1991 by the New Jersey Casino Control Commission for removing black and female employees from craps tables in order to accommodate high roller Robert LiButti, a mob figure and alleged John Gotti associate, who was said to fly into fits of racist rage when he was on losing streaks.[34] There is no indication that Trump was questioned in that investigation, he was not held personally liable, and he denies even knowing what LiButti looked like.[34] In 1992 Trump Plaza lost its appeal of the decision.[35]"

Considering that Trump was not even questioned in the investigation and was not held personally liable, does anyone seriously think this is strong enough evidence of Trump's 'racial views' to be included in this article? Birtig (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a stretch. As direct involvement by Trump does not appear to be there. PackMecEng (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from the cited sources, this has nothing to do with Trump's words or actions in relation to racism. It should be removed.- MrX 🖋 17:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

There's actually a lot more to this story. But, I still don't think it belongs. O3000 (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a clear case of inherited infamy. I'm long enough in the tooth to know that... ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Not if you heard the story the way I heard it. But, that's not RS, so I removed it. (And, I'm long enough in the tooth to have played blackjack in Atlantic City the day it opened.) O3000 (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

You win! Here at the ranch, we have a process called floating teeth - come by and we'll give you a free float. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Hispanic judge

I self reverted here after talking to @Objective3000: and @Drmies: on O3000's talk page. There is dispute on if the information is due for inclusion. I was hoping to get some input on others views and I will see if I can find some more sources on the topic. PackMecEng (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to talk, PackMecEng. This response of POTUS is more or less ridiculous, but on this page we have had editors say it's better to put these things in the article and let readers decide. I would be more comfortable with secondary-source summary that evaluates the response, if any exists. SPECIFICO talk 02:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Some I found going along the lines of excuses by supporters: NYT, Forbes, Politico, and Washington Post. All going on the La Raza part and how it was the wrong La Raza.PackMecEng (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Given that we're at 100k already with the article, I don't know how much more we need to spend on this. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Eh readable prose is only 35kb, but we could trim some of the fluff in the section as well to get the response in. PackMecEng (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Ironically, the defense against accusations of bigotry appears to display bigotry itself. Although, I’m not sure how many readers will see that. It’s likely that readers on both sides of the issue will read the sentence and say "Yeah, that proves my point". Which means the sentence is of dubious value. O3000 (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I did like the differentiation you added pointing to the actual organisation La Raza Lawyers of California, verses La Raza perhaps that will help mitigate some of the confusion. We could also add a sentence after expressly pointing out they are different things. PackMecEng (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

All some readers care is that it sounds Hispanic. Probably feel the same way if the name was in Latin. But, I guess we can’t spoon feed the readers. O3000 (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Objective3000: How about to avoid confusion for the reader just give his quote on it and call it done. At Least his quote does not specifically mention the two organisations. PackMecEng (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

His quote includes a false statement about Curiel. This raises BLP concerns. O3000 (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Just for clarity the quote I mean is “He’s a member of a club or society very strongly pro-Mexican, which is all fine. But I say he’s got bias" Is it the very strongly pro-Mexican part or the bias part you mean for false statement? I'm not sure it meets WP:BLPREMOVE, but if we didn't include anything Trump said that was false we would have to exclude a lot of his quotes. What would be a good way to resolve this in your opinion? PackMecEng (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

O3000 has pointed out a problem that comes up any time an editor proposes using a primary sourcesubject's talking point (corrected 17:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)) to "balance" the critics of POTUS. We can't write article text that leads to alternative interpretations. Text needs to convey a single clear meaning. SPECIFICO talk 16:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

What primary sources are you referring to? PackMecEng (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

My mistake. Fixed. Thanks Pack. SPECIFICO talk 17:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think it's due. It was a post-hoc justification that was invented by Trump's supporters (not Trump himself), and which didn't address the fact that Trump made it quite clear that it was the judge's heritage -not his politics or professional affiliations- that he was complaining about. Even if it were an airtight case for a conflict of interest, that wouldn't change Trump's initial reasoning. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

There are some incidences of Trump himself making the defense. Reuters Trump said “He’s a member of a club or society very strongly pro-Mexican, which is all fine. But I say he’s got bias,” I agree it is not a good defense, but it is a defense he and his supporters made that did get decent coverage. PackMecEng (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Trump had repeated it, but it doesn't really change my three points. 1) Trump didn't invent that justification; others did. 2) It only came out in response to criticisms of Trump's initial remarks, and; 3) It doesn't actually explain or justify Trump's remarks, which were explicitly about the judge's ancestry. They would probably belong if we had an article about this particular event, but in this case, they're just more noise that doesn't help. I doubt any reasonable reader would assume that Trump's defenders didn't come up with some post-hoc justification that made his comments out not to be racial in nature, so showing them exactly which such justification doesn't aid the reader's understanding at all. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure which came first, him saying that or his supporters. But either way it was a defense he used even if others came up with it. The fact that his defense came after he was attacked is a little odd. Isn't that how all defenses of actions go? I agree it was a bad defense, and while I doubt it was what he had in mind while making those comments, it was again still the defense he used. It kind of goes to WP:PUBLICFIGURE since the section has no response, even if it would be a poor one, from the actual person involved. PackMecEng (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The fact that his defense came after he was attacked is a little odd. Isn't that how all defenses of actions go? He wasn't defending his actions, but his words. And the only time you have to contradict your own plainly stated meaning to defend what you said is when you're lying about your defense. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Change actions to words and the argument remains the same. No need to assign motive that he is lying, eh he might be, but that is not relevant to this situation. PackMecEng (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. I'm shocked this needs to be explained to you, as this is far from difficult to puzzle out. When someone says "Due to X's race, X cannot do Y," that is racist, no matter whether or not one later says "Well, it's actually due to X's membership in organization Z." Nothing can be said later that will change the words said earlier. Whether or not Trump is lying in repeating his explanation is not a matter requiring any judgement, unless one wants to judge between "he's lying" and "he suffers from some mental illness in which he misremembers what he said earlier, and in which he mishears anyone repeating his earlier words or any recording of his earlier words such that it matches his memory." The former is highly likely, the latter? Not so much. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand that none of that actually matters. Was it a lame excuse later to try and cover his tracks on racist remarks? Eh probably, but so what, that does not matter to us. Did he make a comment in response to the accusations and did that get RS coverage? Yup and that is all that matters. We can and should put that into context, but at the end of the day his comments are absolutely due for accusations made against him, regardless of what they were or if they were good. PackMecEng (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I've already address what you claim I don't seem to understand. Rather explicitly, too, which is what led you to argue that the justification might have been valid. At this point, your case seems to be entirely rhetorical. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Replied below. PackMecEng (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm in a bit of tailspin by at least two of the above comments:

1. O3000: "It’s likely that readers on both sides of the issue will read the sentence and say "Yeah, that proves my point". Which means the sentence is of dubious value." What "value" should the sentence have exactly?
2. SPECIFICO: We can't write article text that leads to alternative interpretations. Text needs to convey a single clear meaning. Please explain why the text needs to convey a single clear meaning, and by whose interpretation will it be judged?

Perhaps my confusion arises from the following statement in our NPOV policy: However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint. Another concern is that far too much weight is being given to trivial mention in sources regarding Trump's alleged racism, some of which is the result of circular reporting while most is simply a passing comment by biased journalists expressing their own opinions - I've broken that down a bit further below. Oh, and being Mexican is not a race anymore than being American, or Canadian. Live Science defines it: "Race is associated with biology, whereas ethnicity is associated with culture." You can be caucasian and still be Mexican. NOTE: the politics section of news publications include a mix of opinion based commentary and news - that's where editorial judgment comes into play. Following is the breakdown of the so-called RS cited in the section Hispanic judge - and by calling him "Hispanic" instead of American, what does that indicate? The section title should be his name, and it should be included in an article about Trump University, not here.

1. HuffPo "The Blog" has zero info about race, racist, racial or racism.
2. WaPo "Fact Checker" section has zero info about race, racist, racial or racism.
3. USA Today "Money" section has zero info about race, racist, racial or racism.
4. NYTimes "Politics" - Election 2016 - article has zero info about race, racist, racial or racism.
5. The Atlantic "Politics" - The word "racist" was used once in that article which equates into trivial mention of the author's opinion. [23] "Trump claimedthe judge could not fairly preside over the Trump University cases because of Curiel’s “Mexican heritage.” (Curiel is from Indiana; his parents are Mexican immigrants.) “I’m building a wall, it’s an inherent conflict of interest,” he added." The article is also cited to the WSJ article.
6. CNN Politics - article attempts to make it a racial issue which is the leniency political commentary enjoys. Opinions are not statements of fact. The weight of that article leans equally to Trump's responses to Trapper's allegations; i.e., Trump's concern that the Judge was biased toward HIM, not the other way around. Trump's defense: "Based on the rulings that I have received in the Trump University civil case, I feel justified in questioning whether I am receiving a fair trial," Trump said. He also referenced "the core issues of my campaign that focus on illegal immigration, jobs and unfair trade" in explaining his criticism.
7. Politifact circular reporting.

• Summary - the section is poorly sourced, one-sided and does not reflect Trump's views. In fact, his views were totally omitted. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Please explain why text needs to convey a single clear meaning That's what it says in the Book of Genesis when God created language. SPECIFICO talk 21:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

😂 ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

On the issue of the word racial, please see: Race (human categorization). O3000 (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

You're referring me to a WP article? ♡ it! Well, good article but it doesn't change the meaning of Mexican and it doesn't change what science dictates. I live in Texas and my family has all kinds of different racial mixes, some from Mexico, and they refer to themselves as tanned Americans. I'll pass along your suggestion to read the WP article so they'll know they are now a particular race because their grandparents were born in Mexico. In the interim, I'll stick with the scientific definition such as the one in PubMed: Races may exist in humans in a cultural sense, but biological concepts of race are needed to access their reality in a non-species-specific manner and to see if cultural categories correspond to biological categories within humans. It's a bit more encyclopedic than referring to folks by nationality and hanging a race label on them because of it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am referring you to a highly referenced article on how the word is used. As for science, please read what the American Anthropological Association says: AAA Statement on Race Race has a far wider meaning than a few simple classifications. O3000 (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• So at this point to summarize. We have an argument that it would make the article to large. That his defense mixing up La Raza with La Raza Lawyers of California might create confusion with readers. That his response to criticism is undue because he said a defense others have made and that it is not a good defense. Are there more arguments I have missed?

The size one is completely a non-issue, since size is not actually a problem for this article. The mix up could be cleared up either with a quote or a second sentence clarifying the difference between the orgs. The undue one might be closer. But I still feel that regardless of when, why, or how he said it. It was still a defense he spoke about and was well covered. A sentence covering his defense is due, and possibly a sentence after covering why that defense might be an issue. PackMecEng (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Nothing racist about criticizing the fact that a Mexican judge was the one selected to rule on a case of illegal immigration. It has been shown that Mexicans disproportionately support illegal immigration due to very strong ethno-nationalism among Mexicans. You might even say that their support for illegal immigration is Mexican supremacist since it is exclusively in their own self-interest and to the detriment of America, as well as completely ignoring American laws.

Show me the RSes lending credibility to this justification, and I'll concede the inclusion. So far, all I've seen is RSes undermining that justification. Until then, I stand by saying it's undue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Reuters, Breitbat, CBS, and USA Today all giving Trump's justification with some going on to mention why it might be an issue. Again I am not opposed to a sentence after mentioning the issues with his statement. But to completely leave it out is problematic. PackMecEng (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Breitbart as an RS? Surely you jest. There is no chance in hell we ever use Breitbart for a claim of fact on an issue like this. None of the rest rest even come close to lending credibility to the justifcation. Hell, the CBS source doesn't even mention it. Take some advice: Read sources before presenting them to support a claim, especially in controversial topics. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah Breitbart was just for fun . But yes CBS mentioned Trump's defense. Start of second paragraph. So what are you talking about? PackMecEng (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay fine, we'll play pedantic for this one. What does the source say about that excuse that lends it credibility? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Know what, there are about half a dozen RS here listing what he said, why, and what it is in relation to. If you do not like it, fine, but I think we have gone as far as we can go here. Thanks for your time. PackMecEng (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll take that to mean "nothing", then. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

Just a quick check on a proposal to add this to the end of the last paragraph of the section.

"Responding to criticism, Trump said "He’s a member of a club or society, very strongly pro-Mexican, which is all fine. But I say he’s got bias," referring to Curiel's membership in La Raza Lawyers of California, a Hispanic legal profession advocacy group which is unrelated to the National Council of La Raza."

I think that gives a good rundown of his overall response to the situation. I would be open to improvement suggestions though. PackMecEng (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

How does this address the equivocation wrt the Mexican/Hispanic American distinction? SPECIFICO talk 15:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Apologies but I am not sure I follow. What do you mean? PackMecEng (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi sorry for not being more clear. I think it's got to say Hispanic-American... because Trump's statement is apparently intended to make his supporters think it's a pro-Mexican group (whatever that might mean). SPECIFICO talk 16:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I would be fine with changing "a Hispanic legal profession" to "a Hispanic-American legal profession" if that is what you are looking for. PackMecEng (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm giving up on trying to keep the bloat out of this article for now, so consider me neutral on whether this is mentioned or not. But the text needs work. It should read:

Responding to criticism, Trump said "He’s a member of a club or society, very strongly pro-Mexican, which is all fine. But I say he’s got bias," referring to Curiel's membership in La Raza Lawyers of California, a Hispanic legal profession advocacy group,/which is unrelated to the National Council of La Raza.

There's a comment in there with just the copyedited text and no markup. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Taking a fresh look at the current article text, I don't see that mention of the La Raza Lawyers bit adds any substance to the narrative of this article. It might show the specific form of equivocation Trump uses, but that's something that might be covered more generally elsewhere in this or other articles. SPECIFICO talk 18:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the NPOV/N discussion has done some good....

SPECIFICO - I was reading over some of your suggestions at NPOV/N, and one thing in particular struck a chord when you said: My personal view, fyi, which I stated on the article talk page in discussing a certain NY Times article that I believe supports this view, is that Trump is indifferent to race. It's not a category he cares about. It made me think of a few articles I read that align with that same principal.

• See HuffPo wherein Trump Jr. says his Dad doesn't see color, he sees the economy, *It is pretty much corroborated by the Real Clear Politics article by Larry Elder titled Trump's Victory: Even Charlie 'Race Card' Rangel Doesn't Blame 'Whitelash, which focuses on the views of Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY). The article states: At the Harvard post-election symposium, top Clinton aides accused Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway of blatantly courting America's white racists. But Rangel argues that root cause is middle-class economic anxiety. The article also states: "But free from the pressures of getting reelected, Rangel told the truth. The charge that Trump is racist, sexist, homophobic and Islamophobic is bogus -- and the voters saw through it.
• And there's also the following article wherein Shelby Steele, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute, shares his views about how Trump sees race issues in the US: Steele sees President Donald Trump as indifferent to the cultural pressures of race privileges, by his insisting on the same laws applying to all Americans. “Well, it almost looks a little lightweight,” Steele says, “but it’s actually kind of profound. It’s where the whole country needs to move.”
• The following is interesting as well: CNN exit polls as it givies us a decent window into how voters responded to various topics based on race, gender, age, etc. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and I went on to say that's like a driver being indifferent to traffic signals. Not acceptable or legal, but it does explain wanton reckless behavior. There's been a substantial body of RS discussion of Trump that tries to provide a unified theory of his behavior as an expression of a narcissistic personality. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's just kind of inconsistent with holding high political office. But these same sources go on to say that Trump and those around him did not really expect him to win the election, and so everything would have worked out happy-hippo. You can forget the Daily Caller as a WP source, btw. SPECIFICO talk 17:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Why? Is The Daily Caller blacklisted, or is it because it's conservative? I had to laugh when at NPOV/N and then here you said "Not that there's anything wrong with that." 😂 ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

It's because it's not reliable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not how it works, VM. The best response to address misconceptions about citing RS was provided to me in response to my question by TenOfAllTrades at RS/N in 2015, and I've used it as a guide ever since. I'm happy to be able to share the relevant part with you as it relates to this discussion: ...a common misconception is that a source can be declared "reliable", and that declaration is a fixed, absolute judgement. Reliability depends both on the source itself and on how it is used. This board cannot provide a blanket approval that a source is reliable for all purposes. There's also WP:RSCONTEXT: The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. And then the most recent being what Masem explained at WP:NPOV/N which you can reference in this diff. The Daily Caller actually works perfectly for the purpose it was used. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

If we're on the subject of being "indifferent" or "ignorant" to race or racial issues, we could also include comments by Isaac Newton Farris Jr., who said, "I think President Trump is racially ignorant and racially uninformed. But I don't think he is a racist in the traditional sense." [24] ^Falling_Gravity 07:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Central Park jogger case

I've read this a few times through and it appears to me that the subsection is far too detailed for this article, especially as a link to the main article is provided. All that is required is some brief details of the case, including the race of the 5, with the point that they were convicted before their convictions were vacated following DNA evidence confirming that someone else was responsible, but that Trump refused to accept this outcome and his refusal has been categorised as racist. We do not need all the detail to retry the case as the issue is Trump's behaviour and the fact is was viewed as racist. I will make some small edits to condense the subsection, small enough so that editors can revert if they think I have removed something pertinent to this article Birtig (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

It's one of the most well-covered incidents of Trump's reported racism out there, so I'm a little skeptical of claims that it's given too much weight. That being said, do a proposal edit (edit the section to your preferred state, then self-revert, or just write up the section the way it should be done in your sandbox) and link that edit here, and I might well be perfectly fine with it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, I have made a small edit, removing unnecessary detail that is not germane to the central issue - it is there to be reverted if my edit is objectionable. Birtig (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I looked at it, and I reverted. The bit that you removed makes a rather large change to the narrative of that section, and since it's verifiable, I'm not okay with removing it. It's quite important to establish the innocence of the CP5 whenever we cover them, as that's their central defining feature. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Your edit's no good -- it changes the meaning our readers will take away from the article. Please undo it and engage further here if you wish. This was actually a key and defining moment in Trump's public history. SPECIFICO talk 21:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Huh? What "meaning" are you wanting readers to take away from the article? That sounds really strange. We're not supposed to be influencing readers by what "we" want them to think. We provide statements of fact that are supported by cited sources. I don't get what you're saying. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance but, from what is reported in this article, the only thing linking Trump's comments about the 5 to his 'racial views' is the statement from Ken Burns who states that Trump's comments are racism. I certainly don't see anything in what Trump said that could be about race. Birtig (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I do think the section, at four paragraphs, is undue and overly detailed. I also think (have thought for quite a while) that there is too much detail about the case in the lede and it should be trimmed to a single sentence. I will take a shot at that. As for whether Trump's comments and opinion are racist in origin, that's not just Burns; I see that the Five used "racial discrimination" as one of the allegations in their successful lawsuit. --MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi MelanieN. The 5 did use ;racial discrimination' in their successful lawsuit, but they were not suing Trump so that is not relevant to this article which is trying to look for evidence of Trump's racial views. I just don't see that his comments in this case were racist - if someone can quote anything that Trump said about the five that was racist I will stand corrected. Birtig (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

That's just incorrect. If you will research the history of this case, the public discussion and comment and the media coverage of it, you'll see that it was clearly and indisputably about race. SPECIFICO talk 01:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, MelanieN - are you talking about the lawsuit against NY State? I haven't dug deep into this case, but what little I did read in the NYTimes, Trump was basically supporting the Police Chief who stuck to his beliefs. I posted that link somewhere and now I can't find it - but there's also this one. I don't think Trump was targeting them on race at all rather it was all the other evidence in the reports, including the confessions. A quick Google search just now brought up the following - which may or may not be useful for some of the history - NYTIMES 1989, and Find Law. I think the section should be removed based on the ambiguity and considering "racism" is still an opinion. We already have a stand alone article on the actual case for our readers. With regards to it demonstrating racism on Trump's part, it's pretty weak when one digs deep enough to see what actually influenced his mindset. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

If the RSes are citing it as an example of Trump's racism (and they are), then it doesn't matter whether or not we disagree with them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE & SYNTH - after checking some of the sources, it's even worse than I first thought. Scroll up to Hispanic judge wherein I've provided an evaluation of the sources that were chosen to support the narrative. Scroll up a bit more and look at the section Weight & Balance issues which reflects similar issues but I haven't closely evaluated weight in each of the cited sources. In a quick random evaluation of sources, I've seen a single occurance of the term, either racism, racist or race. The Somali refugees section for example: Boston Globe (City Hall demonstration mentioned chants and signs that read “I love my neighbors” and “No place for racism.”) and CS Monitor where there is no mention of it at all. That whole section should be removed because it has nothing to do with Trump's racial views and everything to do with immigration - the sources do not support the claim. It wouldn't surprise me if we saw more of the same. I'm concerned this article may be noncompliant with OR in addition to NPOV issues. SYNTH states: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. That is exactly what we're seeing in this article. Looking at each section in the article, Housing and hotel discrimination cases is the only topic that is actually about racism but even then, the cases date back to a time when Trump's father was making policy and running the company. (That was what I meant earlier when I said Trump's "inherited infamy". I likened inherited infamy to notability is not inherited per WP:N.) SYNTH was used to determine WEIGHT and make it fit the racism narrative, rather than properly determining weight in the individual cited sources, many of which have nothing to do with Trump's racial views, much less racism - that's where OR comes into play. ^{Atsme📞📧} 10:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, if the RSes are saying something, and your response is "WP:UNDUE & SYNTH" then you have no idea what either of those policies mean. None of the rest of your comment addresses anything I've said, so I'm ignoring it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Read the sources. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

You mean like this one? Or possibly this one? You want me to flood you with RSes explicitly attributing his views on the CP5 to racism? Because I surely can (and others have already posted more in this thread). So do us all a favor, and read the sources yourself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Hold the snark - we're collaborating in a discussion about the issues we're trying to resolve so we can fix the most glaring noncompliant issues in the article. I'm retired, so I have the time, and I'm happy to provide a review of the cited articles. I'll begin with the fact that the very first mention of race follows 3 paragraphs after the photograph which is well into the article, and it states: Why the continued belief in the guilt of the Central Park Five, despite all the evidence to the contrary? Race and racism surely play their role.^{General statement, no one person named.} So does the cognitive trap that psychologists call anchoring and what we call first impressions: Mr. Trump quickly jumped to conclusions about their guilt, as did many in New York City. The colon points to Trump under the potential of the cognitive trap called anchoring which implies that the boys' confession and the evidence at the scene are stuck in his head. Read the police reports and the other evidence that was at the scene. While it is not our place to judge primary material we should corroborate the information in the sources we cite. The article, which happens to be an OP-ED authored by the wife of the man who produced the documentary about this case (no COI there, right?), goes on to say "So we are left with Mr. Trump’s presumption that because they were black and brown teenagers from Harlem, they must have committed a crime." Nowhere in the article did Trump make a "presumption" of race or color. So I'm not sure where she came up with it being HIS presumption. What we're left with is a full page OP-ED about the crime itself, with 2 passing mentions of race and only 1 directed at Trump, while much more of the article is about Moore, and why Trump believes the kids were guilty, yet the weight in our WP article goes to Trump's racial views. Do you really consider that article an exceptional source for making such an exceptional claim against WP:PUBLICFIGURE in WikiVoice, much less with regards to weight? See WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and yes, the racist claim is UNDUE.

As for the Newsweek article which reads more like a made for television drama and appears to be an attack on white Republicans (no bias there, right?) goes on and on about sexual allegations and Roy Moore, and then toward the end of the article in the 1st paragraph below the image of Lincoln: Rather than calling Trump a one-man lynch mob for his racist treatment of the Central Park 5, pundits and supporters of the president say that the investigation into his campaign's involvement with Russia is a "lynch mob" or "witch hunt." What racist statement? That doesn't sound like ethical journalism to me - it reads like a biased pundit's opinion. Good editorial judgment is required. In the next paragraph, the author uses more "entertaining political banter" (my bold underline): Critics say it fits into a pattern of “racist rhetoric” that Trump himself has spread among his party. Trump's use of racist dog-whistle terms demonstrates the subtle racism can be infused into political rhetoric to paint a certain picture of an intended enemy. More of the same criticism from political opponents which again, fails WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and yes, it is UNDUE. MPants, I can go through each and every source the same way, and if we end-up with 5 that come as close to discrimination or bias as the hotel section, it will surprise me. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

So you're providing us with your own analysis of the sources in order to decide what we should write. Gotcha. Forgive me if I don't find your argument convincing, but any argument about what a source says that consists of more than a quote from the source with no commentary of your own is never going to be a good argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I've trimmed some of the details on the background to the case, apparently lifted straight from the lede of the main article. Here we don't need a laundry list of the charges they were convicted since we already know it was a rape trial. It also seems like DNA counter-evidence was downplayed during the trials, and only in 2002 was it determined to be exculpatory evidence. ^Falling_Gravity 07:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how this is relevant at all to the article. How is Trump thinking they are guilty related to their race? Ken Burns saying this was racist is not a good tie-in. Did Trump mention their race at all?Icewhiz (talk) 10:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't find any sources showing Trump saying anything relating to race regards this case. All I could find was ken Burns saying that Trump continuing to believe that the 5 were guilty was 'racist'. That's it. Nothing else. This whole subsection - all four paragraphs off it - is in this article because of this single, suggestion from a single individual that in his opinion Trump maintaining that the 5 were guilty was racist (though he provides neither reason nor evidence to support his opinion. To build all this on a solitary opinion, on such a high profile case when many will have aired opinions, smacks of the very definition of 'Undue'. Birtig (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

[25][26] Hundreds more if you look. Those who have not researched the topic should not be denying what happened. SPECIFICO talk 14:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Those sources do not support this, SPECIFICO. They do support that the case was racially charged (presumably due to the race of the defendants). Guardian has a quote of someone saying “I think he got angry when he saw what happened to that woman, and I think he reacted to it,” she said of the Central Park jogger case. “I think we were all horrified at what happened. I think everybody basically supported Donald. I don’t think he was trying to be racist – I think he was trying to be a proponent of law and order.” and For Salaam, however, the intent was explicit: “If we were white, would Donald Trump had written this in the paper?” - and that's about it. nymag just says it was charged without putting Trump in the mix. In any case - the current text and sources do not support inclusion. And most of the sources out there (if at all) are probably of people averse to Trump speculating various things about Trump's possible motivations.Icewhiz (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Have another look at that Guardian article, Icewhiz. It is pretty much all about Trump and race. zzz (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I re-read the whole thing. Much (say 50%) of it is about Trump and Race, while it is also about his firebrand tactics and rhetoric. I did miss another person connecting the jogging incident to race - but there are so many other angles to attack this incident (both from the Trumpian side, and from the anti-Trump side - e.g. insisting that exonerated men (with DNA evidence and a confession!) are guilty despite rather clear cut evidence) - that race doesn't seem to be the "main" thing, but rather a side argument. What is this article about? An attempt to speculate about Trump's views on race? Or an attempt to actually document his views? e.g. this in the Guardian - He quoted Trump as saying: “I’ve got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.” In a later interview with Playboy magazine, Trump labelled his former employee a “fucking loser” but added: “The stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true.” is directly about race.Icewhiz (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to spend any more time finding perfect references to satisfy every editor who wishes to deny that the public controversy surrounding this event and Trump's involvement in it were racially tinged. There are hundreds of archived sources and analyses available online and many more in books and non-electronic archives. This was the most racially divisive event in that city in 20+ years and it has been covered and described as such in the overwhelming majority of RS accounts. That doesn't mean that each report of details explicitly refers to race, so deniers (not meant personally, Icewhiz) will always be able to find non-racial presentation of facts and events, just as there are news reports of the US war in Afghanistan that don't mention Osama and Bush. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not denying this has been tied to Race by detractors of Trump (along with being tied to a whole bunch of other things - e.g. denying the rather clear cut exoneration!) - but you have so much good material directly about Trump and Race (e.g. - the Mexican-American judge for instance, or say the quote about black vs. Jewish accountants, or events after Unite the Right Rally) - why fill up the article with speculation by detractors of Trump?Icewhiz (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

This thread is about the Central Park Jogger Case - the stuff you quote is not about the Central Park Jogger case. Is there any evidence, anywhere, of Trump making any statement about race with regards to the Central park 5? Birtig (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

This feels to me like sealioning so I am not going to go beyond my already ample and generous responses to your insistent inquiries. SPECIFICO talk 16:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem, SPECIFICO. I conclude that Trump expressing outrage over this case, and continuing to believe that the 5 were not innocent, is viewed as sufficient to ascribe racist motives to his actions because "This was the most racially divisive event in that city in 20+ years". In my humble opinion this is a completely insufficient basis to include this section in this article, but if the consensus among editors is that this is sufficient to include it, I will move on. Birtig (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Independent sources have tied Trump's actions in this case to his views on race, in a multitude of articles. End of story.- MrX 🖋 17:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Notice the dates on the articles - do they date back to when the event occurred, or were they written in 2016 specifically for the election year? There you have it. *sigh* ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Whatever.- MrX 🖋 17:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

So, The Guardian is not RS when it’s near a US election? O3000 (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Refer to WP:NEWSORG - I'm not going to keep repeating myself. I think the best way to arrive at consensus in an effort to resolve the NPOV issues is simply to prepare specific surveys and let the wider community participate. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

"I'm not going to keep repeating myself." Thank you for that! - MrX 🖋 20:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, see Politico which provides Trump's views: "Donald Trump denied any racial discrimination, but said his managers tried to weed out certain kinds of tenants. “What we didn’t do was rent to welfare cases, white or black," Trump wrote in a 1987 book." The article goes on to explain how/where the suits originated, and keep in mind, there were people of color already living on the property and on other Trump properties. Historically, the Fair Housing Act wasn't signed into law until 1968, and the events in the context of this article were a short 4 to 5 years later. There was no admission of guilt by Trump in the settlement. To portray it any other way by citing op-eds, political sections (which are basically commentary with a splash of facts) and circular reporting with the belief that it automatically gives more weight to a particular POV is a logical fallacy. Read the PAGs I've already cited. There are quite a few more sources out there, and it's actually better to find the earlier dated articles (late 60s-early 70s) to cite in order to steer clear of RECENTISM and all the biased political pundits that inundate journalism today - doesn't matter what side of the isle you prefer. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with recentism. He signed two consent decrees. Applications from black applicants to Trump buildings were marked with the letter "C" for colored. O3000 (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Equalities monitoring in the 1970s? I'm impressed...(just joking.) Birtig (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Of course, we are all entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts, and RECENTISM as well as BIAS in the media is real and deserves careful consideration. WP isn't a news source - we're an encyclopedia. There were historically significant legal & societal changes that took place in the 60s-70s prior to and after the Fair Housing Act - yes it matters in an encyclopedic sense because our job as editors is to include encyclopedic information. We avoid SOAPBOX, RIGHTGREATWRONGS, propaganda, political opinions and we use editorial judgment regarding derogatory opinions that require in-text attribution per PAGs. We don't censor history, we summarize it to reflect that period of time; ideally we'll have books by historians and scholars to consult/cite, which is quite different from a journalist's perspective of what happened nearly a half-century ago for inclusion in an opinion piece or commentary in the political section during a presidential campaign. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I know. You have told us again and again for over a year that the NYTimes and WaPo are biased. And this has nothing whatsoever to do with SOAPBOX, RIGHTGREATWRONGS, propaganda. O3000 (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, you obviously weren't paying attention if that's what you came away with. *sigh* Let's just call a truce - you stop addressing me, and I'll stop addressing you. G'day! ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Atsme said, "We don't censor history, we summarize it to reflect that period of time." If that were to be the case somebody better get busy at the Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations article. I know a few things about this topic from both work experience and personal experience. Back in those days my girls or I would have been laughed out of town if we had reported sexual abuse charges against a local sheriff. I could get on a soapbox and go on and on about this. I am only grateful that as the years have passed we are now finally looking at issues such as sexual abuse, racial abuse, and housing discrimination more honestly. It should be obvious that we report on such issues using the knowledge that we have gained over the years. Gandydancer (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Umm... That's exactly what you said. RECENTISM as well as BIAS in the media is real and deserves careful consideration. Remember that? How can you allege bias in one comment and then turn around and claim someone didn't understand you when they say "We already know you think there's bias." ? Do you think nobody will read your earlier comment? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

No one here is was spreading "propaganda". And, many of us are tiring of your aspersions. O3000 (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Communism is the only way! Capitalism is the great evil! Our glorious leader will bring us into a new age of enlightenment! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

An interesting read BBC - supports my argument about getting the article right. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Who's arguing against getting it right? O3000 (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, have you been staying up late with you-know-who again? 🎃 SPECIFICO talk 13:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

BBC - supports my argument about getting the article right. Yeah, but the BBC is biased against WP. You can tell because it says negative things about WP. So we have to balance how we read it to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Ahhh...Grasshopper...^{Atsme📞📧} 16:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Central Park jogger case - fresh question

Hi all. The lead currently states "He was accused of racism for insisting in 1989, and maintaining as late as 2016, that a group of black and Latino teenagers were guilty of raping a white woman in the Central Park jogger case, although an imprisoned serial rapist had confessed in 2002 to raping the jogger alone, and DNA evidence confirmed his guilt."

There are clear sources that show that Trump was accused of racism for maintaining that the 5 were guilty 'as late as 2016'. However, is there any evidence that he was accused of racism for insisting that they were guilty in 1989? If not, this sentence should be amended to ""He was accused of racism for maintaining, as late as 2016, that a group of black and Latino teenagers were guilty of raping a white woman in the Central Park jogger case, although an imprisoned serial rapist had confessed in 2002 to raping the jogger alone, and DNA evidence confirmed his guilt." Birtig (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

You need to read up on all the references folks have cited and not ask others to research matters you feel are significant. The sources are at your fingertips! SPECIFICO talk 14:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Good advice. I checked all the references and could not see any that suggested Trump was accused of racism for insisting that the 5 were guilty in 1989, though the references do accuse him of racism in not accepting the convictions being vacated and continuing to insist on their guilt as recently as 2016. On the basis that the part of the sentence relating to 1989 is not supported by the references given, I will delete those few words. Birtig (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Before you delete anything, please dig deeper into the initial coverage. The entire incident was racially-charged and played as such by many New York figures and publications at the time. SPECIFICO talk 16:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Pardon of Joe Arpaio

I was reverted by @Volunteer Marek: here, saying "not really about the topic, unde". The edit involved adding comments from the governor and house rep from Arizona, similar to having the comments from the both senators from Arizona mentioned. How are their comments on the pardon of Joe Arpaio not related to the pardoning of Arpaio or any less due than the senators we quote? PackMecEng (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Right: keep all reactions, or nuke them all. — JFG ^talk 15:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

It was rightly reverted. It adds nothing to the understanding of the subject of the article. Find some scholarly work, or even remarks from a governor, that repudiate that that Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio oversaw the worst pattern of racial profiling in U.S. history or that this White House supports racism and bigotry. - MrX 🖋 15:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Again it is no different than the opinions listed of the senators, the "constitutional scholars", or Paul Ryan. All of which speak nothing of race. PackMecEng (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

If other comments are unrelated to race, they should be removed also. - MrX 🖋 15:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I would be fine with that, there wouldn't be much left of the section then though. PackMecEng (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Reasoning/edit summary for removal of long standing text makes no sense

Here. The edit summary is "was undue for the lead of the main article, definitely undue for here". I'm sorry but that's ass backwards. A sentence may be undue in a lede of an article and still be perfectly due in the main text. A sentence relevant to Trump's supporters views on race may be undue in an article about the neo-Nazi rally, but it may (it is) very well be due here. I'm challenging this removal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

We are referencing that article in the section so the beginning of our section should reflect the lead of the article we reference. Since that part was, by a decent sized RFC, decided it was undue. It most certainly is undue for a summary of the lead over here. PackMecEng (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Since this is about Trump, it obviously has far more relevance to this article than the one generally on the rally. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

However, I'm not sure that we need so much detail on the protests themselves, and thus still may be need to be removed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm unsure. This is more about his followers than him. Are any of the RSes actually linking the Trump supporters at the rally to Trump being racist? (I'm fine with either answer, I've just not seen it done yet.) I would prefer to see sources that don't like it to Trump's racism by way of the so-called "Trump effect", or the rise in racism among the general population since the election of Trump, but I suppose enough of those would do the trick. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• One problem with mentioning the presence of Trump/Pence signs is that the evidence is extremely weak. (Probably because the statement is simply false.) Now, if you want a compromise, mentioning MAGA hats would have strong evidence. But, I tend to agree with MPants that this is about his followers, not him. O3000 (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Is there not a danger of a circular argument here? people who oppose Trump accuse him of being racist/racist people are therefore attracted to support Trump/the people opposing Trump then point to that fact that racists support Trump as proof to justify their original claim that he is racist...Birtig (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Racists are certainly attracted to people with racist words, deeds, and policies. But, I think it’s quite a stretch to claim many racists will go so far to support someone simply because someone else says they’re a racist. Don’t see how it applies anyhow given what appear to be racist words, deeds, and policies. In any case, this is far too speculative to raise NPOV/BLP issues. O3000 (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I have some evidence to support O3000's assertions here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

NOT funny. MPants, I know your sense of humor is far out there, but that kind of humor simply doesn't fit here. Whatever happened to the beautiful words, the love and all that is good and unifying that was preached to the world and taught by the honorable Martin Luther King? This topic is far too sensitive for the kind of levity brought to us by David Chappelle, not that I have anything against Chappelle, but this is not the appropriate venue. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

LOL, I thought it was hilarious (and I bet that MLK would have as well). Gandydancer (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

😔 ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Your response to that joke only demonstrates that you need to step away and relax more than anyone else in this thread. If you think humor is inappropriate, then you're way too caught up in this to be objective. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I have to say the video is hilarious, as well as educational. But, it tends to prove MPants point. (Hope I got it right this time.) Chappelle’s point is about the utter ignorance of racism. This article is about Trump, not any ignorance present in many of his followers. Whether or not Trump is a racist is not colored by the ignorance of some percentage of his followers. It may be a clue. But, that’s all it is. Better to concentrate on Trump’s actual words, deeds and policies. O3000 (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Query on quality

I realize this will go nowhere, but I have to ask: are the editors who have been working on this "article" satisfied with the quality (or lack thereof)?

• After several read-throughs, I still cannot make heads or tales about the definitive subject of this article; Accusations of Donald Trump's racism, Opinions on Donald Trump's racism, and Times when Donald Trump was thought to be racist seem like more accurate titles. I just would expect Trump's views, not the media's, to be the focus of this article.
• Since no other "article" like this exists on any other president, Abraham Lincoln and slavery, chiefly his views on African-Americans, seemed like the closest thing to compare this to. Amazingly, it has the views from the subject of the article and is to-the-point.
• Why does a neutral article need "Defenses of Donald Trump" if it is, supposedly, representing his own racial views?

Like I said, I no this will go nowhere; quality has not been a concern for these types of "articles" for awhile. I considered trying to fix this "article", but it is just a train-wreck on a subject that deserves better effort, hopefully from editor(s) who can actually write an encyclopedic article. Disclaimer: I am not here defending Trump's ignorance; I am just saddened when lacking quality becomes routine procedure.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Correct. At AfD, it was concluded that this article should not be a mere WP:ATTACK page, and that Trump's actual views should be emphasized rather than only opinions from others. It has been however very hard to make progress, with a recent discussion even denying that Trump's utterance in his inauguration speech that "black, brown or white [people] bleed the same red blood" had anything to do with race. Can't really keep AGF after that. More recently, a proposal to change the title to Accusations of racism against Donald Trump resulted in no consensus, although that would match the current article contents much more accurately. I hope that with time, we can indeed write an encyclopedically valid article about Trump's race-related words and actions. — JFG ^talk 18:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

NPOV requires the criticism side to be represented as well, and there is no better place to put it. Assuming the article does so, "accusations" is wrong on two counts. It misrepresents the article content, which is not limited to criticism, and it implies that the criticism is mostly unfounded. The neutral and sufficiently vague title is Donald Trump and racism, as I and others have suggested in two RMs. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree that an NPOV article would have to give due weight to criticism of Trump; the only problem today is that "due weight" is equated to "100% weight", and that's not neutral, whichever way you slice it. The lead sentence in itself has quite an WP:AGENDA. On the article title, your suggestion is as good as some others. I do hope that a future RM can get enough support, because the current title does not remotely match article contents. — JFG ^talk 21:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

So here we have, yet again, a complaint. An unconstructive rejection of the article title -- which is demonstrably the best we've been able to come up with after airing all the difficult issues. Gentlemen and ladies of the jury, I submit there's no reason for anyone to continue sharing their heartfelt distress unless they are prepared to offer a better alternative. Because as soon as anyone does propose a better title, it will blaze on to consensus and everyone will be happy hippo. SPECIFICO talk 21:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick, quite frankly, according to uninvolved people far removed from WP with whom I've conversed, this article is an embarrassment to the project. While readers who oppose Trump's political views may believe everything that's published about Trump's racial views in op-eds and political commentaries, I believe it turns away far more readers than it attracts, and that should be of concern to all. Veteran editors at both AfD and NPOV/N have acknowledged the article has NPOV issues. Most of it occurs through the ommission of Trump's actual views which the same few editors refuse to give weight because it doesn't support their POV regardless of how many sources support it as I have already demonstrated by citing many different sources. It's pretty easy to lend a lot of weight to a particular POV when all you search for and cite are biased RS that support the same POV while excluding opposing views, often with claims of unreliability. Reliability depends on WP:RSCONTEXT. I went back in time to see what was reported about the actual incidents being mentioned as Trump's history of racially charged remarks and racially motivated actions, and what MSM reported back then is nothing like what they've been reporting since he announced his candidacy. Surprise, surprise. I'm certainly not alone in thinking this article is far too one-sided, but from what I've gleaned from some of the comments I've read, it's apparent there's a reason for sticking with a particular POV as evidenced in this diff. You are certainly welcome to join in the discussions and express your views when you can. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Atsme thank you for the invitation, but I only work on articles that have potential and benefit readers. This is a news and recentism issue; why else do you think articles like this do not exist for any other president -- say Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, or LBJ -- where their racial views are actually analyzed in academic sources? Perhaps I can be convinced a seperate article on Trump's racial views is due, but I do not want anyone sitting back and telling me an effort to be neutral was made here. The best course of action, currently, would be to analyze his views in the Donald Trump article and delete this. But I realize editors worked "so hard" to slab this together so I understand that is unrealistic.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for Palm Beach Club section

Several private clubs in Palm Beach operated with tight restrictions in a segregated world open only to the genteel and old elites until the late 1990s when Donald Trump purchased land in Mar-a-Lago, built his own club and estate, and changed the exclusionary culture of Palm Beach. Prior to his purchase, Trump said he would not join the private Bath and Tennis Club in Palm Beach because “they don’t take blacks and Jews.” Some said it was because he had not been invited to join, to which he responded, "They kiss my ass in Palm Beach. Those phonies! That club [the Bath and Tennis] called me and asked me if they could have my consent to use part of my beach to expand the space for their cabanas! I said, ‘Of course!’" Trump filed a $100,000 discrimination suit in U.S. District Court in Palm Beach, "alleging that the town was discriminating against Mar-a-Lago, in part because it is open to Jews and African-Americans." Palm Beach denied the allegations and called it a zoning matter. New York's Anti-Defamation League was concerned that Trump was using anti-Semitism charges for business gains. Trump's lawsuit was modified to "allege only that the town council has treated Mar-a-Lago unfairly, compared with other clubs in town." One of Trump’s frequent critics Allen Wyett wondered if Mar-a-Lago’s nondiscriminatory policy was a business strategy since, as he put it, “Palm Beach is about 40% Jewish and he was not going to attract the old guard anyway?” In his description of Trump, Wyett said, “He can be outrageous. He can be as gentle as a kid. He can be gracious. He can be as vindictive as anyone you’ve ever met. He’s everything wrapped into one package with a ribbon on it.”

The Washington Post reported that “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.” Having won in the court of public opinion, Trump was able to get the Palm Beach City Council to remove most of the restrictions that prohibited his ability to grow his business and expand the landmark property. As owner of the property, he was better able to end the old practices of racial discrimination. The Washington Post quoted him as saying, “You have everybody there. You have people from the Middle East. You have Jewish people. I mean, you have Jewish people having dinner with people from the Middle East. You have Christians. You have old-line WASPs.”

Sources

Survey

Please respond with the customary "support" or "oppose" iVotes. I have provided a Discussion section below the survey where editors can express their thoughts. I have chosen local consensus first per WP:RfC: Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: After reading SPECIFICO's comment in the discussion section below, I modified the section - Birtig is the only iVote after modification, so I'm pinging them. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

NOTE#2:After reading the comment by Emir of Wikipedia, the material being proposed does not have to be the same exact wording. It can be trimmed. Let the Support iVotes indicate what parts of it should be included. Make suggestions in the Discussion section - we can always tweak it after the survey. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support - obvious, but more of an effort to kick-start the iVoting. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - we want all evidence related to Trump's views and not just the stuff that can paint him in a bad light... Birtig (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This bloated text is not remotely verified by the references and it's preposterously undue and full of a false editorial hallicinated narrative. It's so far from the references it's not even worth debunking in detail. Nobody should favor "support" without affirming that they've actually read all these words cited in support as references. SPECIFICO talk 20:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support As per note#2 I support some mention of this but I think the version currently proposed is probably undue or trivial. A trimmed version should be included in the article though. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Immense amount of text for a self-serving claim that he fought for civil rights in a situation that appears to have been an effort to force a reversal of a town zoning decision putting limitations on the conversion of a private estate in a residential area to a busy club. O3000 (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - um, WP:NOTESSAY. Regardless of content and sourcing, this is written in a non-encyclopedic manner.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Meh - I'm more or less neutral about including this content in some form, but I think this is at least twice as long as it needs to be. It does speak to Trump's public profile with regard to race, and it does include the possibility that it was business-driven. The Snopes article is illuminating.- MrX 🖋 12:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is insufficiently notable or interesting to be included. I would also suggest to shorten the section "Shithole countries". It includes too many opinions by US senators that add nothing to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Please limit discussion to this section to avoid cluttering up the Survey. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, what evidence have you that any of the old money clubs would have admitted the vulgar arriviste Trump to their circle. "Refused to join" doesn't mean he had any opportunity to join. I refuse to board the space shuttle. Maybe you do as well. Please cite source for your insinuation that there's some principled stance behind this. SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

If 'refused to join' is the bit you don't think appropriate, I'm sure the wording can be amended as it is not the key part of this - the key part is Trump comment against the existing clubs that “they don’t take blacks and Jews." Birtig (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

There's more on this story at: [27]. The claim that he was making some stance about desegregation is very shaky. It appears far more a publicity stunt with the goal of having restrictions removed that were put in place because he wanted to bring heavy traffic to a residential area. I don't think there is any evidence that the town had a problem with an open club or that he refused to join any clubs. This is likely one of innumerable self-serving claims. O3000 (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the Snopes link - it corroborates what I wrote in the proposed section about the late 90s, Trump modifying his lawsuit, and what his critic said. Love verifiability. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

It does no such thing, and you have provided no rationale for this claim. It brings to question the entire reasoning behind adding this to the article. O3000 (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Does, too. If you don't think so, then provide the proof. Eveything is cited to RS, and your IDONTLIKEIT commentary is not the least bit helpful. Stick with collegial and everything will be just fine. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Does too is not an argument. And, it’s up to you to give evidence for your claims. And, I made no IDONTLIKEIT comment. And there was nothing non-collegial about my comment. You need to stop this BATTLEGROUND behavior. By now, you really should have realized it doesn’t convince. O3000 (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: I took to heart the questions SPECIFICO raised, and made the necessary modifications. The only iVote before the change was by Birtig, to whom I've pinged and advised. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The defects of this bloated babble came through your tweak unscathed. Unverified, synth, OR, and BS. Did you read the references you cited? SPECIFICO talk 21:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: What is your proposal exactly? Adding to the article the whole two paragraphs as written at the top of this thread? — JFG ^talk 18:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

JFG, the proposal is to add the section - see header for this proposal: Proposal for Palm Beach Club section. This diff removed the section and put it in Defenses of Donald Trump, and then removed it entirely. In a discussion near the top of this TP, section title Removal of Palm Beach clubs, Emir of Wikipedia asked me if I had a proposal. I do now. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, your claim of OR in your iVote followed by your decision not to define it is puzzling. So that we're on the same page - WP:OR states: The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. Everything I've said written is verifiable in the sources. I understood why you were confused by the first writing but I clarified it using quotes and inline-text attribution right from the cited source. There is no way that can be OR. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, for starters: "world open only to the genteel and old elites until the late 1990s when Donald Trump purchased land in Mar-a-Lago, built his own club and estate, and changed the exclusionary culture of Palm Beach" SPECIFICO talk 22:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: I think that so much detail is probably undue or trivial but I am grateful for you proposing a wording. I am not going to oppose as I obviously think that this is worth including, but I don't feel comfortable supporting the current wording you have proposed. Perhaps we could make it more concise? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

You guys need to cut it out with these informal "surveys" and do proper RfCs instead.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree. That would be better for all concerned. There's a huge amount of wasted time on the politics articles from process failures, and formal RfC's would need clear succinct proposals, would ensure that everyone gets a chance to comment, and for both reasons would reduce the number of do-overs and unclear outcomes. It really would make better use of our talent pool here. SPECIFICO talk 23:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I prefer to look to Wikipedia PAGs for what we need to do. WP:RFC: "Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others." And you can talk until blue in the face, but consensus often doesn't become clear until you use the survey format. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Right. I think these surveys are only coming after it's clear there's no agreement. But I think at that point, the informal surveys really do not resolve the issue, whereas if the same effort were put into a well-formed RfC we would reach closure and be able to cover more ground with our efforts. SPECIFICO talk 00:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss, I must've overlooked the part that reads "And you can talk until blue in the face...yada yada" in our PAGs.😉 I'm just going by what the procedure suggests - trying to get local consensus first and if we can't reach an agreement, I'll follow Masem's suggestion and take it to VP. I'll know to do that first next time. Let's give the survey a chance to set, and give other editors a chance to provide input. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree that these surveys are useless. They constantly change, can be prematurely closed, and Atsme just piles insult after insult at anyone that doesn’t agree with her POV. We have well thought out procedures where this timesink kind of distraction won't work. Let us follow them. O3000 (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The proposed text suggests that Mar-a-Lago is not exclusionary. Trump has often mentioned that he allows blacks and Jews to become members. But, are there actually any black members? Keep in mind that many organizations that claim to be open, aren’t in practice. (Like a nightclub that refuses entry to a black couple because of the dress code when the club is filled with people wearing the same type of clothing.) Out of curiosity, I spent a couple hours looking for a black member and was unable to find one. (A few articles on membership: [28], [29], [30], [31].) Mar-a-lago does not have open membership. First, you must be sponsored by a current member. Then, the club must approve your membership. The criteria for acceptance is unknown. The claim that the club is not exclusionary fails scrutiny. 13:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)O3000 (talk)

It's a "private club". The 1% megawealthy pay big bucks for privacy vs what...let's say editors have to pay for anonymity on WP. Imagine the uproar if media or government demanded full disclosure of WP editors just to make sure WMF is "an equal opportunity employer" 🤣. The Bloomberg] article provideds a bit more info. CNBC verifies the club is pricey. We are not investigative reporters (OR), we summarize what the RS say. If we treated all of the Trump articles the way some editors want to treat the addition of this one section, we'd have far fewer articles starting with this one. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)