Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 9

Requested move 16 February 2018

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

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

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

Survey

Yeah that is a good example why accusations of racism against Donald Trump is actually more accurate. Since that quote "...laziness is a trait in blacks." is a second hand account of what someone else said he said with no one else backig it up.[1] PackMecEng (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
What's the problem? Nixon was famously bigoted against various ethnic and religious groups. Why be so defensive about this? It's not as if Trump tries to conceal it. SPECIFICO talk 00:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
That is not an accurate representation of the quote. You could have at least read the part of the article that I pulled it from. Trump was asked if the book it appeared in was accurate, and said that it was. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
And you could of read the next paragraph that said “He made up this quote. I’ve heard the quote before, and it’s nonsense,” Trump said. “I’ve never said anything like it, ever.” PackMecEng (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I did. And I presumed that politicians lie. Was this a poor presumption on my part? (Hint: It's not). When someone like Trump -who can't take any criticism without popping his top- is accused of racism, they're not going to wait ten years to lash out at the person making the accusation, unless that person isn't particularly offended by the accusation. You know who's not offended by accusations of racism, don't you? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
They certainly do, all the dam time. But a few things. One he was not a politician at the time. Two when he confirmed it that was during a general interview on a lot of things and was not specific to that quote, hell he probably didn't read it. Three it still comes down to a disgruntled former employs word vs his, not something we could definitively say he said. More of a accusation if you will...PackMecEng (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Side note to the wait 10 years. It was two years in a different interview when he was asked about it. PackMecEng (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
One he was not a politician at the time. He was campaigning for a nomination at the time, therefore he was a politician. And if you think that Donald Trump on his own has more credibility than a politician, you owe politicians an apology.
Two when he confirmed it that was during a general interview on a lot of things and was not specific to that quote, hell he probably didn't read it. That quote had been one of the most visible parts of the book. Your implication that he didn't know about it is weak, very weak.
Three it still comes down to a disgruntled former employs word vs his Again; you owe disgruntled former employees an apology for implying they might be less honest than Trump.
More of a accusation if you will... I've already addressed this in my last comment.
It was two years in a different interview when he was asked about it. He was asked about it in late 1999. That's 9 years later, far closer to ten than two. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
With the timeline, he denied the comments right before dropping out. The book was 91, the probably true was 97, and the denial was 99. I was referring to the 97 to 99. So 8 years and some change, but like I said, do you think he actually sat down and read the thing? Also I don't know if the former employee is less honest or not, but it would be fair to label it an accusation instead of fact since there is reasonable doubt on both sides. Also dang it I take issue with the other politicians part, I'm from Illinois, we wouldn't know a politician telling the truth if they kicked us and then admitted it! PackMecEng (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Okay, we're both getting a little hyperbolic (though it seems in a friendly way, which is fun but sometimes not so clear), so let me take it back to a more formal argument. 1) Yes, it is an allegation, I admit. It's not irrefutable that he actually said it, but 2) Donald Trump has a long history (hence our article) of making racist remarks, 3) though the remark itself got publicity at the time of publishing (see [2] and [3] for example), Trump admitted in 1997 that it was "probably" accurate, a statement which carries some weight because 4) Trump has a history of knee-jerk reactions to anything he perceives as insulting, and furthermore that 5) Trump's later refutation of the claim was entirely self-serving, as he was running for public office at the time. So I'm weighing probabilities here. There are several reasons to believe that Trump made that remark and no reasonable cause to believe his denial. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I think we have drilled about as far as we can go on his comments from 20 years ago, which would be in the scope of the article either way it goes. Personal feelings here, it would not be the least believable thing I have heard today that he actually made that comment. I'm also starting to get an intuition here about this article in general. Just how I see it. If something looks like bees, it doesn't matter if it is or isn't bees, you don't touch it. This article is defiantly reminding me of bees, so I'm going to try to not touch it for a bit. I doubt I will be able to keep to that, but bee stings stink. PackMecEng (talk) 03:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This article is not about accusations; it's about Trump's 45 year documented history of racially-provocative remarks and racially-motivated actions. The word "accusations" is an expression of doubt in this context, and completely inappropriate for a neutral encyclopedia. We are obligated to adhere to WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. This is not creative writing where we try to turn the tables on reliable sources and try to make the so-called accusers look like the bad guys.- MrX 🖋 21:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
According to whom? Journalists who are biased against him? Meh. It is what it is - opinion, not fact. Atsme📞📧 22:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
A relevant question here would be "Why are those journalists biased against him?"
Of course, the obvious and best answer is "Because of all the horrible things he says and does." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Whistle britches, you can't make this stuff up... Atsme📞📧 22:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@Atsme, it sounds like you don't agree with WP:V and WP:RS. Feel free to take your policy revision proposals to the appropriate policy pages and let us know when they change. Meanwhile, Trump's 45 year history of racism is well-documented, and that's the subject of this article.- MrX 🖋 22:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I respect your opinion, MrX...just don't agree with it. And Trump colluded with the Russians...meh! Atsme📞📧 22:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@Atsme: That doesn't address my point at all. You keep saying "the media is biased against Trump" and I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm saying that there's a reason they're biased against him. Just like the media is biased against Kim Jong Un and Jeffrey Dahmer. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
It goes back a long way...I get it...we're barely beyond year one and it continues...I get it. Atsme📞📧 22:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
This is interesting, because I've stated my point as plainly as is humanly possible (twice now), and you still seem to have missed it entirely. I know you're rather smart, so you don't have difficulty understanding my meaning. And I'm assuming you're not intentionally ignoring it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, Mr. Pants...I get your point-y...twice now. I yield my remaining 30 secs to the gentleman from Star Trek: The Next Generation. Beam me up, Scotty. Atsme📞📧 23:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
So you're not discussing this in good faith, then? You're using deception to win an argument. That's disappointing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • sigh* No, whistle britches...I don't play games. I'm far too seasoned for such nonsense. Show me verifiable statements of fact, not opinions, rumor or propaganda like that which is being force-fed to the public by propaganda machines, bait & click news orgs and political pundits. It's amazing what some people will say if you pay them enough...which may explain why I have little faith in politicians. Atsme📞📧 01:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
You sit here and proclaim to have little faith in politicians... wait for it... While defending your faith in a politician. A politician who is demonstrably the most untrustworthy one to ever hold his office. You say you're too old to play games, but I don't see you doing anything but playing games in this thread. And while you may think your position is reasonable, I'm telling you right now: It's not. Nor will you be able to ever convince me that it is. All you have accomplished in this thread wrt me is losing a huge chunk of the respect I previously held for you. I wasn't exaggerating about being disappointed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
We write what the sources say...we don't editorialize...and we do our best to use sound editorial judgment when deciding what belongs in the article per PAGs. Common sense is a welcome collaborator. I still believe the title of this article should reflect its contents, and I'm saddened that it has caused you disappointment. Enjoy the weekend and be happy. Atsme📞📧 02:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Atsme, Trump has been despised ever since he slithered through the Queens-Midtown Tunnel in the late 1970's to tear up and glass-plate the old Commodore Hotel on 42nd Street. There's lots of RS about how his mentor Roy Cohn taught him that any publicity is good publicity - even infamy. He has not suffered controversy and disparagement, he has courted and fomented it. Isn't that much obvious by now? Actually, I'm hoping you'll saddle up one of those ponies of yours and go lasso up a few of the 13 Russians the Grand Jury just put on the wanted list. SPECIFICO talk 23:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Indicted...and 13 is the lucky number! Atsme📞📧 23:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - most of the article does not actually tell the reader about Trump's self-professed views on race, but rather how commentators and pundits interpret his statements and actions. The alternative is more neutral and more faithful to the content of the article. Maybe a third alternative like "Donald Trump and race" could also be considered, as it is likewise more neutral. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
    Actually, only 29.9% (4081 out of 5822 words) of the article is criticism of Trump for racism. The other 71.1% are descriptions of Trump's actions, his comments, third party comments defending Trump, polling information, and other background information. The article is obviously not about accusations.- MrX 🖋 02:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think changing the title would be making it sound like he doesn't hold any negative racial views. After all "accusations" implies no one knows whether they are true. I don't think anyone can deny that he has said and done racist things, in fact that is more like a selling point for him. So the current title is NPOV while also being accurate as a description.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I feel that the proposed title spins the matter in Trump's favor. Editors are correct that there is more verifiable meat behind these "accusations" than, say, those at Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. Other proposed or considered titles spin the matter the other way. The idea is not to spin the matter, and the easiest way to get there is by using as few words as possible. The essential words are "Donald Trump" and "racism". Thus, Donald Trump and racism.
    JFG, apparently you missed my comments[4][5] in the previous RM, or failed to see their obvious wisdom; It's a joke, folks. otherwise my suggested title would be what you were proposing here. I think it would be the least controversial and therefore the most likely to reach consensus, and if this fails I might (repeat, might) follow with my own RM.
    Re the image above, I hope that model was well paid. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current title is neutral. For one thing it does not use the word "racism". And it allows Trump to speak for himself. The proposed title would lend Wikipedia's credibility to the notion or accusation of racism. MelanieN alt (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
The first sentence is literally people calling him racist "observers across the political spectrum to conclude that he is racist". That is already lending Wikipedia's credibility to the accusation. The whole lead minus the last sentence of the second paragraph is accusations of racism. The title should reflect the content of the article, very little is Trump's personal views with most of it sources commenting on how they think he is racist. PackMecEng (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
No, the first sentence is literally Donald Trump having a "history of making racially-charged remarks and pursuing racially-motivated actions and policies", and that's why observers have concluded that he is racist.22:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes that is what I wrote, people calling him racist and what the first sentence backs up. PackMecEng (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my last Oppose which I can't be arsed to find, They're not accusations they're racial views period. –Davey2010Talk 21:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The subject of this article is Trump's racial views. That is the baseline. Then, yes, there are reactions to those racial views. Jytdog (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jytdog: That is the issue at the heart of the title change. The actual contents of the article is largely how sources think he is racist. Very little of the article is dedicated to Trump stating his views or even responding to accusations. PackMecEng (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
If only the man would ever give a straight answer. I think, though, that plenty of people hear his dog whistles well enough. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Somebody's actual racial views are not always what they say they are. Probably rarely. Self-reports are somewhat relevant. We must have had five major discussions last summer/fall about what to do with various white supremacists stating "i am not a white supremacist". The community consistently said that their self-reports were not much relevant. Jytdog (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Agreed they could be dishonest with others or even themselves. But again if they are denying it and we have to rely on "dog whistles" aka peoples subjective guesses, we cannot really state as fact he is racist. PackMecEng (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The key fact is that Trump's core views appear to be quite consistent across time and space. There's a certain amount of text and data needed to sort the wheat from the chaff, but then once his "racial views" are clarified -- as the article does reasonably well -- we don't need much more space to state them over and over. It's natural that the bulk of the article would therefore be concerned with the applications, implications, and provocations of his views. The explication and reaction then provide profile and context for understanding his views. I don't see how the article could be structured any other way. It doesn't go against the title or the topic at all, IMO. SPECIFICO talk 03:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per PackMecEng and Atsme. As well, it's neutral and has an encyclopedic tone. What's currently in place is neither. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
But the content of the article is largely accusations, so per common name the purposed title is more accurate. PackMecEng (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @K.e.coffman: Well, that's indeed the problem: the title says that the article subject is Trump's racial views, and the contents speak almost entirely about people's reactions to Trump's comments about one incident or another, calling him a racist. Almost nothing on his professed views. — JFG talk 22:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
No it doesn't. As I have already pointed out, only 29.9% of the article is criticism or condemnation of Trump's racism.- MrX 🖋 22:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@PackMecEng & JFG: There's no problem here. If the topic were "Accusations..." then we'd have sources that discuss others who accused DJT of racism. The article in present form discusses his views. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
COMMONNAME is about what name "is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". It is not about what title best describes what RS talk about. Misuse of shortcut, five yard penalty and loss of down. Not that it matters, really, which is why this is small. The stated rationale is the same as that given by multiple others. Just a bit of drive-by nitpicking to show I'm not ignoring you guys. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - After a fair amount of editing over several weeks I'm pretty convinced that the present title is the best one that's been suggested so far. "Accusations" would be a terrible choice, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Striking vote by blocked editor without reasoning. Jdcomix (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – This title more accurately describes the article's contents. To get a full grasp on his exact "racial views" we'd need in-depth analysis and articles from academic journals, not just a collection of various controversial incidents and reactions from pundits and politicians (the article as currently written). FallingGravity 18:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support-ish - dislike to have a 'criticism article' or vague pejorative but it seems to more closely match what the article content is. To keep the current title would require start inserting non-accusations and racial views expressed by Donald Trump that are not 'racist'. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support- this article as currently written and titled has big problems. Nearly all of the sources are news articles. Such articles are written by journalists, who for the most part are not sociologists or people trained in analyzing someone's racial views. They simply report news stories. So we have a big collection of news articles, compiled by anonymous Wikipedia editors, that somehow can, with authority, attempt to fully describe the racial views of the President. This should be done by peer reviewed, scholarly analysis. As this article stands now, it should be titled according to the proposal. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose -this change, but think it needs to be changed to something less controversial like, "Trump and racism" that does not upset either the Pro or Anti Trump crowds. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

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

Sadly, this has become the norm for Trump-related articles and I have to say, it as pathetic as it is transparent. The fomula seems to be first, try to delete the article entirely, claiming it's an attack page and that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. When that fails, try to pepper the article with weasel words, cherry-picked quotes, and equivocations. When that doesn't work, try to change the title so that instead of the article being about Trump's well-documented racism, it becomes and article about accusations in which Trump is portrayed as the victim. - MrX 🖋 21:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Fortunately...as more information comes forward, more editors will realize why we should pay closer attention to WP:NOTNEWS. Wait for it...Atsme📞📧 22:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, the news will come out tomorrow that it wasn't really Trump who said and did all those things. Does this article even get into the thousands of Puerto Ricans he let die when he could have provided disaster assistance. And they weren't even "illegal". That's something well documented in RS. I'll check and maybe we can add a section about that. SPECIFICO talk 22:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
He let die? Provide RS please - my eyes and ears are open - constantly - wish they weren't at 3 AM. Atsme📞📧 22:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
[6] Newsweek doesn't seem to take any issue with putting the claim right there in a headline, and then backing it up in the body. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
To be fair on the Newsweek source, it states that then attributes it at the end to people on the ground. The money and supplies are there with more money coming. But the infrastructure to do anything with it was lets say poor before the disaster and has not gotten much better. It would be a hard sell to say it was racially motivated. PackMecEng (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
It would be a hard sell to say it was racially motivated. Apparently not that hard. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah because The Root and Vox are good neutral sources... The Guardian an article responding to a TV comedian and People quoting twitter to say hes racist... Seems fairly hard doesn't it? PackMecEng (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Ahh, I see. First you claim nobody says this stuff, then you dismiss all the people saying this stuff so as to support your point that nobody says this stuff. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Nah more I just want reliable sources backing up crazy claims. I don't think I am asking to much. PackMecEng (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Needs more historical perspective and actual fact-based reporting. Atsme📞📧 00:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Atsme, you know perfectly well that has nothing to do with the loss of electricity, potable water, transportation, and other critical life support systems. I'm giving you a giant trout for posting that off-topic garbage here. Please do better. SPECIFICO talk 00:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
It's time to get caught up on the facts - Vox’s Alexia Fernández Campbell reported that the Puerto Rican government’s own missteps in the reconstruction effort, including botching a massive recovery contract with Whitefish Energy, have further hampered the power restoration effort. See the article. Please, let's leave our biases at login and get back on point. This article needs to be renamed to reflect it's contents. Atsme📞📧 01:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
You're on thin ice. I suggest you drop the whataboutism and the right-wing talking points. They don't change the mainstream reporting, which is all we care about here. SPECIFICO talk 01:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
FYI, I have friends and family there...I'm well aware. Atsme📞📧 01:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
A look at the differences in the way the federal response played out in Huston and Puerto Rico, including Trump's actions and comments, is evidence in it's self. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Comment

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

Could we try reducing the words like "Trump and racism" or make it more general, like "Trump and racial issues"; the more words added the more 'someone' will find fault with the idea. Just my opinion - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Shithole countries"

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

I think that anything Trump did or said that resulted in accusations of racism from or reported by RSes belongs on this page because we are not expected to judge whether or not such statements or actions were germane to Trump's racial views; we are expected to let the reliable sources judge that for us. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I disagree - political opposition makes everything about racism when it isn't, and I have cited RS that have pointed out that fact on this TP. We are supposed to exercise editorial judgment, not blindly repeat what journalists and pundits say, especially when there are known biases. Our job is NPOV and getting the article right. I also pointed out in my list above where some RS that were cited don't even mention racism. It is a major problem, and it needs to be fixed. Atsme📞📧 17:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
If RSes call it racist or report that it's widely called racist, then us not including it here is a form of WP:OR, as it's us basically disagreeing with those sources in order to determine content here. That's not even remotely acceptable. If the majority of sources don't identify it as racist, then we can say that. But we can't simply exclude this matter because some of us don't agree with the sources. For what it's worth, I don't think the comment itself is de facto racism: I agree that it's a comment about nations, and even that it's a comment based in a realistic summation of those nations' economic and social conditions. But too many RSes have identified it as a racist comment for me to suggest that we go with my own interpretation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Well all it takes is the first one. If one RS says it is racist then others can and will jump in and say that it's been reported as racist, and then that has been fully determined to be racist. That is the way our news cycle works now, and in a way it is its own form of citogenesis. I specifically say news cycle because this article is almost entirely sourced by news reports. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion. Now, what does this have to do with anything? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
It has everything to do with it, starting with WP:NEWSORG and WP:NOTNEWS. We are an encyclopedia, not a SOAPBOX and or here to RIGHTGREATWRONGS by hammering our readers with allegations of the president being a racist. The real questions are not being asked, like what does a border wall to stop drug traficking and smuggling have to do with race? What does a ban on countries known for terrorism have to do with race? When Obama wanted it, he wasn't called racist. Why is Trump a racist for doing the same things? Those are the real questions that need to be asked here. Atsme📞📧 18:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Mr.Ernie's opinion is 1) wrong and 2) irrelevant to this article. Same for your comment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
....and thunder rolled, and the seas parted....lol - VM, you're argument is not convincing. Atsme📞📧 18:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@Atsme: - Fact much? SPECIFICO talk 19:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
SPECIFICO Facts only ma'am.[FBDB] Atsme📞📧 20:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
There are a couple that make the case the comments were not based on race. Mostly centering around Rand Paul's interpretation. Newsweek, Politico, and Huffington Post. But they are a minority view. PackMecEng (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
From my post above - Worse yet, not all are race-related. The following Slate article describes Tesler's analysis: Since 2009, Tesler has been chronicling what he calls the “racialization” of issues in the Obama era—the extent to which public opinion on topics unrelated to race have taken on a racial cast as Obama has staked out positions on them." We should be using editorial judgment to not include topics unrelated to race, such as the ban on certain Muslim countries that Obama first named, the border wall that prior presidents supported - they need to be removed as neither is racially motivated. To simply include misinformation because that happens to be what the (cherrypicked) sources say - I point to policy: WP:NOTNEWS As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Then there is WP:NEWSORG: Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis. Multiple sources should not be asserted for any wire service article. Such sources are essentially a single source. WP:BIASED states When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that... Common sense tells us that building a border wall has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with national defense to stop drug trafficking, smuggling, etc. - it's a topic that is unrelated to race and belongs in an immigration article. Claims of racism typically originate from biased sources which requires in-text attribution BUT if it's not racism, even though it's verifiable in a news source, our job is to exercise good editorial judgment and maintain the quality and credibility of our encyclopedia. We are NOTNEWS. Why do we need 12+ unrelated allegations of racism in this encyclopedia, some cited to biased RS that are publishing quotes by Trump detractors so he can be found guilty in the court of public opinion - and ne'ery a word about the opposing views in those same sources to provide proper WEIGHT & BALANCE. Atsme📞📧 18:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
"Common sense tells us that building a border wall has nothing to do with racism" Right. How is the Canadian border wall coming along? - MrX 🖋 18:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Canada welcomes US citizens because they always go home. B) Atsme📞📧 20:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Common sense tells us that building a border wall has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with national defense to stop drug trafficking, smuggling, etc. That's not common sense. That's self delusion. It's based on categorically false claims of terrorists coming over the border, categorically false claims of illegal immigrants stealing jobs from Americans, categorically false claims about the effectiveness of a wall and categorically false claims about at least a half a dozen other things. It only makes sense if you believe a bunch of obvious bullshit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Seriously, MPants at work, if you don't live along a southern border in the US, or within 100 miles of it, you can't possibly know what really goes on. If you think leftist MSM is going to tell you, think again. I have close friends who own land along the border - I lived a short 300 mi. from Brownsville - ask the people who live along the border what the real issues are as the drug cartels and smugglers go about their business in human trafficking and weapons trade. Texas doesn't have the resources to stop it. You say self-delusion, and that a wall is a categorically false claim - that tells me MSM has done a great job with their open border propaganda and keeping the American people uninformed via ommission. this is what happens when you get too close to the drug camps. See the stats, they're real. See the strategy for keeping the public uninformed and compliant, it's real. See the terrorist movement, it's real. We simply need to exercise sound editorial judgment, common sense and strict adherence to WP's 3 core content policies - they are our biggest assets in helping to keep WP neutral while rejecting all the SOAPBOX advocacies. Atsme📞📧 22:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
if you don't live along a southern border in the US, or within 100 miles of it, you can't possibly know what really goes on. In fact, I have, (and far closer than you, if your comment here is accurate) but I appreciate you assuming the opposite because it supports your own preconceptions anyways. I didn't always live where I'm at now. Also, I really like the whole MSM conspiracy theory thing: If you're trying to eliminate any remaining vestiges of respect I have for you, you're doing a bang-up job of it right now. Finally your source which you claim proves that the terrorism threat is real says pretty much the exact opposite. You should really read those things before you grab a link. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Someone who believes in "MSM conspiracy theories" is in the wrong place and simply WP:NOTHERE. Same goes for someone who continues to use article talk pages as their WP:SOAPBOX.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, Rand Paul's back yard is a $**thole, according to the neighbor that clocked him. SPECIFICO talk 20:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Ha, yeah I remember that. Hope they worked it out. PackMecEng (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Yep, a $**thole that a single trespass by his neighbor may have cost him 21 months of cell time, and I'm not talking iPhone. Brilliant. Atsme📞📧 20:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
He forgot the first rule of fisticuffs: never hit anyone who knows where you live. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • lol* 2nd only to "love thy neighbor". Atsme📞📧 22:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
No, it's the first rule. "Love thy neighbor" is the first rule of a completely different manner of using one's fists. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Back on topic, it is evident that saying that some *countries* are better than others is not a statement about race. Even saying that *people from some countries* should be welcome and others should not is not a statement about race; it's a statement about nationality. This is obvious. By putting this material on a page called "racial views" simply because some columnists have read into the statement what they wish to see (whether rightly or wrongly) is not the job of an encyclopedia. There is nothing about *race* in the statement. It doesn't belong under "racial views" except for a minor mention (and a link) indicating that many in the media ascribed the statement to racism. But the "Shithole countries" section itself should be included on the pages for Trump's political positions or immigration policy. That's NPOV. Bueller 007 (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
By putting this material on a page called "racial views" simply because some columnists have read into the statement what they wish to see (whether rightly or wrongly) is not the job of an encyclopedia. You are utterly incorrect. As an encyclopedia, it is our job to report what the reliable sources say, not our own interpretations, no matter how obvious. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Again, to be clear: NPOV and RS does not mean that Wikipedia's coverage of an event has to echo the *opinions* of journalists. The coverage itself should be neutral; we can then clearly indicate journalists' opinions about the event. In this case, the way to do this is to remove "Shithole countries" from the "Racial Views" page (since it does not contain any statement about race), to add it to another page, and to indicate that many in the media thought that the statement thought it was racist. By including it on the "Racial Views" page, we are suggesting that some journalists' opinions are right (and others are wrong) about this being a racial statement. That's POV editorializing of the type that Wikipedia is not supposed to engage in. Bueller 007 (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
You have already been quite clear that you believe your judgement overrides that of the sources. It also is clear that many people, including journalists and commentators have criticized this remark as being racist. Therefore, it doesn't matter one bit whether it was racist on its face or not because the coverage it has gotten has been mostly about whether or not it was racist, or -rather more accurately- mostly about how racist it was but also with some coverage of whether or not it was racist. Therefore, it is absolutely relevant to this subject and should be covered on this page. It may also be covered on other pages, where it is also relevant, such as the immigration policy page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The article does not have serious WP:NPOV problems. We don't substitute editor's views that something is not a racial statement for respected sources that say otherwise. This article is built on objective news sources and few book sources, so it's a non-starter to suggest that those news sources are "journalists' opinions". If there are news sources that represent a different take on Trump's shithole comments, those should be represented as well, but in proper proportion. - MrX 🖋 22:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, MrX, your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT argument is echoing. We've already cited various policies that explain why your argument won't stay afloat. There aren't many options left after discussion has reached this point so maybe NPOV/N is the best next step. Atsme📞📧 23:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
My dear Atsme, I am listening and open to adapting my views. Please see my previous response to you. If you want to convince me with your arguments, you can't just make bold sweeping assertions. You are free to start a discussion at any of the DR noticeboards, or start an RfC, but word to the wise: don't bite off more than you can chew. A focused proposal or question is much more likely to reach a resolution than a laundry list of NPOV grievances.- MrX 🖋 23:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Atsme, haven’t yet had time to go through all of this as my PC melted like a witch on a rampart. But IMHO, a quick scan would suggest you listen to X’s wise counsel. O3000 (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Your "respected sources" are voicing *opinions*. There are other sources who opine that it was *not* a racial statement. It is not the job of Wikipedia to weigh columnists' opinions against each other. (With, of course, the opinion that *you* favour being the winner.) Whether or not Trump is a racist, "shithole countries" is obviously not a statement about race unless you read into it. And what you read into it may or may not be Trump's state of mind. We do not know. Journalists also do not know. That's why Wikipedia taking a stance on Trump's unknown state of mind (based on journalist opinion) is POV. Again, the NPOV approach is to move this info to a page with a neutral title and then describe how/why various journalists believe it was racist. Bueller 007 (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
They're not columnists; they're journalists. They're not opining; they're reporting.- MrX 🖋 15:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
This is easily refuted by the text of the article: Trump has been called a racist by a number of New York Times columnists including Nicholas Kristof ("I don't see what else we can call him but a racist"), Charles M. Blow ("Trump Is a Racist. Period."), and David Leonhardt ("Donald Trump is a racist"). FallingGravity 05:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't believe anyone is seriously arguing that there were no racial implications when Trump said he didn't like getting immigrants from "shithole countries" (in context, African countries and Haiti), and wanted more immigrants from "countries like Norway".[12] Even if some people on this board are blind to the racist import of that statement, it was obvious to virtually all the people who commented on it - not just journalists but leaders and politicians from all over the world. Come on, folks. OF COURSE this belongs here, as attested by virtually all Reliable Source coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Title editorializes

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

Yep, but the survey results brought a different result - scroll up the page to the section titled, "Requested move 16 February 2018". Atsme📞📧 04:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Not really a "different result", just no consensus on a specific title request. FallingGravity 06:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits - textbook SYNTH and WEASEL

  • This edit whitewashes what the source says. The source says "numerous studies" - indeed that is the point of the article - not "some studies" [13]. In this case "tone it down" means "I'm gonna POV this".
  • This, with a misleading summary "remove gossip", actually removes well sourced text. This is NOT "gossip", that's absurd.
  • This is a clear cut case of SYNTH which juxtaposes two separate facts and tries to imply - via original research - that the first part of the claim is false. It also embellishes a bit on what is actually in the relevant source.

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

"President has dime bars for breakfast" is gossip. "President makes sweeping racist statements while in the process of trying to enact anti-immigration laws" is certainly *not* gossip. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
According to the meaning of gossip when googled, "casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details which are not confirmed as true". Therefore the issue is not the importance or trivial nature of the information but whether the sources are identified and reliable or just unattributed hearsay. Birtig (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Read WP:YESPOV, particularly Avoid stating opinions as facts, and Prefer nonjudgmental language which states (my bold underline): A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. There is also Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views which is not being applied as it should. Opinions are not facts and allegations of racism are opinions. POV has been detected, not just but one but by several editors. Also refer to WP:NEWSORG. Atsme📞📧 23:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
What exactly are you addressing? This appears to be just a random statement which has nothing to do with the issues raised above. Please watch WP:SOAPBOX.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree on all points. The first is a whitewash. The second has a questionable edit summary, although I'm not sure the article suffers for losing the material. The third does seem to run afoul of synth. It takes a cherry picked portion of the raw speech, and portions of two other sources and combines them in a way that suggests something new. There may be a source that makes such a conclusion, but those three ain't them.- MrX 🖋 02:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Marek's opening comment and restorative edits are all that's needed to "uphold neutrality" -- no independent editor is objecting, so let's drop it now and move on per WP:OWN SPECIFICO talk 02:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • JFG, well, it may be "some" in YOUR book, but on Wikipedia we don't go by "JFG's book" we go by what reliable sources say. And these sources say "numerous", not "some". WP:OR. I agree on the inversion of the cause and effect though. How about we keep "numerous" and you can propose appropriate wording for taking care of the other issue?
  • No, to call this gossip is absurd. "Well sourced gossip" is in fact pretty much an oxymoron.
  • There's nothing unclear about it being SYNTH. To different claims/ideas are forged together to imply something which is not actually in any of the sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek: 1. Did you forget about WP:BALANCE, WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD? The Vox source cites three studies linking Trump with racist feelings in the electorate, and calls them "numerous", we don't have to parrot their claims. Besides, the article text grossly misrepresents even Vox by inverting cause and consequence. This cannot stand, especially in the lede section which is supposed to summarize the gist of the article body. So if you want to keep this, please insert a proper representation of the source in the article body, add counter-studies, and finally write a balanced summary in the lede. 2. Gossip sourced to the New York Times is still gossip. 3. I proposed a way to avoid any appearance of SYNTH; what do you think? — JFG talk 04:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Um, no, it's just that WP:BALANCE would mean that you go and find sources which say there AREN'T "numerous" studies. And if a reliable source says "numerous", then yes indeed we have to "parrot their claim" - i.e. not misrepresent them as you're trying to do. I've already said that you can propose better wording in regard to the cause and effect so please stop red herringing this.
And no, please stop it with this "gossip" nonsense. Well sourced info is not "gossip". Indeed it is the opposite of gossip.
And your "proposal to avoid SYNTH" wasn't actually a proposal to avoid synth, it was a proposal to remove relevant text according to some WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. How does that work? How about instead of removing relevant text, we remove the SYNTH that you put in there? Problem solved. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
1. Fair enough that we'd have to find counter-studies for balance, and I can't be bothered to do such research right now. Whether three studies are "numerous" is a matter of personal opinion, and I agree to disagree; we could simply qualify the studies count more neutrally, by stating "Several studies have claimed…" rather than "Numerous studies…" or "Some studies…". On my other remark, glad to see you admit the misrepresentation, so how about switching to this text: Several studies and surveys have claimed that racist attitudes and racial resentment have fueled Trump's political ascendance, and have become more significant than economic factors in determining party allegiance of voters.
2. Looks like we don't have the same definition of gossip. Seems that this "well-sourced" hearsay is sourced to nobody in particular, and was denied by several participants. Contrary to the "shithole" incident which was confirmed, "forgotten" or not-really-denied by many named sources. So until somebody has the guts to say "I was here and I confirm Trump said that", it's just WP:GOSSIP, "scandal mongering" as our WP:NOT policy calls it, and we must remove it from the encyclopedia.
3. First of all, I wasn't the author of the original prose that had been removed, I just restored it without further editing, so don't accuse me of introducing SYNTH, a tactic I despise. The "we share the same blood" quote from the inauguration speech is eminently relevant to this article because it is one of the rare instances of actual direct expressions of "racial views of Donald Trump", so it deserves inclusion. We can either include it without comment, or with balanced comments from sources making positive and negative interpretations of his statement. Neither approach should involve any editorial synthesis. — JFG talk 04:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
1. You drop the "claimed" weaseling and that'd be acceptable.
2. Sorry, but this is simply NOT gossip. We have New York Times and Washington Post reporting on it. It caused a lot of controversy. You can't just make up arbitrary rules for what you think is "gossip" and then try to exclude text because you WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Anyway, this has been in the article a long time, and by removing this you violated the "consensus required to restore challenged edits" discretionary sanctions so please self-revert.
3. You may not have been the author but you put it back in (I didn't accuse you of "introducing" it, I said you "put it in there", which is correct - so how about YOU don't falsely accuse me of stuff, speaking of tactics). And you're still doing the SYNTH, just now on the talk instead of the article. Hell, you're essentially trying to hold the well sourced text hostage - "your choices are either to remove the well sourced text or let me do my SYNTH". No, these are not the only choices. The obvious choice is to remove the SYNTH. As was done before you reinserted it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
1. Okay, will replace "claimed" with "stated" and make the edit.
2. I didn't violate anything: I removed the paragraph, was challenged by you, came here to discuss. Textbook BRD. We happen to disagree whether this content meets the definition of gossip by WP policy (not "arbitrary rules"), fine, so be it. Will open the discussion to wider comments.
3. Look, it's not about me, you or another editor, let's stick to discussing the contents. The inauguration speech contains an explicit statement by Trump about race. Whether you like this statement or not, it exists, and is therefore relevant to an article called "Racial views of Donald Trump". Censoring it is POV. We don't need to add editorial comments around it, which the original text does. How about you suggest a wording that would not give any appearance of synth? — JFG talk 05:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
WP:TE - This insistent denial reads as if the talk page is intended for bilateral negotiations to re-write basic WP policy. The fact is that Marek identified and documented the defects, including the textbook example of SYNTH with the paragraph that began "While..." and proceeded to concatenate two separate sources to lead our readers astray. Other editors affirm Marek's fixes, and it's time to drop it and move on to other issues. SPECIFICO talk 14:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  1. No, I disagree - it should be removed. This WaPo article states: "Obama’s race is largely responsible for the association between racial resentment and economic anxiety. And this racialized political environment undoubtedly aided Donald Trump’s rise to the top of the Republican Party." The 2nd WaPo article summarized the findings of survey analysts for Monkey Cage, WaPo and The Atlantic stating: "all of whom suggested that those voting for Trump felt what we would call white vulnerability, racial resentment, and mixed in with that, an anxiety about losing cultural status." The Vox article evaluates the Monkey Cage survey: "racial resentment is the biggest predictor of white vulnerability among white millennials." The Monkey Cage survey included responses from 503 African Americans, 510 whites, 505 Latinos and 258 Asian Americans. The questions asked to measure white vulnerability included: 1) whether whites were “economically losing ground through no fault of their own”; 2) whether discrimination against whites was “as big a problem as that against Blacks and other minorities”; and 3) if minorities overtaking whites as the majority of the U.S. population by 2050 would “strengthen or weaken the country.” The survey demonstrated discrimination against whites which ties in racial resentment and white vulnerability. The 12-15-2017 WaPo article linked racial resentment to "political attitudes" in a Slate article which states (my bold): "Tesler has been chronicling what he calls the “racialization” of issues in the Obama era—the extent to which public opinion on topics unrelated to race have taken on a racial castas Obama has staked out positions on them." None of what the survey demonstrated reflects in what our article states: Some studies and surveys have claimed that Trump's political ascendance has made racist attitudes and racial resentment more significant than economic factors in determining party allegiance of voters. Remove it, or state what the cited sources are actually saying.
  2. Yes it is gossip, all opinion-based, not statements of fact.
  3. We need a closer review of the contentious statements in this article to make sure the material accurately reflects what the cited sources say. Atsme📞📧 09:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Atsme, we've already addressed #1 - please read other people's comments.
No, it's not gossip, no not "opinion". It's reliably sourced. People, please stop making stuff up.
Sure - but in the meantime, we do not leave WP:SYNTH in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Who is "we" VM? Clarity is needed, not blanket statements reflecting only your objections...and please try to understand that MSM (most of which is circular reporting) does not get to make up their own facts. MSM even states that they are claims not facts, and they use in-text attribution to indicate who is making them. That is exactly what WP is supposed to be doing. I strongly suggest a refresher course in the first half of NPOV policy. No one is making anything up, and I can assure you that everything I've said is sourced to RS, some of which are the very sources from which the derogatory statements have been cherrypicked. Please read the most recent comments by other people who are arriving to this article and have challenged the neutrality of it. These outside views are important to achieving NPOV, and I am concerned over the OWN attitudes I've been subjected to here. Atsme📞📧 16:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
"We" is Wikipedia editors active on this article, who else?
And yes clarity is needed - can you be clearer in your comments, because most of them are impossible to understand and other editors are forced to guess as to how they're at all relevant. Several people here have raised this problem with you before. In regard to my statements - they're perfectly clear. There's SYNTH. It needs to be removed. That's it.
As to "MSM", the sources are not making anything up. And no, it's not "circular reporting", whatever the hey that's suppose to be.
And these "other people who are arriving to this article" - are they the sketchy accounts with just a few edits who repeat standard talking disinformation talking points by any chance? Somehow I don't think that will help NPOV at all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Atsme, SYNTH, UNDUE, and POV content are usually sourced to RS, but that doesn't mean they conform to Wikipedia policy or guidelines. So basically everything you keep saying is irrelevant. This tread is wasting a lot of time, and the real issue has already been addressed -- at least 4 times now. SPECIFICO talk 17:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Referring to news articles in two of most highly-respected newspapers in the world as gossip is stunningly absurd. Such claims reflect on the competence of the editors that make them, and are only worthy of being summarily ignored.- MrX 🖋 18:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Do not confuse WIKT:gossip, which is a dictionary definition, with WP:GOSSIP, which is Wikipedia policy, by which all editors must abide. This entry qualifies as item 3 of the policy, "Scandal mongering". Yes, highly-respected newspapers can and do engage in gossip and scandal-mongering. Please note that only the New York Times story of 23 December 2017 actually makes the claims about a June 2017 meeting; the Washington Post only reminds readers of this earlier NY Times piece in January 2018, stating that the shithole incident "lends credence" to the NYT claims. To corroborate the statements made in our article, only the original NYT piece can be used, and barring any independent verification, this second-hand hearsay from unnamed persons does qualify as unsubstantiated gossip. — JFG talk 21:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Do not confuse policy shortcuts with actual policy, but do get your story straight because I'm feeling a little gaslit at the moment. The content in question does not fit into any of the five categories of using Wikipedia as a soapbox or for promotion. In fact it's so over-the-top to suggest that citing material in two blue chip news sources is gossip or promotion that I... I'm verklempt!- MrX 🖋 21:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Nothing personal, MrX. Just read the sources fully and understand my point. — JFG talk 22:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The only problem with the inauguration speech section was the fact that it opens with While Trump was criticized for "running one of the most racially and ethnically divisive campaigns in American history", which has no semantic purpose if not to be contradicted by the rest. Plus, the use of quotes reads far more like scare quotes, so even that bit by itself implies a conclusion not stated in any source. So it's pretty blatant SYNTH per that, but simply removing that bit of text and capitalizing the next word would fix it. As for the rest, I agree with the OP: those are not good edits and should remain out. I'm okay with the "several studies have stated..." wording on the first.
Also -and I understand that this is tangential- there is no dichotomy between Trump's rise being fueled by racism and his ascension to the presidency fueling racism. Those are two separate causalities, there's no need for one to be false if the other is true. Think about being punched in the face. It can be a symptom of conflict escalation, and it can simultaneously result in even more conflict escalation. Alternatively, compare making love for the first time and romantic attachment. Or any of an enormous number of other situations.
And Vox is not necessarily wrong, either. It's pretty apparent to anyone versed in politics that the Obama presidency had an impact on racism in the US, including popularizing the perceived victimhood of whites; a phenomenon that could easily help explain Trump's win in the election. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@MPants at work: Thanks for your well-reasoned input. Surely racism among U.S. voters may have helped Trump's candidacy, and conversely Trump's rhetoric may have fueled further racism. The quoted Vox article made the first connection only and was therefore misrepresented. Following my discussion with VM, this issue has now been addressed in the prose.[14]
About the section on the inauguration speech, I agree with you that the "While… history" part was unnecessary, although this comment was made by a cited source (The Atlantic),[1] so doesn't qualify as WP:SYNTH. But to avoid any impression of synthesis, I've been arguing that we should simply cite Trump's speech heralding patriotism irrespective of race, unadorned by external commentary. I would propose the following text:

During his inauguration address on January 20, 2017, Trump stated: "Through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other. When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice. […] Whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots."[2]

Comments? — JFG talk 21:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but you can't use a primary source in that way. You can't decide what part of the speech is important or relevant to the subject. It's original research and it's forbidden by policy.- MrX 🖋 21:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I disagree, and I don't know where you're getting that interpretation of policy from. We certainly can pick out those parts of a primary source which are germane to the subject and selectively quote them, so long as they are WP:DUE, and we don't select them such as to change the meaning. I agree with JFG that this bit in his speech is due, and I don't think the selective quoting changes the meaning of those parts of his speech.
@JFG:Yes, it was culled from a source, but both that particular use of quotes and the context of it's inclusion presented very strongly implied conclusions that were not in that source. Indeed, that source's overall conclusion was that the inauguration speech was dark and deeply disturbing, doing all but calling it the death knell of democracy. I think that's far too much opinion to be useful here, so I think your proposal works much better. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Huh, you disagree but then you agree? Please clarify, because your second paragraph seems to support my point. WP:PRIMARY is clear: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." WP:SYNTH states "Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." Selecting a partial quote from a speech to pose an editor's counterargument that Trump is not racist is exactly what this policy is meant to prevent.- MrX 🖋 21:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
You're conflating the subjects of the two paragraphs. The second was not directed at you, but at JFG (hence why I started it by pinging JFG), in response to the comment they made directed at me. I am discussing two different aspects of this issue in the two different paragraphs, so no, they're not at all contradictory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
We can't cherry pick Trump's speech. Period.- MrX 🖋 23:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
MrX, this entire article is cherrypicked to fit a particular POV which is why so many editors have challenged it. To now say inclusion of Trump's own views on racism is not allowed because it is "cherrypicked" is a bit of a stretch. A statement that is used for its relevancy is not cherrypicked. There is no PAG that supports what you're saying. That's what we do - we use editorial judgment to determine what is relevant/encyclopedic for inclusion in an article and for you to say a relevant statement in a US president's inaugural speech is cherrypicking is well...absurd. Atsme📞📧 23:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Nope on all fronts. You don't get to dissect a speech and put the gizzard smack dab in the middle of the article where the heart belongs. This is one of the reasons why primary sources should be avoided, in favor of secondary sources of which there is no short supply. Of course you know that, because of your renowned reverence for the PAGs.- MrX 🖋 00:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry - the dissecting was done by EuroNews which published "Key quotes from Donald Trump's inauguration speech" and did some extraction from Donald Trump’s first speech as US president. We certainly can use parts of what they published as a secondary source that fits into the context of this narrative. You might want to take a look at List of Trump–Russia dossier allegations and Trump–Russia_dossier#Allegations, which was published in its entirety in an unreliable source (BuzzFeed), and then with the use of SYNTH a separate list and a section in the main article were created using cherrypicked allegations that fit a particular POV narrative. What was proposed here is not SYNTH, it is editorial judgment that cites a RS and a relevant statement in the speech demonstrating Trump's views on race...and you are now trying to convince editors that doing so is noncompliant with policy? I suggest you cite the policy that supports your position because I say it does not. Trump's views belong in an article about Trump's views. Atsme📞📧 00:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
MrX: you are not the arbiter of WP policy, and it's very clear that the three other people discussing this particular question all disagree with you. Further, I would bet good money that, were you to bring this to` a more public forum, the community input there would be the same that you're getting here. We quote excerpts from speeches, passages and publications constantly. Almost every single quote on this site is "picked" from a larger work. You have absolutely no policy ground to stand on, here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not the arbiter, nor are you—consensus is. Your understanding of the applicable policies seems flawed. With three editors opposing this cherry-pick, I don't see it going into the article anytime soon.- MrX 🖋 03:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Now you're just becoming obnoxious: There's only you and SPECIFICO opposing it and SPECIFICO's argument boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, while there's fourthree editors (myself, Volunteer Marek, JFG and Atsme) supporting it, and you have yet to quote or even name a policy that prevents us from quoting the speech, most likely because you damn well know there is no such fucking policy. I really don't understand what your problem is here, but you have no policy leg to stand on. You don't get to dictate what policy is to the rest of us with your "we're not doing this. Period" bullshit so just knock it off and either engage like a grown-up or go fuck off and edit something else, kay? Thnks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Pants, it's not constructive and it's not WP:CIVIL to accuse a colleague of putting personal preference above policy and article improvement. You know better than that. If my objection was unclear to you, a simple request for clarification would have enabled you to make a constructive criticism of my view. My initial comment got moved way down by folks interspersing indented comments. It was "That text is utterly vacuous and communicates nothing at all about anything at all." -- it's an amateur speechwriter's tangle of words that sound like they come from memorable speeches but don't refer to anything. There's some kind of metaphor about "our hearts" and "the color of our skin" and other things that sound like they might work in a memorable speech, but they're not used to convey any meaning. Nobody can parse what's intended by this remark. And that is why we don't have RS pointing it out as a noteworthy part of the speech or a noteworthy statement by Pres. Trump. It's cherrypicked nonsense. There was plenty of commentary about the address that can be used to characterize and illustrate what it was about and what POTUS had to say. SPECIFICO talk 14:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Pants, it's not constructive and it's not WP:CIVIL to accuse a colleague of putting personal preference above policy and article improvement. First off, I haven't done that. Second, you do it on an almost daily basis. Physician, heal thyself. Third, almost everyone else involved in AmPol editing does it with some regularity. Get over it, cupcake.
If my objection was unclear to you... It was quite clear. You said that Trump's comments were vacuous and meaningless, which is a value judgement and has no place here except as an example of an argument editors are advised to avoid using. Furthermore, if you want to make a WP:WEIGHT-centered argument based on a value judgement of those comments, it will become apparent that their vacuous meaninglessness is a reason for inclusion, not exclusion. If we exclude them, then it's up to the reader's imagination what the "other side" of this issue is. If we include them, then we make it clear that on one side, you have a large and diverse assortment of reliable sources saying "this is the most objectively racist president in modern US history" and on the other side you have said president doing the political equivalent of saying "I know you are, but what am I?" It helps characterize the nature of the issue, by demonstrating quite clearly that one side has far more logical and rhetorical substance.
You then claimed that Trump was talking about "open heart surgery or whatever" which is both entirely untrue and overwhelmingly bizarre. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

To set the record straight, Volunteer Marek does not support this [15], so my original statement that three editors oppose this cherry-pick was correct.- MrX 🖋 17:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I already struck that part of my comment, so we're sitting at 3 v 3. Well, the inclusion side has pointed out that these are comments Trump made about race; highly germane to the subject. I'm still waiting for a policy-based reason from the exclusion side, though I suspect that one won't be forthcoming. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
But you did not up the count from two to three opposing it only you and SPECIFICO... needs to be revised. SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

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

"Open heart" is on its face some sort of metaphor, but it's not clear what is meant by it. I'm glad to see you've finally realized that, although I have to admit it's still a little disconcerting to see an English speaker fail to understand an idiom many of us learned sometime around kindergarten. Perhaps this will help.
Then the snippet is full of abstract undefined terms, e.g. Patriotism (does this mean persons who support assault rifle ownership? People who oppose abortion rights? People who oppose the "travel ban"? People who favor a path to citizenship for Dreamers?) Umm, wow. Another disconcerting moment. Again, perhaps this will help. I can recommend some remedial reading courses if you think you'd find them useful.
So if those words are to have any meaning at all to our readers, they would be included in respect of some secondary independent RS interpretation or comment on them. I accept that you're having difficulty parsing the meaning of many of these words and phrases, but to project that same difficulty onto others is untoward. I think our readers will understand phrases like "open your heart" and words like "patriotism" without too much help.
An encyclopedia article is not a stack of Tarot cards. Meaning should be clear. In case you're not getting this: I don't see anyone else in this thread or anywhere else expressing the view that the comments quoted, or indeed the inaugural speech as a whole was difficult to understand. I think perhaps you may be confusing the typical insincerity of political speech with some sort of semantic vacuousness, but I assure you that the speech is -while undoubtedly as insincere as any political speech- perfectly intelligible.
That cherrypicked bit is not conveying any "racial view" of Trump to an English-speaking reader. On the contrary, it quite clearly conveys to me the view that Trump does not view himself as racist. It also conveys the fact that Trump's response to the overwhelming number of critics pointing out his own racism is to give a single throwaway line in his inauguration speech.
But let us assume for the moment that I am unnaturally gifted with the ability to read the obvious meaning of plain text and to consider the context when judging someone's meaning. Does that, then, mean that you have a reliable source stating that the views Trump described (that "patriotism can eliminate prejudice", mind, not "I'm not racist") is not his actual view? One sufficient to pass BLP muster? Because while we both may believe without reservation that Trump frequently lies about his own views of race, we cannot base our content decisions on our own original research. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
MPants at work...thank you for explaining in a manner that somehow kept eluding me. It proves once again that collaboration, voluntary or otherwise, is always the best option. Atsme📞📧 20:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. What did I explain? (I've done a shocking amount of explaining in this thread so far, please forgive me if I can't nail down what part you're referring to.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Comments? That text is utterly vacuous and communicates nothing at all about anything at all. Let's move on. SPECIFICO talk 21:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
It communicates a racial view by Donald Trump, which is supposed to be the article's core subject, right? — JFG talk 22:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
No it's something about open heart surgery or whatever, but he's not a doctor and if we all bleed patriot-blood then what's the point of his message and to be perfectly blunt, this is so far from conveying any encyclopedic content that this thread is a pure waste of our scarce editor resources and cannot possibly produce anything of value tou our readers. Please spare us any OR as to your interpretation of the crypto-metaphor nonsense in the snippet and move on. SPECIFICO talk 22:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Open-heart surgery? Pity I can't have some of what you're smoking…[FBDB] Seriously, if you feel that your time is wasted by discussing article contents with your fellow Wikipedians, then you are totally free to leave this thread and be more productive elsewhere. — JFG talk 22:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@_,@💔 😷 - dint feel a thing. Atsme📞📧 00:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - JFG you can use this source which is not a primary, and gives a world perspective...even better. Atsme📞📧 22:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting the edit, but this Euronews source is no better: it just selectively prints excerpts from the full speech, and adds no commentary or "world perspective" that we can use. — JFG talk 22:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
As long as the source does the selecting, it is acceptable. I went through a similar argument last year. WP editors cannot choose "key statements" to use from a primary source but a secondary RS certainly can, and that is what makes the phrase and this source acceptable for us to use. Atsme📞📧 22:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Adding - take a look at Trump–Russia_dossier#Reactions to specific allegations - more proof that as long as the primary was published by secondary sources, we can use a summary of key points RS used. The dossier probably includes blatant SYNTH to gather the commentary...I haven't checked it. No deadline. Ironic how the article is about Trump's views but we can't use his views? Ha! Atsme📞📧 22:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Hey Atsme, my nephew's beagle is white black and brown. When she has open heart surgery, will she bleed patriots blood too? Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 22:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
SPECIFICO...I know you mean well, but mocking Trump's inaugural speech and comparing it to your nephew's beagle is quite a stretch, it puts your big toe right on the line. You know I appreciate the occasional "fun quip" and oh lorty I love an injection of levity when editing "volatile" articles...but this isn't one of those times. 🤗 Seriously, if we're going to stay with the title, Racial views of Donald Trump, then we need to include his racial views and less of what others claim are his racial views...or rename the article. Can't have it both ways. Atsme📞📧 22:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)  
🐶 He bleeds the *best* blood. SPECIFICO talk 23:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
To give you the solemn reply you deserve, I see no mention of "race" in that green quote box. If POTUS makes 100 public statements and an average of 6 tweeters a day, which ones are noteworthy for encyclopedic exposition here? Not one a few editors pick out that, like, doesn't even mean anything. SPECIFICO talk 23:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Prejudice - it actually covers the sections of this article better because Muslim is not a race, immigration policy is not a race, the pardon of Joe Arpaio is not a race, and on and on. Major holes in your argument - will not withstand the test of time. Atsme📞📧 23:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I think you hopped on the wrong tram, my dear. What section were you looking to post this?
You forgot what this was about? ^_^ See #3 click on the diff, or scroll up to the start of this thread - a subsection in History.
I'm really sorry. I couldn't figure out what your comment had to do with any of the above and I thought you might have been chiming in on a different topic. never mind. SPECIFICO talk 23:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

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

SPECIFICO - re: "patriot" is not a "race". Exactly! So happy that you get it. Atsme📞📧 02:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Gzz this is starting to look like bees. But for the most part I agree with the edits.
1 - Some is more accurate and the inversion needs to be fixed
2 - Does seem like unverifiable junk.
3 - As written is an issue, but can easily be fix with a period without dropping the whole section. PackMecEng (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
1. "Some" is not the word used by the sources. "Numerous" is.
2. Nonsense - the way to verify it is right there - click on the inline citation.
3. Let's see a proposal. In the meantime we don't keep SYNTH in the article just because some people like it.
Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
1-4 studies is not numerous.
2-Poppycock, two unknown people said something happen that has not been verified by anyone that was there.
3-Could just drop the first part and let the second stand on it's own. PackMecEng (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
"1-4 studies is not numerous." - your opinion/original research. Sources disagree since they actually use the term "numerous" (the "1-4" - which one is it "1" or "4"? - highlighted in the article are just representative)
That's not what "verifiability" means on Wikipedia. Or in real world actual. But feel free to keep making up rules that do not reflect actual Wikipedia policy.
No, it all goes.
Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
So how many people disagreeing with you would it take to end this? I mean dang look at this wall of the same stuff over and over. PackMecEng (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Here are my thoughts.
1 - RS aren't required to avoid peacock phrases to bolster their point, so "some" is an acceptable substitute for "numerous" for use in Wikipedia.
2 - I don't have a strong opinion whether this is included or excluded. Another option is merging this into another section (the one that talks about Haiti).
3 - Remove per MOS:OPED. It's like writing, "While Hillary Clinton was criticized for ignoring Trump voters, she actually reached out to them in a campaign speech." Even if you could source both clauses, this should be removed. FallingGravity 18:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
1. "Numerous" isn't a peacock phrase.
2. (...)
3. Yep.
Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Well one thing I know for sure is that he was not talking about the millions of brown people who lived here long before we arrived because he said that the Americans settled between a great ocean and a vast wilderness, and he was not talking about the black people we imported as slaves because he said Americans have always stood for and always strived for freedom. Gandydancer (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Let me get this straight. You are alleging that his comments about "black or brown or white" are patently not referring to race? Is that it? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I am a little confused as well. Saying no matter the skin color we are all the same on the inside is clearly a comment on race. PackMecEng (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
My point has nothing to do with slaves or race, etc. My point is that political speeches are just a lot of happy horseshit that no one with their head screwed on right believes, including the politician that gives them. I'm pretty sure it was in Philip Roth's Our Gang where every time a politician made a speech Roth would just fill a half a page with blah, blah, blah, blah, blah... Gandydancer (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Excluding Bernie Sanders, of course. Gandydancer (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with all of that. But I fail to see how it relates to the assertion that comments on "black or brown or white" people aren't related to race. Whether or not a politician's speech is sincere has nothing to do with the topic of his speech, and I mean that to be taken quite literally in both possible senses; I wouldn't trust a politician telling me what he wants for dinner.
Excluding Bernie Sanders, of course. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
MPants, I was being sarcastic. You'd think that I would have learned by now that sarcastic comments are almost always misunderstood. (As an aside, I know we're not supposed to get too personal here but I can hardly say how pissed off I was at these words of his - How dare he speak for minorities considering his record of total disregard for all that is important to them. The Dakota pipeline for example where he reversed Obama's stop order on it just days after elected. This and the Dreamers comment made me grrr. The rest of it just ran right off my back.) Gandydancer (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
If you were being sarcastic about political speeches being "just a lot of happy horseshit", then you are saying that you believe it's possible Trump was being sincere. If you were being sarcastic about Our Gang, then I'm afraid that's not how sarcasm works (the literal truth isn't sarcasm). If you were being sarcastic about The Bern, then so was I and none of that affects my response. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
So we can assign folks to a "race" with a spectrometer? You know, don't you, that there are plenty of Sicilians whose skin is less reflective than plenty of North Africans and Tibetans? Even our WP articles on the subject of race would quickly convince a thoughtful editor that such an interpretation is based on nothing defensible. SPECIFICO talk 20:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Ahem... You are alleging that his comments about "black or brown or white" are patently not referring to race? Is that it? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Gandydancer, please...my family all the way back in time did not "import" slaves - they were slaves...and so were women of all colors and many still are to this day. Let's keep things in perspective. Atsme📞📧 21:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Sources

  1. ^ Graham, David A. (January 20, 2017). "'America First': Donald Trump's Populist Inaugural Address". Retrieved January 22, 2018.
  2. ^ "FULL TEXT: President Donald Trump's Inauguration Speech". ABC News. January 20, 2017. Retrieved February 19, 2018.
  • I think it's worth pointing out that Trump didn't write his inaugural speech. It was written by Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon. They're not Trump's words....and, as we all know, he has the best words.- MrX 🖋 22:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd dearly love to see you make this argument in every instance where a speech is quoted and attributed to the speaker, but written by a speech writer. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Back to the original topic

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

  1. 1, No he's actually not. The text represents the cite IF it says "numerous" like the source does. JFG (and you) apparently want to change that to the weasel word "some" (which falsely implies that "some" studies found something else) which is NOT what the source says. It takes some chutzpah to advocate for misrepresenting the source and then claim that the original text "is not representative of the cite".
  2. 2, No that's not what this is and this info is cited to reliable sources. One more time - WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT isn't an argument. It's not gossip. Please stop being ridiculous, since that sort of makes a serious conversation impossible.
Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

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

1. Numerous studies and surveys have shown that since Trump's ascendance in the Republican Party, racist attitudes and racial resentment have become more significant than economic factors in determining voters' party allegiance. was changed to Some studies and surveys have claimed that Trump's political ascendance has made racist attitudes and racial resentment more significant than economic factors in determining party allegiance of voters.. I strongly object to the new edit stating that Trump’s political ascendance CAUSED ("has made") the increased importance of racist attitudes. That’s a classic example of post hoc ergo propter hoc - the logical fallacy that since these two things happened at the same time, therefore one of them caused the other. The original sentence states the corellation of the two things without suggesting that one of them caused the other, and IMO we should change back to that wording. I am OK with changing “numerous” to “some”. I don’t like “claimed” which is a classic weasel word; how about “suggested” or “demonstrated”?
2. I agree with removing this paragraph. It is supported by two anonymous sources and denied by three others; that’s too indefinite to include.
3. I agree with the suggestion here that we include the quote from his inaugural address, without the introductory clause intended to contradict it. Yes, it’s true he was reading from prepared remarks and may not have meant a word of it. But the words came out of his mouth, they were specifically about race and promoting racial harmony, and they should be included here. That is not “cherry picking” any more than all the other quotes we have include here (shithole countries, rapists and murderers, etc.) are cherry picking. --MelanieN (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
WRT to you point #3, there is big difference between taking a quote from a secondary source and a Wikipedia editor selecting a quote from a primary source. Find a good secondary sources that highlight this quote as indicative of Trump's view on race, and I will gladly support it. - MrX 🖋 17:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
See WP:SKYBLUE. Except for SPECIFICO, no-one in their right mind would question that this is Trump talking about race. We don't need a source to state that this is Trump talking about race, and we don't need for this quote to be accurate or truthful or written by Trump himself for us to quote it, else we'd never quote any politician. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Great, Mr. Pants. Now you're accusing me of being in my right mind?? Really? At any rate, in case MelanieN chooses to continue on this thread -- and I would not advise it, frankly, -- the issue about the Inaugural Address can be summarized as follows. An editor unapologetically selected a primary-sourced snippet from a NYTimes video of the address without also citing or including any of the secondary reporting that gave context and meaning to the cherrypicked words. Then the (secondary) accompanying NYT article was also cited but nothing from it was added or acknowledged for article text. So the issue is whether this article should be an editor-curated selection of quotes from Trump or whether it should present secondary discussion of his racial views according to the weight of RS discussion of them.
This article is about Trump's views, just as other articles are about for example Shakespeare's plays orGreek mythology. Such articles don't just post an anthology of primary source extracts. They present commentary interpretation and evaluation of the subject. Some editors appear to advocate lots of editor-selected primary source extracts, but that is exactly what we should not be doing. We need to present a balanced discussion of the subject, not a primary exposition of the subject itself -- and especially not one that's selected through the Original Research of WP editors. The concern that published negative evaluations of Trump's views are "attacks" makes no sense. We should balance such views in due proportion with evaluations that see his views on race more positively. We should look for such references. We don't have lots of positive fodder for such balance on a broad array of subjects that are commonly viewed as negative. The racial views of Trump is only one such topic on WP.
Finally, this inaugural address was widely viewed as a kind of hamfisted amateur speechwriting effort by Miller and Bannon and not very articulate about the views or policies of the new administration. But there are secondary sources we can use to discuss whatever racial view grist it may offer. SPECIFICO talk 19:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
There is no question that Trump was referring to race. What is disputable is whether he expressed his actual views. One would think that if they were his actual views, it would be trivial for our army of Wikipedia editors to find some sources that say as much. Speaking of spectral analysis, skies can be black, gray, white, orange, yellow, red...- MrX 🖋 18:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
What is disputable is whether he expressed his actual views. I've already addressed this. The views he expressed were as follows: Patriotism overcomes or destroys prejudice and American of all races can be patriots. So find a reliable source that disputes that he actually believes those things, and you've started a reasonable argument for exclusion. But even then, you'd still need to find a policy-based reason not to quote deceptive statements. That first view is so incredibly naive and stupid that, personally, I have no trouble believing that he actually holds it to be true. The second one is just so obviously true that I doubt anyone who isn't a self-proclaimed racist fails to believe it. So you have your work cut out for you, if you want to defend this ridiculous position. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Status of disputed edits

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

1. After some back and forth with Marek and other editors, I have corrected a few days ago the source misrepresentation (cause vs consequence) and changed the quantifier from "numerous" to "several".[16] Text currently in the lead is: Several studies and surveys have stated that racist attitudes and racial resentment have fueled Trump's political ascendance, and have become more significant than economic factors in determining party allegiance of voters. This version correctly paraphrases the cited sources and has not been significantly challenged by further comments; I believe we can put item 1 to rest.
2. There is disagreement among editors whether rude comments in a June 2017 meeting, as reported by the New York Times on December 23, are significant enough to merit inclusion. Some editors argue this episode is secondary hearsay which lacks weight, others insist that the source is reliable therefore the comments need to stay. Will assess potential consensus below.
3. A section I restored (originally written by somebody else), citing Trump's comment about patriotism being independent of race during his inauguration address, was challenged per WP:SYNTH. I suggested to remove the While Trump was criticized… intro which gave an impression of synthesis, although the cited source made that argument, so it's technically not synthesis. Regardless, it's probably better to simply cite Trump's speech without commentary: "Through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other. When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice. […] Whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots." However the unadorned quote was also criticized by some editors as "not being about race", which sounds rather weird. When a sentence starts with "no matter if you're black, brown or white", it's a pretty direct way to say "no matter your race". Given the paucity of actual direct comments by Trump about races and racism, I believe this quote is eminently WP:DUE in an article called "Racial views of Donald Trump" (noting that there was no consensus to change the title in the recent move request). However, some editors are strongly opposed to citing this part of the speech, so perhaps we need a survey or an RfC.

In brief:

1. Issue was resolved a few days ago already.
2. 6 editors have argued to remove the snippet (JFG, Birtig, Atsme, PackMecEng, Markbassett, MelanieN), 2 want to keep it (Volunteer Marek, Only in death does duty end). MrX and Falling Gravity said we can live with or without it, Mjolnir Pants and SPECIFICO did not comment on this question. This looks like rough consensus to remove, and I will proceed.
I endorsed Marek's view early in this stupid thread. I have no idea whether the rest of your count is correct. Please be accurate in the future. SPECIFICO talk 15:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
3. Debate about including Trump's unadorned quote has been blurred by considerations of the deprecated synth-looking commentary, and considerations whether we can select the relevant part of a speech at all, whether the words should be attributed to speechwriters, or whether white black and brown beagles also bleed patriot blood! I'll call a quick survey to clarify where we're standing.

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

Not policy compliant

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

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

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

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

If you have a specific problem with a specific section where you have not already failed to gain consensus for your positions, then you are welcome to present it. I see no need for an overhaul of the entire article. O3000 (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
My problem with this article is that several pieces of information that have been added in the Defenses of Donald Trump section have been deleted. The result is an article that is 95% against Trump and in no way could be described as objective. For the record, Trump is accused of being anti-immigrant (rather than merely anti illegal immigrant), yet the claim that the fact he married an immigrant shows he is not anti-immigrant has been deleted; Trump set up his club in Florida to be an inclusive club at a time when all other clubs in the area discriminated, but the reference to this fact has been deleted; Trump donates Wall Street Office space to the PUSH Coalition which in particular focused on helping minorities, but that too gets deleted. A bit of a pattern here don't you think? Birtig (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
These arguments are all invalid and have been refuted, some of them repeatedly. So you can rest easy and move on to finding good, well-sourced article content. SPECIFICO talk 17:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Your claim that the arguments are "all invalid and have been refuted" is overly generalized, if not false in its entirety. If your purpose here is not to discuss solutions to the issues other editors wish to discuss, please allow the discussions to continue without further interruption. Atsme📞📧 17:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
If your purpose here is not to discuss solutions to the issues other editors wish to discuss.... Please stop casting aspersions. O3000 (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
A bit of a pattern here don't you think? Yes there is a pattern in your examples. I’m not going to respond to each of these as they have each been discussed at length. I will say that they all remind me of Roy Moore’s wife saying he couldn’t be anti-Semitic because one of his lawyers is a Jew. (Turns out he was a Christian, but that’s not relevant.) This type of argument is covered at: [17]. O3000 (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
The same applies to you O3000, if you are not here to discuss the issues, and prefer instead to attack editors, you need to move on. Atsme📞📧 18:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Please stop casting aspersions. O3000 (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
So rather than reporting the arguments that have been used in Trump's defense you decide that they are not valid arguments and should not be included? That's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work - at least I thought it was about what the sources say and not whether editors agree with the arguments. Birtig (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I said nothing of the sort. I said that each of these has already been discussed at length, and I had nothing to do with any decision on these. I was responding to your statement about a pattern, which appears to insinuate editor bias. O3000 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Another section calling the entire article non-policy compliant? This is disruptive and disrespectful of all of the experienced editors who helped write the article, and who each have a reputation for understanding and adhering to our policies and guidelines. Please either make specific, well-referenced edit proposals, or stop creating these walls of meandering text. This is nothing more than a WP:REHASH. Please stop!- MrX 🖋 18:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Make specific, SMALL, well-referenced edit proposals. Generally accusations are unhelpful. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Someone uninvolved should hat this. Not only is it a rehash; it is a laundry list of bad faith accusations based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. O3000 (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I have taken this issue to NPOV/N. I also consulted Masem who agrees the article is not compliant. Those who do not wish to participate in these discussions are kindly asked to stop disrupting them by attacking other editors. I will not partake in the PAs. Atsme📞📧 18:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Hopefully editors actually try to address these problems, rather than just complaining whenever anybody raises POV concerns. I don't even like Trump, but that doesn't mean we should edit-war in our own POV to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. FallingGravity 20:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I dread setting foot in this discussion and am unlikely to stay around long, but about whether he is anti-immigrant versus anti-illegal immigrant, it seems to me to be significant that his current stated position is that there should be significantly fewer immigrants overall, beyond just fewer illegal immigrants. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Trump's wish to have fewer immigrants is not, in itself racist (which is what this article is supposed to be about). It would only be racist if he were to place restrictions on the right to immigrate based on race - but the reality is he wants a merit based points system similar to many other countries, and the number of immigrants linked to the needs of the economy. Birtig (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
A change to merit-based implies a lack of merit prior to the change. And he certainly has supported restrictions based on religion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Restrictions based on religion would only be racist if they were designed to either benefit or disadvantage Jews as that is the only religion that is also a race. Otherwise, religious discrimination is religious discrimination - not racial discrimination. Birtig (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
...Jews as that is the only religion that is also a race... I don't think you'll find much support for that one. SPECIFICO talk 23:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
To be fair going to a immigration plan that mirrors Canada's for the most part is not exactly racist. PackMecEng (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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

While I respect Masem's views, they have no more weight than the views of any other experienced editor. It would be inappropriate to export this content dispute to the Village Pump. It would be very helpful if involved editors would respect consensus and stop WP:REHASHING resolved matters.- MrX 🖋 18:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Actually, Atsme, there was no validation whatsoever and no suggestions of any improvement to this article. I note that Masem forthrightly explained what I believe is his dissent from WP's current NPOV rubric, at least insofar as it applies to this article. You write that we shouldwork collaboratively to fix the NPOV issues but not a single such issue was identified by you or Masem at that noticeboard. So, nothing to fix here. SPECIFICO talk 18:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Some examples of what I and others think are NPOV, namely the lack of direct quotes by Trump on his own actual "racial views" are routinely shot down by you and MrX. There have been several proposals to include Trump's stated views, which you can still see above. I do not understand why the article called "Racial views of Donald Trump" would not contain any of his actual stated views. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
The last attempt to insert a "direct quote" turned out a) To be scraped away from a secondary source that discussed it without even revealing that the secondary source existed, and b) Was carved out to pretty much say something that was very different than a straight quotation of POTUS' words said. But direct quotes have been used here "I am the least..." where secondary RS have discussed them. Do you have any additional instances of direct quotes cited by secondary RS as showing or explaining POTUS' racial views? If so, let's consider whether there's potential article content in them. SPECIFICO talk 20:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
If you want to see a line item list of the issues, revisit the section I created above titled Weight & Balance issues. I won't repeat them because then I get accused of repeating myself...of repeating myself...of repeating myself. Atsme📞📧 20:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Is this evidence of Trump's racial views?

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

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

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

Seems like a stretch. As direct involvement by Trump does not appear to be there. PackMecEng (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
As far as I can tell from the cited sources, this has nothing to do with Trump's words or actions in relation to racism. It should be removed.- MrX 🖋 17:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
There's actually a lot more to this story. But, I still don't think it belongs. O3000 (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
It's a clear case of inherited infamy. I'm long enough in the tooth to know that... Atsme📞📧 20:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Not if you heard the story the way I heard it. But, that's not RS, so I removed it. (And, I'm long enough in the tooth to have played blackjack in Atlantic City the day it opened.) O3000 (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
You win! Here at the ranch, we have a process called floating teeth - come by and we'll give you a free float. ^_^ Atsme📞📧 22:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump/Archive_3&oldid=1087972635"