Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump

POV

Further to the above discussion, we need to have a serious talk about the neutrality of this article. We have editors who are prioritising what his detractors say above his own words, this is not appropriate when the article is about the racial views of the man. The intent of many editors seems to be to provide as much evidence as possible that Trump is a racist, and suppress anything which goes against that narrative. In addition to de-emphasising the fact he said that white supremacists and neo-nazis should be condemned totally an editor has recently removed Trump's quotes saying that Asian-Americans are not responsible for the spread of the Coronavirus and should be protected, instead prioritising inferences that his opponents have made about his intent. This is not on. At a bare minimum Trump's stated opinions should be given equal priority to how his opponents interpret his words and divine his true intent, if we're being really fair they should be given more priority. We can verify his words, we can't verify whether his opponents' opinions are correct. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

We just follow what the WP:WEIGHT of reliable sources say. Please read the page on WP:NPOV. In many cases -- not just with respect to Trump's racial views -- the mainstream view is that politicians and other public figures "walk back" controversial statements with equivocation or denial. When sources do not find that credible, they either report the revisions as such or otherwise deprecate them. This article is the product of many editors's work and attention and is reasonably NPOV. Especially after my recent edit that corrected a couple of problems. SPECIFICO talk 15:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

On the "very fine people" thing, he said it in the same interview. This wasn't him reacting to negative press or damage control, it was clarifying during the conversation. (https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-charlottesville-transcript-20170815-story.html). You can note that his critics don't believe his denials of racism, but prioritising those beliefs over what he actually said is ridiculous.

You didn't correct problems, you removed facts to give more weights to opinions. It's not NPOV when the agenda is so clearly "Trump is a racist, here's why". Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's a very odd link. It's titled the complete transcript. But, "inaudible" is found 12 times, and "crosstalk" 31 times. Hard to know what's being said. In any case, we don't use transscripts and come to our own conclusions. We use reliable secondary sources. O3000 (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The point is that he said it in the same interview. It wasn't a walkback in response to negative headlines, it was a clarification given almost instantly. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

An interview is a sequence in time. It has earlier and later. Walking back doesn't require that the speaker got very far away before circling back. SPECIFICO talk 16:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I believe he walked it back a day later, after the backlash. He also repeated the "very fine people" comment before defending it after the first event. I believe this is the discussion you are talking about when you say it was instant. O3000 (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

That's funny, I misread that for "insistent" SPECIFICO talk 16:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

So there's clearly dispute over NPOV. MrX notes in the previous section that the arguments in favour of including Trump's words have been heard many times before, the section "Defenses of Donald Trump" is filled with arguments that this page is giving undue weight to Trump's defences, an unregistered user noted that the article has serious NPOV problems, JFG notes subsequently that Trump's words are as noteworthy, but they have repeatedly been deleted from the lead. Birtig questioned whether any positive material about Trump would deleted in the section concerning Trump's Executive Order combating anti-semitism, while views that Trump is not racist are discussed as being deleted in the section "any reason that the article should not contain information that I added from an already used reference?"

Moreover, a simple perusal of the lead can only be read as a hit piece on Trump, overwhelmingly critical in tone. Weight is given to sources which the editors agree with moreso than what Trump himself says, our editors believe that the writers in newspapers are a more reliable source for his views than Trump himself. While the regular editors of this page clearly agree with the way it is presented now - they would - it is clear that many users do not. They just don't have the persistence of the regulars. As such the POV tag should be restored until these issues are resolved. I've been asked to assume good faith, so I trust it will be restored shortly. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Simply stating there is a dispute does not make it a dispute worthy of attention. You must provide a cogent argument based upon Wikipedia guidelines. What a person says in their own interest is not a very good indicator of anything, although it does warrant inclusion to the extent it is not repetitive and ridiculous. On the particular subject of Trump's Executive Order combating anti-semitism, you need to realize that it was widely criticized as perfunctory and meaningless by Jews and non-Jews alike in reliable sources. Indeed, some Jewish organizations found it troubling. It is a far stretch to use this as evidence of non-racism. As always, we rely on reliable sources. O3000 (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

It is absurd to suggest that any non-racist or anti-racist statements a person makes should be ignored because it is in their own interest to make them. That would result in any article about the racial views of almost anybody being extremely critical. If I weren't assuming good faith I'd think that was the intent. Following the same logic we must also disregard the statements of their critics, since we can assume the majority of them wish them to be out of office. There are no disinterested parties here. The most reliable source for an individual's views are the words of the individual themselves, not critics attempting to divine their true meaning.

It is plain that there is a dispute here, you may not consider it worthy of your attention, you might think the article has no issues whatsoever, but the dispute exists and has been noted by several editors. The current state of affairs is that many editors attempt to make changes, they have them reverted by those who dominate this page, those who try to discuss it are dismissed and they give up. They're certainly not convinced by your arguments. Those who read the Wikipedia page either come away thinking that the site is correct, or that Wikipedia is a trash site not worth bothering with. It would be valuable to add the POV tag so that the page reflects the reality of the dispute and so that more users will be encouraged to contribute to the discussion, rather than thinking there is a consensus around the page as it is now.

You've asked me to assume good faith, I assume you want the page to reflect reality. I assume you want as many users as possible to contribute to the discussion. I assume you don't just want the conversation to be dominated by people who agree with you, that you want to build consensus by winning the argument, not by keeping people who disagree with you out of the conversation. Let's see if I'm right to do so. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 02:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

RE 'good faith' Here's the same editor's response to my critique above "I hope you don't consider racism as not troublesome. O3000 (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)" Why should he be concerned with my moral compass? Would he say that if could ID me as a POC who shrugs off racism? Not only is this an underhanded slight, but it defies all rules of logical debate. I wouldn't know what Wikipedia's policies are in regards to this kind of discourse, but I can affirm that attacking the speaker isn't the same as refuting his statements. Frankly, if it walks like a duck and quacks ad hominem, then it probably isn't operating with 'good faith'. The proof is in the pudding. This article doesn't reflect reality. It reflects a hyperpartisan hate fest that many have deluded themselves into. I find it ironic that these same people who choose to spew this partisan vitriol are the same ones who wear their 'compassion' on their shirt sleeves, before announcing their holier-than-thou purity.

Tag this article as lacking NPOV until a consensus can be formed in regards to neutrality. Let those who seek to dominate this page take it up with senior editors. Regular people can't be bothered to learn the ins and outs of Wikipedia's legalese. Personally I don't have the time to game Wikipedia's system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.50.52.10 (talk) 05:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

POV tag continues to be removed without consensus or resolution of the dispute. Deleting the tag doesn't delete the dispute, it just gives the article a veneer of legitimacy. It's disgraceful. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I've watched this article for a fair length of time and I can remember a time when it used to be far more balanced. Unfortunately those bits that gave a different picture have gradually been edited out and it is almost impossible to add anything in without it being immediately reverted. For example, at one time the article used to contain reference to the fact that Trump deliberated opened his clubs to all races when other clubs racially discriminated, it used to include reference to the fact that his son-in-law is Jewish and he is the grandfather to Jews and yet the article gives the impression that he is anti-Semitic, it used to have reference to occasions when he has clearly and unequivocally denounced racism and white-supremacists, but no longer. This article, unfortunately, does undermine the credibility of Wikipedia which is something that really disappoints me. (For the record, I am not a US citizen, I have no relatives I know of who live in the USA, I regard myself as a fairly red socialist, but I just don't like the fact that this article undermines Wikipedia.) I don't think there will ever be consensus to agree that this article should have a POV tag so I would suggest the way forward is to seek to build consensus for individual improvements - adding back in material that has been progressively edited out (no pun intended) would be a very good start.Birtig (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The tag should not be in the article unless someone can specifically point out the NPOV issues and cite sources to support such assertions. The OP's argument has been refuted, and there are previous discussions on the very same matter. The editor who just restored this has made no substantive edits to the talk page. - MrX 🖋 18:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Approximately equal weight should be given to Trump detractors and Trump supporters. Among "Trump supporters" would be Trump himself, unless he is calling himself a racist or an antisemite, and I doubt that. The actual words, terminology, and language used to represent these different thoughts, are the material by which the reader reaches their own conclusions, as well as by delving into our provided citations. I believe the POV tag should be on the article at this time and until some steps are taken to represent the view, as held by many, that Trump is neither racist nor antisemitic. Bus stop (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Should we also give equal weight to Pol Pot's supporters and detractors? WP:FALSEBALANCE. O3000 (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

This you would have to address at the Pol Pot article. Bus stop (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop what Wikipedia policy (and what sentence(s) in the policy) instruct that we should give "Approximately equal weight should be given to Trump detractors and Trump supporters"? Objective3000's analogy and policy cite are spot on. - MrX 🖋 19:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It is hardly an "extraordinary claim" that Trump is not racist, and it is hardly an "extraordinary claim" that Trump is not antisemitic. What is called for at this article is compliance with basic WP:NPOV. Bus stop (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The idea that Trump is racist is hardly a fringe claim. FollowTheSources (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It appears you are the one claiming approximately equal balance. The onus is on you to prove an extraordinary claim. We use the preponderance of reliable sources, as per NPOV. O3000 (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

FollowTheSources—no one said it was a "fringe claim". Bus stop (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The term you used was "extraordinary". And then you confused me by negating. FollowTheSources (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop Would you please answer my question about "approximately equal weight"? NPOV requires that we reflect what is written in reliable sources about the subject, in proportion to the coverage in those sources. - MrX 🖋 20:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

FollowTheSources—it is not a WP:FALSEBALANCE to present both sides of the question this article is supposedly about. Presenting both sides of such questions constitutes basic compliance with WP:NPOV. Bus stop (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It is if there isn't about the same coverage in RS. Reread NPOV. O3000 (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not a fact that Trump is or isn't racist/antisemitic. While I don't have a crystal ball it seems unlikely that Trump will conclusively be deemed racist/antisemitic at some point in the future. That being the case, we should present arguments, approximately equal in substantiality, both for and against the accusation. Bus stop (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

That is not what NPOV says. Read WP:FALSEBALANCE. O3000 (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

This isn't, strictly speaking, an article about Trump. Strictly speaking, this is an article addressing a question. That question is—is Trump racist/antisemitic? Obviously we should address the topic of the article and obviously we should try to do so evenhandedly. Bus stop (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but does that mean pretending that there is equal weight to both sides when our sources do not support such a conclusion? FollowTheSources (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

FollowTheSources—the idea is not to mislead the reader. Bus stop (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

No, this article is about what the title says it is about. And you are attempting to mislead the readers by violating NPOV. Please, please read WP:FALSEBALANCE. O3000 (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop you are making arguments that have no basis in established policy. You're evading direct questions to substantiate your arguments, using strawman arguments (the idea is not to mislead the reader), and a lot of WP:IDHT. That's the kind behavior that can get editors topic banned. Will you please make a policy based argument or desist? - MrX 🖋 21:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

MrX—the first sentence of the lede reads "Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, has a history of speech and actions that have widely been viewed as racist or racially charged." Shouldn't the word "widely" be removed? Bus stop (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

As the condemnation of his racist views are near-universal, as supported by the numerous citations in the article, "widely" seems apt. Zaathras (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Zaathras—have conservative media in the United States generally described Trump as racist? No, I don't think so. Bus stop (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Much of conservative media is unfit for citation in the Wikipedia due to false reporting & lack of fact-checking and therefore are irrelevant to the discussion. Zaathras (talk) 01:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

My problem with this article is not that it overwhelming paints a picture that he is racist - that's what the majority of sources imply - but that the minority of sources that give a different picture are not reflected in the article. It is not undue weight, for example, to reflect the fact that people who know trump well have gone on the record to state that he is not racist, but any references like this are always removed from the article. Birtig (talk) 07:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

For example, Ben Carson stated in February, “When he bought Mar-a-Lago, he was the one who fought for Jews and blacks to be included in the clubs that were trying to exclude them. You know, people say he's a racist, he is not a racist.” [1] Birtig (talk) 08:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

This article is primarily about his actions -- not what someone says while introducing his boss at an event. O3000 (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The charge by some that Trump is a racist is addressed in this article in numerous sentences. I don't think this article is "primarily about his actions". In my conception, this article is an evaluation of the premise that Trump is a racist—the charge by some that Trump is a racist is addressed in this article. From where do you derive that "This article is primarily about his actions"? Were that the case we would expect to see some indication of that in the title of the article or in the lede. It is plainly common sense that an opinion of a black man (Ben Carson) who knows Trump and who says that Trump is not a racist should warrant inclusion.

Politico writes He [Ben Carson] continued: "When he bought Mar-a-Lago, he was the one who fought for Jews and blacks to be included in the clubs that were trying to exclude them. You know, people say he's a racist, he is not a racist." Bus stop (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Far from common sense. The ‘Some of My Best Friends Are Black’ defense makes most non-racists cringe. Trump is his boss (one who fires people after the slightest criticism) and Carson was introducing him at an event when he said that. I really don't see how you can say this article is about what people say about Trump given the fact that the vast majority of the article details his own acts and words. As for the fact that Trump allows blacks into Mar-a-Lago, that is already in the article, so I don’t see what you’re complaining about there. But, have there ever been any? And, did he actually fight to allow them? Mostly false according to Politifact. Here’s the background: [2] O3000 (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

This article should aim to include an abundance of material relevant to the question of whether or not Trump is a racist. Bus stop (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, obviously the reporting of his actions and words by reliable sources does exactly that. You just don't appear to like what his actions and words portray, for some reason. We just document. And too quickly, IMHO. O3000 (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

So when reliable sources report Trump condemning racism and white supremacy, why are those reports not allowed in this article? For example [3] Birtig (talk) 09:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think a reader is interested in a one-sided presentation. A reader can make up their own mind. But they have to be given material representing more than one view on the question of whether Trump is racist/antisemitic. Bus stop (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Trump's Executive Order Combating Anti-Semitism

Just noticing that there is no mention anywhere in the article that Trump signed an Executive Order combating anti-Semitism in December 2019. Surely this action should be included in an article that seeks to interpret his racial views based on his words and actions? Would there be any objections to me adding this information?Birtig (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

This would require adding the large amount of criticism generated by this order. O3000 (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that would be like him signing a proclamation celebrating Flag Day or, maybe a better parallel, national Eat Healthy Day. That order was widely greeted with scorn in the context of his other words and deeds. SPECIFICO talk 20:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The main article is Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism, and it an underdeveloped stub or start article. Dimadick (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

So am I to conclude that anything said or done by Trump that gives a different picture of his racial views than the one presented in this article will not be included, precisely because they contract that picture? Birtig (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

You know perfectly well that we rely on the weight of mainstream RS. Please don't clutter this page with straw persons. SPECIFICO talk 16:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Correct. Even if Trump directly condemns white supremacists people will ignore that, but promote the fact his critics didn't believe him in the lead. There are major POV issues on this page, I've tried to discuss them on here but the POV tag was removed multiple times. The article as it stands is a hit piece, anything which contradicts the narrative is verboten. I'd appreciate your input in the POV discussion above. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree with the position that WP takes on quite a few subjects but when group consensus is not on my side I have no choice but to accept that and admit that I'm not the boss of Wikipedia and work on other articles where I can make improvements. Gandydancer (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The truth, facts, are the boss of Wikipedia. The most important thing people can do on Wikipedia is fight for the truth where it's not being told.

In this article opinions are being promoted over facts because there's a consensus that negative opinions about Trump are more important than facts. That's something that's worth fighting. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

This is not a battleground. SPECIFICO talk 22:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Then stop battling against a NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.50.52.10 (talk) 05:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

any reason that the article should not contain information that I added from an already used reference?

In the first paragraph I added that some of Trump's black friends had defended him against claims that he was racist - I used the same source that had already been used in the same paragraph to mention that some former friends had accused him of racism. My edit was reverted. Why is it that the contents of a source are being cherry picked so that only the parts that are critical of Trump are used but that the bits that give a different view are not used? Birtig (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Please don't use the pejoritive "cherry-picked" to load your question with a presumtion of wrongdoing. If the initial claims of racist speech were in 100% of the sources and the bit about some of his friends are Black was in 1 source, then using that one source for the part that is DUE WEIGHT would not make the "friends" bit due weight just because of the common source. I think that gets at the heart of your concern. SPECIFICO talk 22:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, though not to the specific point I made - I was focusing on the claim that former friends stated he was racist which is included in the first of the four sources. That same source quoted black friends who said he wasn't. Yet only the former part is used and the other part is rejected. Birtig (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Because many sources say his friends call him racist but few sources say "Black friends" say the opposite. SPECIFICO talk 23:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

He does have a point on that one Specifico. If we are going to use a NYT article as a source for the accusation of racism, more than once, all material within the article it is fair game as far as it goes. Its not lead-material, but that particular article does give plenty of wordage to the defense by his black friends (and yes, I know the some of my friends are black thing is ridiculous). You could happily not use that article anywhere and it wouldnt affect the consensus on his racist remarks or actions at all. DUE and UNDUE are not entirely a numbers game. It cant be realistically argued the quoted views of black people in that article who are friends with him, and work with him, and are notable in their own right, do not constitute a significant (albeit minority) viewpoint. A wrong viewpoint, but still significant in that context. In an ideal word you would have a section where it discusses the various editorials and media response, and include a brief sentence there. The key word in DUE is 'juxtaposition'. The authors of that piece include the black friends because it directly juxtaposes the racist claims. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I think I refuted that on logical grounds. Further, the context and content that are valid for a newspaper are not the same as the ones we use to write an encyclopedia. It may be news that Trump mustered some Black people to say this or that. I have not seen that widely regarded as signficant in the context of portraying Trump's racial views on the subject at hand. SPECIFICO talk 23:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

No they wouldnt be valid for an encyclopedia, but 90% of Wikipedia isnt written like an encyclopedia ;) If we are going to cite newspapers in the way that we currently do, specifically using parts of an article as sources for specific claims, we dont get to disregard the other bits of the article that disagree, and have been deliberately placed there by the authors in order to show that disagreement. While that is not exactly cherry picking, its not ethical either. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Fine, we could use one of thousands of other references on the racist statement and obviate the concern about how they write the news article. This page is pretty widely followed, so I'm sure others will help figure it out. At any rate, it's quite UNDUE for the lead. SPECIFICO talk 00:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

So, if not in the lead, would you be happy for the information to be included in the 'Defenses of Donald Trump' section? Birtig (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see including their defense of Trump in the lead as undue weight at all. It's mentioned in the source, and the proposed content makes up less than a full sentence. The real undue weight is the failure of the lead section of the article to adequately represent claims that Trump is not a racist. Restoring this small piece of content will not fix this problem, but it will make it better. I propose that it be restored to the lead and that more detail be added in the body of the article. Display name 99 (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Not really. The mainstream coverage of this "some of my best friends are Black" defense has not been favorable to Trump. SPECIFICO talk 12:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a complete mischaracterisation of the situation - the article does not claim that Trump had suggested anything remotely like 'some of my friends are black' rather the author had chosen to point out that some of Trump's black friends had spoken out in his defense. Considering the article is seem as a strong enough source to support other claims in the lead of this article, I find it astonishing that you should not think it appropriate to also include these claims anywhere in the article. Birtig (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

There's a difference between "it's astonishing" and you feeling astonished. I've already addressed the issue you keep repeating. We don't go by the single source. The weight of RS reports on this do not take a few Black persons' comments as any sort of counterclaim to Trump's remark. SPECIFICO talk 13:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

What remark? The content has not been added as a counterclam to accusations over racism regarding any particular mark, but against accusations of racism in general. Anyhow, there are three editors who have spoken in favor of readding this to the article and only one who has opposed. That is enough for consensus. I am restoring the information. Display name 99 (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

While I have been following this discussion I have not joined in because I felt that SPECIFICO had it well-covered. I agree with the comment, "The weight of RS reports on this do not take a few Black persons' comments as any sort of counterclaim to Trump's remark." Gandydancer (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, what remark? Display name 99 (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The specific point I am focusing on is in reference to what friends think regarding whether Trump is racist - the article suggests that friends think he is racist (based on one source) and does not state that other friends, who happen to be black, disagree (based on the same source). Unless there is overwhelming evidence that most friends think he is racist, then surely balance is required on this specific aspect? Birtig (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Since an editor put it in the lead, (falsely) claiming consensus, I thought a good first step would be simply to conform the lead sentence to the cited source, which cites a small number of people with dark skin, who are employed by Trump, vouching for him. SPECIFICO talk 15:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

You complain about other editors adding information without consensus and you have now done the same. Except you appear to have inadvertently missed out using the key word 'friend' which is in the original source. Allow me to correct your addition. Birtig (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I assume this should be non-controversial

I notice that someone must have edited the sentence at some point to twist the meaning - have returned to accurately reflect what all three cited sources state. Stating "without admitting wrongdoing" is what all three sources state: the version had become "without having to admit wrongdoing" which has implications beyond that which are supported by the sources. Birtig (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Trump's condemnation of racism

Yesterday I made an edit to the page noting that Trump has condemned racism on multiple occasions, including citations from reputable sources, alongside the note that Trump has denied that he is racist. His condemnation of racism surely belongs at the very top of the article as much as his denial of being racist.

I also reordered the comments on an El Paso shooting to give Trump's views first rather than Beto O'Rourke's views of Trump's views.

Someone edited this, noting the word "whitewashing". Please explain the meaning of this, otherwise I intend to restore the changes.

Hopefully we can get through this without any more false accusations or sockpuppetry or attempts to get people blocked. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 09:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, 'whitewashing' involves removing or covering over something, so not sure how adding relevant information could be classed as 'whitewashing'. Birtig (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the editor was describing what he was doing. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps, indeed. It is a surprising thing about an article that claims to be about Trump's "racial views" that the one thing that it appears to be difficult to add are instances when he has explicitly stated his racial views, even when these instances have been reported by reliable sources. Birtig (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus here. I will revert RA's edit. Gandydancer (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There is a unanimous consensus among all who have commented. What's more, I posted on the talkpage of the person who initially reverted inviting them to come here and discuss it, they have not done so. Please revert your edit. 19:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rambo Apocalypse (talk • contribs)

LOL, you are aware that only two editors have commented, right? Gandydancer (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and? It's a public page, if anyone disagrees they can say so. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Most white supremacists claim they aren't racist. Indeed, most of them claim minorities are the racists. Pretty meaningless. O3000 (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

This article is about his views. The fact he has condemned racism multiple times, as reported by multiple sources, is relevant. You don't have to believe him, the article isn't saying that it's definitely true that he believes it, but legitimate summing up of Donald Trump's racial views would include the fact he has condemned racism several times. Why exactly don't you want it mentioned?

What's the justification for putting his opponents views on his views of the El Paso massacre ahead of his own? Or does nobody have to justify that, just revert as "Whitewashing" and that's the end of it? Don't edit it or we'll get you banned. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't see anyone here threatening to ban you, and have no interest in a discussion that throws stuff like that out. O3000 (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

You were arguing that I was a sockpuppet in an effort to get me banned only on Tuesday. You who has told me I should assume good faith.

However, this isn't about me, this is about the racial views of Donald Trump. You, or anyone else, is welcome to tell me why Donald Trump's explicit condemnation of racism and white supremacism, as reported by impeccable sources, should be excluded from the lead of the article about his racial views. Nobody has put forward any reason to exclude it. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Rambo, tone down the hyperbole. As long as someone abides by the site policies, and consensus, they’re free to edit here. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no hyperbole. I make a good faith edit to the page, someone reverts it with the word "whitewashing", I post on the talk page asking them to explain it, I bring it to their attention on their own personal talk page, I am met with nothing but agreement here, I edit it back in, and then some other editor simply reverts it again. If both people who speak about it agreeing that it should be restored (100% of people) isn't sufficient for consensus then what am I supposed to do? How am I supposed to get consensus when people don't reply and don't present arguments? Additionally two prominent editors here supported false accusations against me to try to get me banned, so any words about being freed to edit here and abiding by site policies or assuming good faith ring very hollow. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Your only block was for clear violation of 1RR. And, I made no accusations. Further, I don't see why you think more people are required to respond on a holiday weekend. WP:FOC O3000 (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I never claimed you made the false accusation, I said you supported it, because you did, but as you say, we should focus on the issue. Why do you want to exclude Trump's overt condemnation of racism from the lead of an article about his views? Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Because outside of David Duke, no one really readily or enthusiastically admits that they're a racist? Trump's denials are boilerplate deflection that adds little to the article. And for the record, yes, I reverted your change as "whitewashing". No I did not come back to this page after your message because I quite simply forgot. Saw the talk page ping on my phone, marked it as read, and then didn't think of it the next time I hit the PC. Zaathras (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not talking about denying he is a racist, his denial is already there in the lead. I'm talking about his condemnation of racism. Do racists condemn racism? How is him condemning racism not highly relevant to the article? Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course racists condemn racism. Constantly. Because they believe some races are inferior and therefore saying they are inferior is not racist as stating the "truth" cannot be racist. And because they think those minorities are racists for having the gall to claim they are equal. O3000 (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't believe you're genuinely arguing that racists believe racism is saying that races are equal. That's the exact opposite of what the word means. If you pretend your opponents mean the exact opposite of what they say whenever it's convenient you can convince yourself of anything. You can't insist it's included on Wikipedia though. 02:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rambo Apocalypse (talk • contribs)

Carefully reread what I wrote. O3000 (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Trump condemning racism because of the "storm of criticism" he received for seemingly embracing racism is not a significant point worthy of inclusion in the lead. In your May 21 and May 24 edits you claimed that Trump "repeatedly condemned racism and white supremacism". That's an outright fabrication. If you repeat it, I expect that you face a topic ban. In the cited Washington Post article, they wrote: "He then repeated “on many sides,” apparently emphasizing that the counterprotesters (which included many who were peaceful and some who weren’t) needed to be condemned, as well." The BBC wrote: "Mr Trump was criticised for not specifically denouncing extremists in his initial comments on the violence." It would be accurate to say that Trump rarely condemns racism, but that doesn't belong in the lead either. I strongly recommend that you listen to what experienced editors have been telling you, rather than continuing to try to jam non-WP:NPOV material into the article. - MrX 🖋 14:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Zaathras—you say "Trump's denials are boilerplate deflection that adds little to the article." Let the reader decide. In my opinion this would be anything but "boilerplate". But my opinion is not what matters. This article should not be one-sided. We should not only be including indications of racism and antisemitism. We should also be including indications of countervailing sentiments. Why? Because ultimately the reader should form their own opinion on the matter that is ostensibly under examination in this article. Bus stop (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, please review WP:NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 14:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—if there is a specific point at WP:NPOV you would like to bring to my attention then please do so. Bus stop (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Per your recent post, I would not want to impose my selection of the NPOV page content on you, so I suggest you review the entire page. We should all do that from time to time. SPECIFICO talk 15:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

It is a fact that he condemned racism, speculation about his motives is irrelevant. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

If Trump's directly stated racial views, his condemnation of white supremacy, the fact that he married an immigrant, the fact that his son-in law is Jewish and that he is a grandfather to Jewish kids... are not allowed in this article, perhaps the page title should be changed to reflect what is really going on in this article. Birtig (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Birtig, comments such as the above are your personal opinions but do not reflect the narratives in the bulk of mainstream Reliable Sources and cannot be used to determine article content. Please don't continue to use the talk page for off-topic opinions. SPECIFICO talk 13:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

That's correct. We follow sources, not editor's analyses and conclusions. - MrX 🖋 14:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I've yet to a see a good reason why Trump's explicit condemnation of racism can't be in the lead. Most of the responses here seem to focus on his denial of being a racist, on the basis that he would say that if he were a racist or not. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Plenty of good reasons have been given. You simply don't seem to accept them. - MrX 🖋 14:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC about POV issues

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.

---

A number of editors have repeatedly removed Donald Trump's directly stated views on racism on the basis that the statements are not credible, or that any racist would say they are not racist or condemn racism. Others have argued that Trump's directly stated views are highly relevant to a page on Donald Trump's views, and should be featured at least as prominently as his critics' views.

A related issue concerns NPOV, while several of us have argued there are serious POV issues on the page, when the tag is added it is simply removed.

I'm not overly familiar with Wikipedia's rules and policies, so I apologise if this too lengthy or is otherwise inappropriate, but I think this discussion needs some external input. Attempting to build consensus with the regular editors of this page has got absolutely nowhere. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Abort This statement is not neutral (as is required for an RfC) and it misstates the objections of numerous editors who have pointed out that the current text accurately reflects the weight of mainstream presentation of the issue. The article text does not come from editors' views. It comes from what Reliable Sources have written. Finally, you have not presented a clear choice on which to poll RfC respondants. Please withdraw this RfC. It is malformed. SPECIFICO talk 23:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree this is a malformed RFC. Please withdraw this RFC. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I will not withdraw. It's a request for comments, not an opinion poll. If anyone feels I've given an unfair take on the situation they are very welcome to give their own. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Abort This is not stated as an RfC. It is stated as an opinion. O3000 (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Withdraw this RfC and replace with another one. I think you misunderstand the point of RfC's - they're to resolve a specific dispute, not just to get a general discussion going (see WP:RFCBRIEF), so in that sense they sort of are an opinion poll. If I understand this dispute correctly, a reasonable question might be "In discussing events such as the 2019 El Paso shooting, should this article describe Trump's views before those of his critics?". Korny O'Near (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I did read the RfC page before I posted this. I know ideally they're to deal with single issues, but the POV issues appear throughout the page and are very similar in nature. Defences of Trump are dismissed because we would expect him to defend himself, while his opponents' views are shown prominently. My feeling was that if we discussed the various issues there would be too much crossover. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - Include some Trump response seems appropriate - for NPOV, all significant views should be shown in due proportion to the weight of their coverage so his responses would seem relevant, as would disputes from his supporters. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

For instance Ben Carson. Politico writes He [Ben Carson] continued: "When he bought Mar-a-Lago, he was the one who fought for Jews and blacks to be included in the clubs that were trying to exclude them. You know, people say he's a racist, he is not a racist." Bus stop (talk) 05:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The issue isn't so much that that Trump's views are excluded from the article totally, at least in my experience, as that they're featured much less prominently than what Trump's opponents think of him. The consensus appears to be that Trump's repeated condemnation of racism shouldn't be in the lead, even though the article is about his views, and that his opponents' views should be. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPOV. The premise of your concern is false. SPECIFICO talk 14:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Rambo Apocalypse - Good point ! Perhaps the title should be changed to something more like 'Racial Allegations against Donald Trump' ? The article really doesn't have much about what Donald Trump's racial views are, but has a fair collection of speculative allegations in claims that something he did is racist. For example, the 'Pretty Korean Lady' section has an extract from NBC relating two unnamed sources about a meeting with an unnamed intelligence analyst expert on hostages and Trump supposedly asking why the pretty Korean lady isn't negotiating with North Korea. From which NBC voices an impression that the article quotes a sentence of. And then the Vox review of the NBC piece gets a quote of "Vox suggested..." giving another way to take offense. There's nothing shown of Trump responding to those suspicions. Also - oddly neither piece seemed to imagine any possibility that her hostage expertise and national heritage could actually be useful for the hostage negotiations with North Korea which were happening at that same time which succeeded. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Abort. This is the exact opposite of what an RfC is supposed to be. This is starting to become disruptive. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• I've removed the RfC tag because as other editors have pointed out above, this is just a discussion without clear implications for the time being. Feel free to continue discussing and/or draft another RfC. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

George Wallace denied being racist If the inclusion of Trump's perfunctory denials of racism will result in an increased perception of neutrality, I don't see the problem. Taquim 17:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taquim (talk • contribs)

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.

Neutrality tag

My edit adding a neutrality tag to the article was reverted by SPECIFICO, who argued that the tag should not exist unless specific policy issues were raised. I am doing so now. The article fails WP:Balance. Content that can in any way be pereceived as favorable to Trump is consistently removed by editors who disregard what is supposed to be the unbiased nature of Wikipedia in order to promote their own cultural and political values. The fact that black people who have known Trump have said that he is not a racist and the fact that Trump has repeatedly denied accusations of racism were both removed from the lead. About 95% of the article consists of material critical to Trump. The only defenses of him come in a miniscule two-paragraph section. The fact that I even need to explain how biased this article is is simply absurd. Display name 99 (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The article is not necessarily critical of Trump; many Trump followers would read the various accounts of his words and actions regarding race and agree with everything he has said and done. If you see a problem with a specific section in the article then please present it for discussion. If you want to indicate in the lead that Ben Carson and Trump himself deny accusations of racism I personally don't see a problem with that. Taquim 04:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taquim (talk • contribs)

I'm glad that you personally don't see a problem with it, but some editors do. That is why a statement in the lead saying that Trump denied accusations of racism was removed, along a statement that black people who have worked for him have said that he is not racist. The problem isn't that quotes and actions by Trump are included in the article. They certainly should be. The issue is that the anti-Trump responses are invariably given absolute attention while views in defense of Trump are routinely ignored. Practically the only section of the article with anything favorable to say about him is the two paragraph section I mentioned earlier. The rest is filled with attacks on him. Display name 99 (talk) 04:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The section that needs to be expanded is the Defences of Donald Trump subsection but most additions there seem to be deleted as well. Birtig (talk) 08:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The section is so miniscule that it is virtually a joke and seems to only there to provide the obligatory semlence of neutrality. I think I'll try making some additions and see what happens. Display name 99 (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. This page is horribly biased. If the logic that anything Trump says denying racism or any statements opposing racism are unimportant because it's politically advantageous to him to deny racism this is nothing more than a hit-piece. An article on any person which followed such logic would be. It should either be rewritten with far more prominence given to Trump's stated views, and less given to his opponents', or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rambo Apocalypse (talk • contribs) 19:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

hall we also cite some of the numerous RS that point out Trump's mustering anodyne "defenses" from a handful of the earth's billions of darker-skinned people is not a good look for Trump? SPECIFICO talk 16:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how, especially if these are people who worked for him or who have known him for a long time. Display name 99 (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Why would you consider people who worked for him or who have known him for a long time good sources? People that have worked for me or are friends would support me too. Besides, he grossly attacks anyone who dares criticize him. Lately, he's been repeatedly suggesting a person who criticized him is an adulterer and murderer with no evidence. O3000 (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The fact that they have known or worked with him a long time does not automatically mean that they will like him. If a non-white person who knew Trump for a long time and had a close relationship with him said that he is not racist, that is noteworthy. I don't know what your statement that he "grossly attacks" people who criticize him has to do with anything. It doesn't seem like the point of this discussion at all. Display name 99 (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Who are these longtime supporters? I don't see you caliming "friends" so let's just find some longtime close relationships. Not Ms. Omorosa, who is all over the media criticizing him. Not Dr. Ben Carson, whom he met for the first time on a presidential debate stage in 2015. Who can you name and cite? Then we can have a concrete discussion. I just noticed Birtig added a reference to NBC News Montana that says only one in 10 Black voters approve of Trump. It's rather bizarre to cite that in an attempt to tip the balance of the article text the opposite way. SPECIFICO talk 23:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Not attempting to tip the balance "the opposite way". Just to a more neutral way. I assume you do not regard my edit as being in bad faith in that it was attempting to make the article unbalance? Birtig (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This article is about his views according to his words and actions. Actions speak louder than words. What his friends and employees might say is questionable, considering his words and actions towards ex-friends and ex-employees. We can include them. But, they do not have equal weight with what he has done and said over decades. WP:FALSEBALANCE. O3000 (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The issue is not getting "equal weight"...it is getting "some weight". I have watched this article for a while now and whenever anything is added that does not 100% fit the 'Trump is a racist..period' viewpoint, it is either deleted immediately or just chipped away at over time so that the end result is the same: the article we have before us at present. I have no doubt that Trump has said things that are racist and has acted in ways that appear racist but I strongly feel that it is appropriate that other views are allowed to be reflected and other evidence included. Birtig (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Birtig: - here's some advice. Make a specific change. If reverted, and you feel strongly about it, start an RFC (please word it properly). Not happy with local consensus? Go for community consensus, and respect that decision. starship.paint (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Remove the tag -- it's not applicable. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• This represents exactly what is wrong with the article. Until editors stop doing this whenever someone tries to add a little bit of balance to the article, the tag needs to remain. Display name 99 (talk) 01:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I wholeheartedly disagree. Who the hell writes phrases like "black woman and Baltimore resident"? The sentences sourced to the Washington Examiner(!) are pretty bad. No offense to whoever wrote it, but it reads as a desperate attempt to defend Trump against accusations of racism by accusing Bernie Sanders(!) of racism.

Also, I agree that the POV tag should not be placed on the article. There is no shortage of editors giving their attention to this page. Maintenance tags are not consolation prizes for editors (and SPAs and sock) who have consistently failed to gain consensus for the idea that the article does not conform to WP:NPOV. - MrX 🖋 01:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Just saw this tag back. For reasons stated above, I will remove it. SPECIFICO talk 02:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

What's wrong with "black woman and Baltimore resident?" In an article about Trump's racial views, the fact that a prominent black woman believes that something that Trump said about the place where she lives which was perceived by some people to be racist was actually justified is significant. There's nothing wrong with sourcing to the Washington Examiner, and I find it irritating that newspapers like the Examiner that are high-quality material but happen to have slightly conservative leanings are deemed unreliable while newspapers with high-quality material that have liberal leanings such as the Washington Post and New York Times are widely used. As the writer of the text, I did not intend to accuse anybody of racism. All that I am attempting to do was to represent the viewpoints of different sides with fairness and equilibrium, the way that Wikipedia is supposed to. Display name 99 (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Display name 99: - I suggest you compile the most important content that has been reverted, find the best sources for them (refer to green highlights at WP:RSP, and start an RFC. starship.paint (talk) 03:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• WP:BRD indicates that when a change is added and then reverted, consensus for that change should be obtained before re-adding it. In this case, the change is the addition of an NPOV tag, which was reverted, thus the consensus must now be reached to re-add it. Re-adding it while consensus is still being evaluated is against BRD and a precursor to an edit war. Now that being said, a quick scan of the current talk page (across all sections, since this has been discussed before) shows roughly eight people against the addition of the tag, and three in favour. Consensus is not a head count, but it can be indicative of general sentiment. I also consider that the policy reasons given for why positive material should not be given equal weight are sound. Wikipedia's policy is to reflect the aggregate balance across reliable secondary sources; if that happens to be 90% negative and 10% positive, then the article's balance should strive to approximate that balance as well. Considering all of this, my position is to keep the NPOV tag out of the article. – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 04:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)]]

I dont know if you have noticed, but the tag was originally removed without prior discussion or consensus, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump&diff=957552529&oldid=957536030&diffmode=source . It was there for years until some random person removed it on 19 May, saying "no discussion", while discussions are obviously still going on. Keep the Tag in or find a good reason to warrant the removal SmooveMike (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2020 Blocked sock – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 01:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

You don't know what you're talking about, and how could you, you are a brand new editor? This tag was recently added by sockpuppets and suspicious sleeper accounts that recently became active, and whom I assume are good people. More editors have advanced policy based reasoning for omitting the tag. Consensus is not a head count. - MrX 🖋 11:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:POV saysThe purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article I'm sure this article doesn't need to attract more editors of varying viewpoints, there are plenty watching it. Using it to "warn"readers is the only reason to add it and should not be done. Instead work to make it neutral.Smeat75 (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Smeat75, leaving the tag up serves the purpose of continuing to attract editors and invite them to participate in conversations on the talk page. On the contrary, the same article that you linked to says that the template may be removed when there is consensus that the issue has been resolved, it is not clear what the issue is, or discussion is dormant. None of these things is true. Therefore, you ought to restore the tag. Display name 99 (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I neither removed it nor put it on and I will not do either, I am just saying that in my opinion the only point of that tag on this article is to "warn" readers "somebody thinks this article is crap" which is not how they are supposed to be used.Smeat75 (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The 'good reason to warrant removal' has been given - policy supports removal. No adequately justified reason to add it has been provided. Simply saying "it's not balanced" is subjective and insufficient reasoning, evidence needs to be provided that the balance of positive/negative claims in the article fails to reflect the same balance in reliable secondary sources. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 01:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I see now that SmooveMike is blocked for sockpuppetry, but for anyone else reading: the edit SmooveMike cited claiming the tag had been there for years is incorrect. The cited edit removed a tag that was added eight days prior. I scanned edits back to 19 December 2019, and aside from two immediately reverted additions of the tag on May 4 and 5, and the addition on May 11 that was reverted on May 19, the tag has not appeared at all in at least the last six months. It's clear that the status quo is the absence of the tag and adding it requires consensus, not the other way around. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 01:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Widely

The word "widely" has been removed from the longstanding phrasing in the first sentence. It should be restored unless a new consensus emerges to omit it. It's an accurate summary of the cited sources. The removal of this word is particularly ironic, not only in that it was performed by a brand new account, but also because of the fact that the U.S. is burning from the inside while Trump continues to tweet racially charged and racist comments.[4][5][6] - MrX 🖋 11:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi MrX, I agree that "widely" should remain in the article. I disagree with you point, however, that Trump's stating the obvious point that 'when looting starts, shooting starts' is in itself a racist comment...it is racially charged because of its historical significance but not a racist comment in itself. Unless you are suggesting that his comment that rioters who were burning, destroying and looting were 'thugs'...I assume that is not what you are suggesting is a racist comment. (By the way, it was me who added the subsection about 'when the looting starts the shooting starts' as it was clearly racial charged.) Birtig (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

OK. - MrX 🖋 14:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

In support of "widely": "More voters think Donald Trump is a racist than thought George Wallace was in 1968." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taquim (talk • contribs) 02:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Disagree - the article does not directly cover “widely” for the context of the first line, so it appears to be an OR embellishment. It also seems factually untrue - the meaning of “generally” or “commonly” is incorrect. The view is expressed by a significant number, but is most noted as a disputed and partisan view, sometimes seen as a calculated partisan message or framing. That July 2019 poll notes 51% agreeing to ‘racist’ and 45% ‘not racist’, so hardly a dominance of “general” or “common”. Use of ‘widely’ in only one direction would be failing to convey the prevalence of positions per NPOV. At the least, it seems an excessive emphasis. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

p.s. The usage was previously objected to, see Archive7. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC on addition to Trump's comments about Baltimore

Should this content, adding the fact that a woman defending Trump for his comments was black, and including Trump's justification of his comments and another defense of his statements, be included in the article? Display name 99 (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes-All of this information is relevant and is well-sourced. President Trump's explanation of his comments and the comparison to Bernie Sanders is mentioned in more sources than the single one given. The fact that Klacik is from Baltimore and is black is relevant given the fact that Trump's words were about Baltimore and the subject is Trump's racial views. The rest of the content needs to be included in order to try to bring some semblance of impartiality and equilibrium to this article. Most of the article contains only critical assessments of Trump's controversial actions and comments, which is unacceptable. Display name 99 (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - Frankly, adding the fact that a woman defending Trump for his comments was black sounds racist in itself. Why does this matter? O3000 (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It matters because the topic is Trump's racial views. People may have different ideas of what qualifies as racist depending on whether they are white or black. Alternatively, I could ask why it mattered that the congressman whom Trump criticized was black, which is the same argument that Trump and his supporters employed in their defense. While Trump's comments were condemned by many as being racist and offensive towards the City of Baltimore, the fact that a black woman from Baltimore disagreed stands out. Display name 99 (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I find that logic highly disturbing. O3000 (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Seems about the same as the article noting "Cummings, who is black,". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• On the first change, no, as written I don't think it should be included. 'Black woman and Baltimore resident' seems to omit the much more relevant fact that she's a Republican Central Committee member and recently nominated Republican candidate. Her defence of a Republican president, in that context, strikes me as a conflict of interest that applies much more of a qualification to her opinion than her skin colour does. I have no opinion on the second part of the change at the moment. – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 02:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

NULL, I'd have no objection to saying "black Republican activist from Baltimore," or something of the sort. Display name 99 (talk) 04:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that works either, since it would be unclear if it meant 'a person who votes Republican' or, as in her case, 'a person who has party membership, a position on the central committee, and election endorsement'. The contextual difference between the two seems important to communicate. As for her skin colour, while I personally don't think it's relevant, most of the sources used here don't mention it at all and simply refer to her as a 'Republican strategist'. I'd recommend using the same language. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 05:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

it would be unclear if it meant 'a person who votes Republican' or, as in her case, 'a person who has party membership, a position on the central committee, and election endorsement'. I really feel like this is splitting hairs. We identify people by their party on Wikipedia all of the time, and it's not relevant to state whether they are on the central committee, endorse candidates, or anything like that. Just stating their party is enough. And while her skin color may not be relevant to most conversations, it is here when the article is about Trump's racial views. And if it's not okay to mention her skin color, why is it okay to mention Cummings'? Display name 99 (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

All subjective interpretation and synthesis aside, it's okay to mention Cummings' race because the majority of reliable, independent secondary sources identified his race as relevant in relation to this incident. I don't consider it okay to mention Klacik's race because the majority of reliable, independent secondary sources don't mention her race in relation to this incident. You may feel her race is relevant, but respectfully, your opinion isn't what Wikipedia reflects. Nor is mine. If most sources don't mention something, then it's our policy-driven position that it is mostly not relevant. I think this discussion has reinforced my earlier recommendation that we refer to her has a Republican strategist only. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 22:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes to a point - the first part about the black woman is OK or at least as OK as mentioning Cummings was black. The later section though seems on-topic OK with President Trump remarks but the commentary about Sanders seems too far afield. On a sidenote, it drew my attention to the line above it which was also going astray from the section about the Quinnipiac poll -- I've deleted that diversion which was also problematic for content. (The piece dated July 30 article did not support the article text "On August 2", and elsewhere it was reported 'blames fake news media' not 'calls poll fake') Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• No - She is a Republican strategist who did that Fox News segment after Elijah Cummings complained about Trump Admin forcing non-white refugee children to sit in their own feces after Trump Admin took them from their non-white refugee parents. During the House Oversight and Reform Committee hearing with Trump's DHS secretary, Kevin McAleenan, Rep. Elijah Cummings said, “What does that mean when a child is sitting in their own feces, can’t take a shower? Come on, man. What is that about? None of us would have our children in that position. They are human beings.” So, the Republican strategist's skin color is not important to this article, and neither is her defense of Trump forcing non-white refugee children to be ripped from their refugee parents & live in concentration camp-type conditions[7]. BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison, it would seem like you have the wrong RfC. This matter has nothing to do with Trump's family separation policy or whatever Klacik may have said about it, about which nothing is mentioned in this section. The issue is Trump's comments about the Seventh Congressional District, a totally separate matter. I'm afraid your comment is therefore off-topic. You did not answer why you didn't think her race was relevant or why Trump's justification of his comments or the comparison to Sanders should not be included. Furthermore, those people are illegal migrants and not refugees. Display name 99 (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

To Display name 99 - Reread my comment. I explain in my comment how Klacik's comments are directly related to Rep. Elijah Cumming's complaints of Trump forcing non-white refugee children to sit in human feces as a result of Trump taking non-white refugee children away from their non-white refugee parents & forcing them to live in concentration camp-type conditions. If, after rereading my comment, you still have questions, let me know & I'll be happy to educate you further on the direct relationship. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I still have no idea what you are trying to say, especially because the article that you linked to does not mention either Klacik or Baltimore. If you wanted to establish a link between the two issues, you should've cited an article where such a connection was discussed. It's not clear how you suggest that such a connection be incorporated into the article. I doubt that any attempt at explanation would clear the matter up for me. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

To Display name 99 - As an observation, it appears you do not know much at all about the very topic your RfC is about so yes, I'm happy to explain how they are directly related through a timeline:

1. July 12, 2019: During the House Oversight and Reform Committee hearing, Rep. Elijah Cummings discussed the conditions of the cages that Trump forced non-white refugee children to live in at the U.S - Mexico border. During the hearing, Cummings questioned Trump's Secretary of Homeland Security, Kevin McAleenan and asked, “What does that mean when a child is sitting in their own feces, can’t take a shower? Come on, man. What is that about? None of us would have our children in that position. They are human beings. [8]”
2. July 12, 2019: House Oversight Committee release report regarding Trump taking non-white refugee children from their non-white refugee parents [9].
3. July 27, 2019: On Fox News "GOP strategist Kimberly Klacik on Saturday accused Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., of hypocrisy over his apparent concern for conditions at the U.S.-Mexico border over those of his own district. [10]" Fox goes on to report that GOP strategist Klacik said “There’s abandoned rowhomes filled with trash, homeless addicts, empty needles that they have used, and it’s really right next door. So, it’s attracting rodents, cockroaches, you name it ... Klacik called Cummings' concern for the border situation “laughable,” noting that “a lot of people said he hasn’t even been [to his own district] in a while.”
4. July 28, 2019: CNN reports: Fox & Friends "played a recent video clip of Cummings questioning acting Secretary of Homeland Security Kevin McAleenan about conditions at the border. Then co-host Jedediah Bila brought in a guest named Kimberly Klacik, who went to impoverished parts of West Baltimore and talked with residents and recorded videos of trashed lots and ruined rowhomes ... Trump digested what he heard on Fox and ran with it, tweeting about Cummings and Baltimore an hour later, saying “Cumming District” (he misspelled Cummings) is a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess[11]."
5. July 28, 2019: Trump's tweets came less than an hour after a Fox & Friends segment by Kimberly Klacik criticizing Cummings and his district. Klacik reacted positively, believing that Trump had watched her segment.[12]

So, DisplayName99, like I said, she is a Republican strategist who did that Fox News segment after Elijah Cummings complained about Trump Admin forcing non-white refugee children to sit in their own feces after Trump Admin took them from their non-white refugee parents. The Republican strategist's skin color is not important to this article, and neither is her defense of Trump forcing non-white refugee children to be ripped from their refugee parents & live in concentration camp-type conditions [[13]. (Notes: Underline added for emphasis to show direct relationship. Used the phrase "non-white refugees" because I cannot find any RS that shows Trump treats white refugees in the same manner as he treats non-white refugees.)

I've never started an RfC, but I feel it may be helpful for you to understand the background of the topic you bring to an RfC - just so you can see how things are connected. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison, it's pure nonsense to suggest that I don't know what I'm talking about after criticizing your choice of source and your failure to adequately draw a connection between Klacik's comments on the Seventh District and her statements on Trump's immigration policies. I've never said that Klacik's defense of Trump's policies towards illegal immigrants (not refugees) should go into the article. I gather that Klacik accused Cummings of hypocrisy for complaining about Trump's decisions on immigration while supposedly neglecting his district. That part is clear to me. I'm just wondering what the point is. Display name 99 (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

To Display name 99 - First: for the record, they are "refugees" who are legally entering America to seek asylum. You should probably stop using the slur "illegal immigrants" because it shows your bias and violates NPOV. Second: Even if you had done nothing more than simply read the RS[14] in your diff[15] that started your RfC, then you would have seen the obvious and blatant direct connection between "Klacik's comments on the Seventh District and her statements on Trump's immigration policies." The RS in your diff reports, "What sparked Mr Trump's latest tweets? Last week, Mr Cummings lashed out at acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan and conditions at migrant detention centres at a congressional hearing. In a heated exchange with Mr McAleenan, Mr Cummings demanded "improvement" at border facilities." That said, don't blame me for pointing out that you did little to no RS homework on this and as a result you do not appear to know much at all about the topic of your own RfC. Third: the "point" is also obvious and I've stated it twice already, "she is a Republican strategist who did that Fox News segment after Elijah Cummings complained about Trump Admin forcing non-white refugee children to sit in their own feces after Trump Admin took them from their non-white refugee parents. The Republican strategist's skin color is not important to this article, and neither is her defense of Trump forcing non-white refugee children to be ripped from their refugee parents & live in concentration camp-type conditions [[16]." BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison, firstly, your failure to profread your comment led to the text after your statement being italicized. Now onto the point. They are not refugees because they are not fleeing extremely high levels of violence or persecution. Most of them are not legally entering the country. The term "illegal immigrants" is not a slur; it is an accurate description of the status of a certain group of people who are in the country without authorization. It is grossly hypcocritical and dishonest of you to complain that my use of this fully accurate term demonstrates bias and violates NPOV (which by the way applies to articles, not talk pages) when you call the migrants "refugees," compare conditions at detention centers to concentration camps, and repeat Cummings' unconfirmed allegations about the condition of migrant children as fact. And you STILL have not explained why this matters when we are trying to decide what to put into the article regarding Klacik's comments about the Seventh District. Yes, Klacik discussed Trump's immigration policies and Cummings' comments on them in addition to complaining about the situation in Cummings' district. What's the point? You're so full of nonsense that it's almost comical. Display name 99 (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to assume Betsy is acting in anything but good faith, you should strike your personal attack. The Immigration and Nationality Act defines a refugee as any person who is outside their country of residence or nationality, or without nationality, and is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The definition includes no qualitative requirements other than a well-founded fear, something I don't imagine you're qualified or sufficiently informed to assess. The fact the children involved were held by the Office of Refugee Resettlement and not ICE, USCIS or DHS seems to further support the 'refugee' label. Regarding Betsy's comments, the connection between Trump's immigration policy and Cummings' comments is clear, and the context of Cummings' comments that precipitated Trump's attack on him is essential to understanding the racist connotations of that attack. Klacik's involvement is circumstantial at best (Trump might have seen an attack she made on Cummings before he made his own) and 'black woman also criticises Cummings, therefore Trump's criticism of Cummings is not racist' is a genetic fallacy. Her comments would be relevant if she'd defended Trump's comments as non-racist, but she didn't. Her only connection to Trump's attack on Cummings is that she also independently attacked Cummings. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• No It is neither a credible nor noteworthy rebuttal to the premise that Trump is a racist. Highlighting the her race to try to lend legitimacy to her comments is just bad. - MrX 🖋 11:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not it's credible is for the reader to decide. It's noteworthy because it has received coverage in significant sources. If highlighting her race to lend credibility to her comments is bad, so is highlighting Cummings' race in order to condemn Trump's. Display name 99 (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Readers can't read it if it's not in the article. Was this covered by, let's say, 20 high quality sources like most everything else in this article? If so, I might be open to changing my mind. - MrX 🖋 22:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

white supremacy mentioned in the lead?

If white supremacy is to be discussed in the opening paragraph, it is appropriate that Trump's repeated condemnations of white supremacy should also be mentioned. Birtig (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you propose some cited examples of what you feel is needed? SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe a sentence like, "Trump himself has publicly condemned white supremacy in addresses from the White House. [17], [18]" Birtig (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Those sources seem to be saying he failed to condemn white supremacy and then read prepared text with B-movie speechwriter jargon in it. I think what would be most informative and supportive of what I presume is your assessment of the due weight, would be if you could find some of his off-the-cuff remarks in televised interviews that present his own words. I presume such remarks exist, and if they've been widely reported and treated as credible and significant they might be the basis for some article text. I don't think we can use canned speechwriten remarks that are immediately disparaged by the weight of secondary sources, or at least not to show what I understand you feel needs to be shown. SPECIFICO talk

Why did you ask me to "propose some cited examples" when you were always going to reject those examples for reasons other than the reliability of the sources? I assumed good faith in your request. Birtig (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I thought you were aware of all the past discussion that has deprecated those references as documents of a disingenuous strategist cleaning up his transcript. If you were not aware, please review the archives on this matter. If you were aware, then it's not going to bring a different result on iteration n+1. SPECIFICO talk 22:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

We have discussed this before. He only condemned white supremacy after the tremendous blowback he received for not condemning them and for referring to them as fine people. Could we please stop having the same discussion over and over expecting different outcomes?- MrX 🖋 21:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Trump did not refer to white supremacists as 'fine people' - Please read the full transcript (below) where in the very paragraph before he uses the phrase 'fine people' he stated "and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally"

"Trump: "Okay, good. Are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue?

"So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.

"Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group." Birtig (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

If you want to start a blog to explore the nuanced meanings in Trump's comments, have fun. But at Wikipedia we use reliable sources. [19] - MrX 🖋 11:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Well....some of them Birtig (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Banned sock etc. SPECIFICO talk 22:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I added your proposed sentence in. Its necessary to mention. You cant just put in half of the story SmooveMike (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC) If someone takes it out saying it "wasnt discussed", then the original addition will be deleted too, as that one wasnt discussed either. cheers SmooveMike (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC) Thanks. Of course it will be removed - this is the nature of the problem with this article. The sources are highly reliable but that would appear to not be not enough as it was Trump who made the statements Birtig (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC) Yeah i have a feeling it will be. In that case though, the original addition has to be removed too, as you cant just put in half of the story SmooveMike (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

"MAGA loves the Black people"

How come this iconic quote is not in the article? Good chance to use Trump's words on his own behalf. @Birtig:, perhaps you'd craft some text? SPECIFICO talk 12:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi SPECIFICO talk - don't know what you're referring to. But if you won't accept Trump condemning white supremacy when it is reported by reliable sources, I doubt you will accept anything he says unless it fits your paradigm. Birtig (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Wait... we're allowed/required to drink heavily while editing?! Nobody told me. 🍺🍸🍷 🤣 - MrX 🖋 13:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Here ya go. SPECIFICO talk 14:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Birtig: above. SPECIFICO talk 14:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

[20][21] SPECIFICO talk 14:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks SPECIFICO talk. I hadn't read those articles, but now that I have it is clear that his statement that his base loves black people has no bearing on his own racial views and therefore is of no relevance for this article. Birtig (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

An editor has now added this nonsense in the 'Defences of Donald Trump' section - I removed and another editor has added again. It doesn't say anything about Trump's racial views so it clearly isn't relevant in this subsection. I assume no one will object if I move it elsewhere in the article? I don't see it in any way relevant anywhere but if people think it relevant, it should at least be placed somewhere appropriate. Birtig (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

If you move it you will be violating 1RR. Suggest you stand down.

MAGA is Trump's movement and he is its leader and voice. Your argument is unlikely to achieve consensus here. If it does, that will be noted with a smile. SPECIFICO talk 18:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

"The Blacks" Taquim 18:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taquim (talk • contribs)