If you're here to alert me to the post-1932 American Politics DS sanctions, the BLP DS sanctions or the pseudoscience DS sanctions, please rest assured, I'm aware. However, notice of specific DS restrictions applicable only to a particular article should already be included in the edit view of that article, so it's safe to assume I'm aware of them as well.
I may not be young enough to know everything, but I'm old enough to not believe everything.
What border? Oh, that one. Nah...not a problem - open borders.
A tip for longevity: Never believe the impossible can't happen to you.
“It is well known that human choices are affected by the way in which a question is phrased.” ~ Mr Benedetto de Martino
To say it in WikiVoice, or not??
While this list of sources is really good and does establish "commonly used by reliable sources" I think we should additionally ask ourselves - what added benefit is there to Wikipedia saying it "in our own voice" as against simply reporting in a neutral manner that it is common for his comments to be described as racist.
As of this moment, we are engaging in what I think is admirable short-term restraint. We say in the lede "He has a history of making controversial [weasel words] comments." That's fine as far as it goes, because 'controversial comments' is true, and is neither positive nor negative as an evaluation. Sometimes controversial comments are good, sometimes they are bad. Fine.
But we are at the same time here being too cautious, I think, in that we fail to inform the reader as to why the comments are controversial. Is he saying things that might be controversial in Iowa like "Gay marriage should be legal" or "Marijuana prohibition has done more harm than good"? No, actually.
So I think we should cautiously say something like "He has a history of making comments that have commonly been referred to as racist." Well, maybe 9 footnotes is excessive, but you see my point. We have more than enough to make the point that the reader needs to know, and I think the point is stronger than if we simply say, in our own voice, that he has a history of making racist comments. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 9:57 am, 19 June 2018, Tuesday (19 days ago) (UTC−5)
To include it in a BLP, or not??
BLPs wherein a subject's work, beliefs or ideologies are perhaps more controversial than the actual subject, should not become focused on bolstering and subsequently refuting the subject's views or theories rather than actually defining the subject. In many cases this may in fact be due to the subject trying to push their own ideas, while others work diligently to refute them, but many such cases involve editors who have no affiliation with the subject other than a personal belief/disbelief in their work. A person's biography is not a good place to debate scientific theory or ideological beliefs; such debates belong in the articles that focus on those topics. For BLPs, it is enough to simply state what their views are and link to the articles which expand on those views.”(modified text based on a quote by user Zaereth)