Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Donald Trump racial views)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This seems like a pointless article[edit]

I feel like this article exists only to portray Trump as some evil racist. You don't see articles like this for Obama. Alex of Canada (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Obama is not an evil racist.- MrX 🖋 19:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
On the other hand Trump isn't an (Personal attack removed) 199.127.56.82 (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Neither is Trump. It'd be more neutral to just make an article on controversies involving Trump, so it let's the viewer actually decide whether Trump is wrong, or the media overblew it, rather than cramming "Trump is racist" down our throats. Alex of Canada (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Nowhere in the article does Wikipedia call Trump a racist. We are constrained to follow sources, regardless of your personal feelings about the content in those sources.- MrX 🖋 22:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
It follows biased sources. It contains Vox, a leftist publication, as well as several opinion pieces. Alex of Canada (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
What article are you talking about? This one has 175 cites including a wide array of highly respected sources. O3000 (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Sources are allowed to be biased. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Wrong a source has to be objective, not biased. Also Wikipedia has to be apolitical.77.176.57.130 (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
No and yes. Only in death is correct. Our sources do not have to be neutral (such sources are almost nonexistent anyway, and incredibly uninformative and boring). Otherwise, Wikipedia editors must edit neutrally, IOW they must faithfully use RS and document their POV and biases without neutering or hiding those biases through censorship. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
77.176.57.130 is right, the mainstream media which this article references either directly or indirectly should report facts, not opinions, that is the problem with most people today, including most news anchors, they don't know fact from opinion, emotion from logic. Maybe this article should include refs to Fox and other right leaning sources to cancel out the bias.SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM. "Mainstream media" is what is considered as reliable sources on Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The entire story here is about what opinions you heard from the media to portray Trump as racist. A lot of these statements aren't even related to racism - sentence one includes statements about the citizenship of Obama, for example. This opinion story is not legitimate wiki content, I agree. This whole thing needs a rewrite, or at least change the subject to "Opinions of Trump's Statements Portrayed as Racist". I mean, all of your references are to opinion stories about what they thought when they heard the referenced statement of Trump, pre- and post-election. UGAWise (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Trump wanting black people removed from the "casino floor" before certain people arrived[edit]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/12/racism-and-donald-trump-a-common-thread-throughout-his-career-and-life mentions it, but I can't find the 15-20 year old article I had before.. I'll get it!.. .. .. http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/money/trump-hit-race-suit-blacks-don-dealt-casino-jobs-article-1.726389 is one..

Found it: Now he was looking for work as a livery driver. Brown also used to work in the casinos, at the Showboat, bussing tables, and at Trump’s Castle, stripping and waxing floors. “When Donald and Ivana came to the casino, the bosses would order all the black people off the floor,” he said. “It was the eighties, I was a teen-ager, but I remember it: they put us all in the back.” https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/09/07/the-death-and-life-of-atlantic-city

Sorry for terrible formatting, I'm definitely not a Wikian :> Thanks for all the work you guys do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.242.221.122 (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the good faith suggestions, but I don't think we can use either of these. The Daily News is not normally considered a Reliable Source, and even if this story is factually accurate, all it does is detail the two sides' versions of a civil lawsuit. As for the New Yorker story, which is a massive history of Atlantic City, the 30-year-old recollection of one person is not really strong enough evidence for us to put it in an encyclopedia. --MelanieN alt (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Isn't that rather clear first-hand "30 year old recollection" that is confirmed by the older account. Daily News, particularly in 1996, is a good enough source for news articles. I'm willing to be surprised if WP editors have decided otherwise, but it was a real newspaper at the time. Not all tabloids are Murdoch-style tabloids. SPECIFICO talk 21:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Should the lead include a sentence about Trump's racial stance?[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Should the lead include a sentence about Trump's racial stance?. - MrX 🖋 18:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I still don't understand what the point of this article is, can we discuss?[edit]

I know that this has been discussed before, but if this article is about the racial views of Trump himself, shouldn't we at least **include** those views? The media's views on it are irrelevant to the subject of the article, which is Trump's racial views. I'm not opposed to including a moderately large section about the media's views, but this article needs a massive overhaul to include Trump's views and condense the media's views into a section. As it stands, this entire article reads like a POVFORK and WP:COATRACK, and I'm seriously considering nominating it for deletion again in a few months if these problems remain unfixed. Jdcomix (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@WAR-Ink: I think this is what you were discussing? What are your thoughts? Jdcomix (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
The article uses reliable, secondary sources, as per WP policies. And, they continue to appear related to this subject. [1] [2] O3000 (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree, the article was nominated for deletion shortly after it was created because it quote: "would only be a war zone", the request for deletion was denied but it was noted that in the future it may be requested for deletion again due to constant edit warring. I think the article needs a complete overhaul at the least. I also don't see what purpose the article even serves. Wikipedia does not have an article "Racial views of Barack Obama", "Racial views of Hillary Clinton" or "Racial views of George H W Bush". Such an article name is encyclopedic.SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Yet it isn't a war zone, editing has settled down fairly well as currently arbitrated, so that concern isn't any more valid a reason to dismiss the article than any other article about a contemporary president. The purpose of the article is to provide information on a major source of public debate regarding the current president of the United States. There's no need to create an exact set of wikipedia articles for each presidential candidate as each presidential candidate has different issues that come to the public interest. That's why wikipedia has an article about "Obama and Bill Ayers" but not "Clinton and Bill Ayers", as well as entire articles about Obama's citizenship and religion controversies. There's an article "Al Gore and Information Technology" because that was a campaign issue. The Clintons have entire articles about Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, Troopergate, and cattle futures, not to mention her emails. It is clear that there has been extensive reporting on this issue from reliable, secondary sources, and that information has been reliably reported in this article as per Wikipedia policies. 208.185.128.234 (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Yet the article still fails to discuss any racial views of Donald Trump, it's still a litany of accusations and mind-reading. Of course that's what sources report, so we follow, but at least we should be honest with the title, calling this Accusations of racism against Donald Trump (which currently redirects here). Wikipedia has only one person in the history of the world deserving a separate article on their "racial views", that does not look neutral or balanced at all. Where are the racial views of Adolf Hitler, racial views of D. F. Malan and racial views of Josef Mengele? — JFG talk 17:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
If you think that Accusations of racism against Donald Trump is the best possible title then propose a move; if you think those other people warrant an article on their racial views then please start it. In this section though please explain the (many?) things that make this article look non-neutral or unbalanced. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Move requests have been tried and resulted in no consensus. Article improvement can still proceed but the contents should match the title, and vice versa. — JFG talk 08:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • There are many better and more accurate titles for the article which would reflect the content more. Donald Trump and Racism. Racism controversies of Donald Trump. Etc etc. Unfortunately any attempt to have a more accurate title with either racism or racist in it gets shouted down. Despite the overwhelming evidence (as the article shows) of overt racism over an extended period of time. You couldn't actually include what Donald trump thinks Donald trumps racial views are with any degree of seriousness anyway, he lies like a rug and is the very definition of unreliable. Change the damn title to reflect what the actual article is about. Donald Trump and Racism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I think "Accusations of racism against Donald Trump", as stated by JFG, would be a better title. Trump has not been proven to lie constantly as stated above: The Mainstream media is always unprofessionally asking him trick the wrong questions to try to make him give leading to inconsistent answers, like with the Russia collusion thing for example. I think that as stated by the creator of this conversation, the article should include Trump's views in addition to the media's. If Trump is considered unreliable, then you can include what Mike Pence as well as alternative media such as Fox news say. Sure, Trump can lie, but so can the media, and the media can also get things wrong, we all know they don't fact check as well as they used to. SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
"The Mainstream media is always asking him trick questions to try to make him give inconsistent answers, like with the Russia collusion thing for example. " - ummmm... what??? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Wow! SpidersMilk, you need to catch up with, and believe, what RS document every single day. Here are a few:
BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 08:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer, First of all, the quote about wildfires may or may not be true, depending on your interpenetration of scientific data. Trump merely said what he thinks is true, and as for the approval ratings, it is a well known fact that the mainstream media over-samples democrats. The other claims are similar. Some of them are what Trump thinks is true, and some of it is true.SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC) You and are not being civil either, your comment "Wow! SpidersMilk, you need to catch up with, and believe, what RS document every single day" is snarky to say the least, and in my experience on this page, some of the other liberal editors have the same attitude: ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK. Please show some respect for people of other views. I and others like me may actually take those claims more seriously if people like you were nicer.SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

When you make statements like 'Trump has not been proven to lie' there are really only three options. Either you are ignorant of the many many documented instances of his lies, you are not ignorant but are unable to tell truth from fiction, or you are aware of his lies, know they are lies, and are wasting our time with this crap. BullRangifer took the most favourable option to yourself. Given you think 'mainstream media' are trying to 'trick' him, I'm going with you lack the capacity to understand what is fact and what is fiction and really should not be editing articles related to Trump. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: the topic of the "Racial view of Adolf Hitler" is covered in Racial policy of Nazi Germany. We are not yet at a point of having an article on "Racial policy of Trump's America", so, in line with the sources, we focus on the man. I also shortened the title of this thread as forum-like. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for creating the Hitler redirect. — JFG talk 08:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Frankly, I never understood why some people make such a huge deal about a person’s eye and hair color. But, the subject of this article is rather heavily documented by RS with issues related to color over decades. So, we need to document it. That’s what we do here. O3000 (talk) 00:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2018[edit]

Please edit/remove the line "Trump's controversial statements have been condemned by many observers in the U.S. and around the world,[6][19][20] but excused by his supporters either as a rejection of political correctness[21][22] or because they harbor similar racial sentiments.[23][24] "

"Trump's controversial statements have been condemned by many observers in the U.S. and around the world, but generally excused or dismissed by his supporters."

The statement dictates that there are only two reasons supporters excuse his statements; 1) simply rejecting political correctness or 2) harboring similar racial sentiment. There are other reasons and such a statement is false. Additionally, the only source that supports the "racial sentiment" theory is a biased publication/entitiy and although they explain that they came to the conclusion but does not provide the questions nor baseline used to come to such a conclusion. They also say they " believe that such concerns are exaggerated" and facts should not be based on personal beliefs Saminole (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don’t really understand what you are saying. You should base your argument on Wikipedia guidelines. How do you suggest that the text better fit the guidelines, and why according to those guidelines? O3000 (talk) 00:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

OK,

Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute- 1) simply rejecting political correctness or 2) harboring similar racial sentiment are not the only two reasons supporters of Trump policies excuse or dismiss his statements. Thus, the line should be removed because it is not accurate.

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources: The source identified as claiming Economic Anxiety Didn’t Make People Vote Trump, Racism Did, is a biased source. Although biased sources are allowed and often required, they do not have any tangible reviewed evidence to make such a claim thus they may be a generally reliable source but there is no actual source of thier opinion. Saminole (talk) 00:25, August 14, 2018‎ (UTC)

The article that you refer to is not an opinion column. It’s a lengthy article detailing research based upon data collected by American National Election Studies, an organization created by the National Science Foundation that keeps election data going back to 1948. O3000 (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

You do not dispute the accuracy or lack thereof, simply the weight of the article as a reliable source.

The article does not detailed research. It simply cites a source of data (to your point from ANES) but des not present a detail of how that raw data was used to come up with its conclusion. It does not detail how the data was used and against what matrix or a rubric the results can lead to validate the hypothesis of the author(s). It is not reviewed or independently verified by any source outside of the author.

The absolute point of this request for edit is to simply remove a false statement. This is not a discussion on personal beliefs or bias. The only line request for edit is a statement that is verifiable inaccurate. The citing of an article on an anti-Trump website and whether I like or dislike the current president is immaterial to the request for accuracy. The wiki community is based on verifiable facts and personal opinions should not alter the end article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.198.18.85 (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I think your characterizations are a bit heavy handed. First, you characterized The Nation simply as an “Anti-Trump” website. The Nation was founded in 1865 and is the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in the US. Also, the article does provide details, and is cited in the Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics at the Cambridge University Press. [3] Also I think here at Cambridge [4], but don’t have access. O3000 (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

White Farmers in South Africa[edit]

In August 2018, Trump sent a tweet stating that he had ordered the Secretary of state Mike Pompeo to look into land seizures and the mass killing of White farmers in South Africa, acting on what is stated by many to be a racist conspiracy theory.[170][171]

Since when are two sources considered "many"? One of the sources cited is a four-year-old website. Much more established media should be cited to make even a remotely similar claim. The problem with citing two sources and only presenting their view is problematic, because I can easily find dozens of more reliable sources supporting the opposite. wumbolo ^^^ 18:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

There are plenty more reliable sources. How many do we need in the article? [5] [6] O3000 (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
There are also plenty of reliable sources stating the opposite. How about we keep opinion pieces out of Wikipedia and focus on the facts, which is that the ANC is vowing to pass a motion [7] to expropriate land without compensation. Such land dispossession is a clear violation of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights article 14 and 21. TridentMkII (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
What RS states there are mass killings of White farmers in South Africa? O3000 (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Whatever attribute a source attributes to Trump is irrelevant, because every word in Trump's tweet is factually correct, according to the same New York Times articles used to cite that Trump is acting on some bad faith conspiracy. wumbolo ^^^ 14:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I think the point is that Trump has at his disposal a vast intelligence network, and yet chose instead to believe and repeat a white supremacist claim of mass murders of white farmers by Blacks. O3000 (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
@Objective3000: you might want to strike that falsehood. He said that nowhere. Or I'll remove your comment myself. wumbolo ^^^ 16:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Not a falsehood. No striking is warranted. A source was provided:

"The “large scale killings” phrase included in Trump’s tweet was an invocation of “white genocide,” a conspiracy theory popular among white supremacists who have for years been attempting to advance the baseless claim that white South African farmers are being systematically murdered en masse. It is an idea that until now has existed mainly on the fringes, fostered by proponents including white nationalist and former Klansman David Duke — who jubilantly responded to Trump’s tweet: "Russia has already agreed to take in 15,000 White South Africans—your move, Mr. President. Thank you!""
— [8]

- MrX 🖋 17:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I see. That's Snopes's crystal ball opinion, but at least it's sourced. wumbolo ^^^ 17:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
NYTimes[9] and WaPo[10]. O3000 (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The Article is Biased[edit]

Ok. So most of the time, I do not criticize other people's articles, and just mind my own business, but this article is not written with NPOV. In fact, by reading this article, I can tell that most major contributors to this article are against Donald Trump. This article concedes that Donald Trump referred to Mexican immigrants as rapists, that Donald Trump sympathizes with the Alt-Right, when he has condemned them, and worst of all, basically tells us that all the sane people condemn him, while those "nutty" supporters of his excuse this because they are racist. Please, address this issue! Thanks --Kingdamian1 (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kingdamian1: Can you please provide a specific example of content that is not written from a neutral perspective, or is not reliably sourced? Bradv 16:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
There is cherry picking going on. There is so much on Donald Trump, that literally ANYONE can find the article they want to make him look as they wish. For example, here is Donald Trump, UNEQUIVOCALLY, condemning racism, KKK and alt-right, yet this is NOT mentioned in the beginning of the article. From reading this article, I can guess that it was written by a person who opposes the beloved president. I should NOT be able to do that. Since this is an encyclopedia. --Kingdamian1 (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The second sentence of the article contains his denial. O3000 (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) While we do quote the subjects of articles often (and Trump is quoted in this article several times, including the very first paragraph), the bulk of our content comes from reliable sources that are independent of the topic, including news articles, magazines, and books. This is not an indication of bias — this is simply due to the fact that we are an encylopedia. Bradv 16:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I must add to this that Youtube is not a reliable source, so it's not appropriate to use this video to support a statement in the article. News articles probably cover the video — you can find one of them and link to it instead. Better yet, propose your change here and gain consensus for it first. Bradv 17:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Again, I have explained that there is SO MUCH written on Donald Trump, that anyone can make him look as they wish. I could make DT look like an angel, quoting only Fox News, or make him look like a demon, quoting CNN, which has been shown to be highly biased by a Harvard study. When reading an encyclopedic article, I expect not to be able to tell what is the political affiliation of the person who wrote it. Donald Trump has denied being a racist many times, yet the Wikipedia chose to SPECIFICALLY include the quotes that make him look dumb when denying racism. --Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Please propose specific changes you would like to see made. And Fox News and CNN are just two of many reliable sources that are used to write this article. If we're only relying on one source we clearly have a neutrality problem, but I don't see evidence of that here. Bradv 17:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
CNN has not been shown to be biased against Trump. That CNN's coverage of Trump is negative does not mean that CNN is is biased against Trump. What are those quotes that make him look "dumb"; and please read WP:NPOV - bring up reliable sources, which are the only things that matter in determining in neutrality Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Nevermind, I forgot that people who determine "consensus" on this article are themselves socialist, anti-American, Trump-hating liberals. --Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
So, are you here to help write an encyclopedia, or was this just a setup for that insult? Bradv 17:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Of course, I want to write a NPOV encyclopedia, that is written in a non-partisan way. --Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Then please, as requested, provide examples of where this article fails to do that. We take biographies of living persons and neutral point of view very seriously, so specific concerns will get dealt with promptly. Blanket statements of bias and bad faith, on the other hand, are generally ignored. Bradv 17:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Why does this article fail to mention the BBC source I provided, where Donald Trump unequivocally condemns racism as evil, and neo-nazis as thugs? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Because it's a Youtube video, and Youtube is not a reliable source. This was explained in the edit summary, and above. Bradv 17:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
That's not how encyclopedia articles are written. This is covered in WP:NPOV. We look at all available, reliable sources and proportionately reflect what they have written.- MrX 🖋 17:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh, ok... Then why is there no mention of this or this, or this? And why are the opinions of SJW writers presented, while omitting reliable opinions of people in reliable articles that insist he is not a racist. As seen here or why does it not discuss his close associated saying that he is NOT a racist, as seen here? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I strongly suggest you remove the pejorative term SJW from your edit. This is no way to gain consensus. Also, WP:AGF O3000 (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Article fully protected for 4 days[edit]

I was made aware of this dispute via RFPP. As I'm sure you all are aware, this article falls under discretionary sanctions related to American politics post-1932 (see the top of this talk page). As such, a 1 revert per editor per 24 hours rule is in place. As I'm sure you all are also aware, this rule has been violated in the past 24 hours. Given that I've fully protected the article for 4 days, I think it would be excessive to also issue blocks for 1RR violations. Nevertheless, please understand that you may be blocked without warning upon violation of these discretionary sanctions. Airplaneman 22:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Airplaneman: thank you, but probably unnecessary now as user:Kingdamian1 has been indeffed. O3000 (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
@Objective3000: Thanks for the ping! I've restored semiprotection. Airplaneman 18:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)