Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

The neutrality of this article is questionable

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

---

It starts out with a statement of fact that Trump is already guilty. Follows it up with a failure by the DOJ to get a guilty verdict and then mentions this attacks on Obama. The "birther" debate/debacle was NOT racism. It was about Obama's citizenship. I could go on, but after three paragraphs of needing to verify the content, I concluded this article probably needs rewriting or removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WAR-Ink (talk • contribs) 03:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Birtherism is widely seen as, and has been criticised repeatedly for being a racist conspiracy theory and there are plenty of sources for this. Likewise there are plenty of sources that outright state Trump was promoting the racist conspiracy theory. So yes, Birtherism certainly belongs in an article dedicated to Trumps racism/racial views. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I can call a block of wood Miss America, that doesn't make it so. The birth certificate debate was about citizenship, not race. This article is full of opinion, second hand information, and innuendo, with very little factual information. It should be cleaned up or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WAR-Ink (talk • contribs) 06:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

But since you are not a reliable source. Your opinion is irrevelant on what you call a block a of wood. Wikipedia reflects what is in reliable sources. So when you get published in a reputable publication, come back and try again. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

If a reliable source reports that a block of wood has been selected as Miss America, in a non-metaphorical sense, we will add it to the appropriate article. O3000 (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

You have no idea what my qualifications are. You have no idea if I am published. And yet you condemn my comments. How very open-minded of you. I will not use this article as a reference. If anything it has pointed out the flaws in the argument that Trump is a racist. It should be cleaned up or removed. Since I appear to be the only one that believes this, good luck to you and your article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WAR-Ink (talk • contribs) 16:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

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

suggestion for expansion

I didn't see mention of Trump's retweet of incorrect racial homicide statistics. Here is a source.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/23/donald-trump/trump-tweet-blacks-white-homicide-victims/

I don't believe he ever recanted it.Nacoran (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Fantastic coincidence, I had come here to add exactly that, and many similar statements. Dankster (talk) 02:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Very interesting. Just plain nuts... Gandydancer (talk) 04:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the good faith suggestions, but I don't think we can use either of these. The Daily News is not normally considered a Reliable Source, and even if this story is factually accurate, all it does is detail the two sides' versions of a civil lawsuit. As for the New Yorker story, which is a massive history of Atlantic City, the 30-year-old recollection of one person is not really strong enough evidence for us to put it in an encyclopedia. --MelanieN alt (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Isn't that rather clear first-hand "30 year old recollection" that is confirmed by the older account. Daily News, particularly in 1996, is a good enough source for news articles. I'm willing to be surprised if WP editors have decided otherwise, but it was a real newspaper at the time. Not all tabloids are Murdoch-style tabloids. SPECIFICO talk 21:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

This seems like a pointless article

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

Obama is not an evil racist.- MrX 🖋 19:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand Trump isn't an (Personal attack removed) 199.127.56.82 (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Neither is Trump. It'd be more neutral to just make an article on controversies involving Trump, so it let's the viewer actually decide whether Trump is wrong, or the media overblew it, rather than cramming "Trump is racist" down our throats. Alex of Canada (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article does Wikipedia call Trump a racist. We are constrained to follow sources, regardless of your personal feelings about the content in those sources.- MrX 🖋 22:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

It follows biased sources. It contains Vox, a leftist publication, as well as several opinion pieces. Alex of Canada (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

What article are you talking about? This one has 175 cites including a wide array of highly respected sources. O3000 (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources are allowed to be biased. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Wrong a source has to be objective, not biased. Also Wikipedia has to be apolitical.77.176.57.130 (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

No and yes. Only in death is correct. Our sources do not have to be neutral (such sources are almost nonexistent anyway, and incredibly uninformative and boring). Otherwise, Wikipedia editors must edit neutrally, IOW they must faithfully use RS and document their POV and biases without neutering or hiding those biases through censorship. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

77.176.57.130 is right, the mainstream media which this article references either directly or indirectly should report facts, not opinions, that is the problem with most people today, including most news anchors, they don't know fact from opinion, emotion from logic. Maybe this article should include refs to Fox and other right leaning sources to cancel out the bias.SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. "Mainstream media" is what is considered as reliable sources on Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

@WAR-Ink: I think this is what you were discussing? What are your thoughts? Jdcomix (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The article uses reliable, secondary sources, as per WP policies. And, they continue to appear related to this subject. [1] [2] O3000 (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Sure. Yet the article still fails to discuss any racial views of Donald Trump, it's still a litany of accusations and mind-reading. Of course that's what sources report, so we follow, but at least we should be honest with the title, calling this Accusations of racism against Donald Trump (which currently redirects here). Wikipedia has only one person in the history of the world deserving a separate article on their "racial views", that does not look neutral or balanced at all. Where are the racial views of Adolf Hitler, racial views of D. F. Malan and racial views of Josef Mengele? — JFG ^talk 17:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

If you think that Accusations of racism against Donald Trump is the best possible title then propose a move; if you think those other people warrant an article on their racial views then please start it. In this section though please explain the (many?) things that make this article look non-neutral or unbalanced. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Move requests have been tried and resulted in no consensus. Article improvement can still proceed but the contents should match the title, and vice versa. — JFG ^talk 08:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• There are many better and more accurate titles for the article which would reflect the content more. Donald Trump and Racism. Racism controversies of Donald Trump. Etc etc. Unfortunately any attempt to have a more accurate title with either racism or racist in it gets shouted down. Despite the overwhelming evidence (as the article shows) of overt racism over an extended period of time. You couldn't actually include what Donald trump thinks Donald trumps racial views are with any degree of seriousness anyway, he lies like a rug and is the very definition of unreliable. Change the damn title to reflect what the actual article is about. Donald Trump and Racism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• I think "Accusations of racism against Donald Trump", as stated by JFG, would be a better title. Trump has not been proven to lie constantly as stated above: The Mainstream media is always unprofessionally asking him trick the wrong questions to try to make him give leading to inconsistent answers, like with the Russia collusion thing for example. I think that as stated by the creator of this conversation, the article should include Trump's views in addition to the media's. If Trump is considered unreliable, then you can include what Mike Pence as well as alternative media such as Fox news say. Sure, Trump can lie, but so can the media, and the media can also get things wrong, we all know they don't fact check as well as they used to. SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

"The Mainstream media is always asking him trick questions to try to make him give inconsistent answers, like with the Russia collusion thing for example. " - ummmm... what??? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Wow! SpidersMilk, you need to catch up with, and believe, what RS document every single day. Here are a few:

• It Shouldn’t Be This Hard to Protect an Innocent Man. Trump’s legal team is doing all it can to keep the president from lying.
• Fox News Thinks Trump Shouldn’t Talk to Mueller Because He’s Not Allowed to Even “Tell One Lie”.
• Referring to same Fox observation: "What McDowell is really saying though, is that president Trump lies so frequently that he cannot be held to the same standards as everyone else. McDowell would no doubt call for the maximum sentence possible if President Obama lied in an interview with a federal prosecutor, because Obama isn’t a liar and he would clearly be trying to cover up a crime. Trump however, is a serial liar who likely has no idea what is true and what is not, so must be given leeway to make up facts and say things that have no basis in reality."
• Trump obliterates his dishonesty record: 132 false claims last week, 280 for July

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 08:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

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

When you make statements like 'Trump has not been proven to lie' there are really only three options. Either you are ignorant of the many many documented instances of his lies, you are not ignorant but are unable to tell truth from fiction, or you are aware of his lies, know they are lies, and are wasting our time with this crap. BullRangifer took the most favourable option to yourself. Given you think 'mainstream media' are trying to 'trick' him, I'm going with you lack the capacity to understand what is fact and what is fiction and really should not be editing articles related to Trump. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: the topic of the "Racial view of Adolf Hitler" is covered in Racial policy of Nazi Germany. We are not yet at a point of having an article on "Racial policy of Trump's America", so, in line with the sources, we focus on the man. I also shortened the title of this thread as forum-like. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the Hitler redirect. — JFG ^talk 08:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Frankly, I never understood why some people make such a huge deal about a person’s eye and hair color. But, the subject of this article is rather heavily documented by RS with issues related to color over decades. So, we need to document it. That’s what we do here. O3000 (talk) 00:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2018

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

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

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

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

OK,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

White Farmers in South Africa

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

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

There are plenty more reliable sources. How many do we need in the article? [5] [6] O3000 (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

There are also plenty of reliable sources stating the opposite. How about we keep opinion pieces out of Wikipedia and focus on the facts, which is that the ANC is vowing to pass a motion [7] to expropriate land without compensation. Such land dispossession is a clear violation of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights article 14 and 21. TridentMkII (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

What RS states there are mass killings of White farmers in South Africa? O3000 (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Whatever attribute a source attributes to Trump is irrelevant, because every word in Trump's tweet is factually correct, according to the same New York Times articles used to cite that Trump is acting on some bad faith conspiracy. wumbolo ^^^ 14:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the point is that Trump has at his disposal a vast intelligence network, and yet chose instead to believe and repeat a white supremacist claim of mass murders of white farmers by Blacks. O3000 (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Objective3000: you might want to strike that falsehood. He said that nowhere. Or I'll remove your comment myself. wumbolo ^^^ 16:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Not a falsehood. No striking is warranted. A source was provided:

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

- MrX 🖋 17:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I see. That's Snopes's crystal ball opinion, but at least it's sourced. wumbolo ^^^ 17:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

NYTimes[9] and WaPo[10]. O3000 (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The Article is Biased

OP indef banned. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ok. So most of the time, I do not criticize other people's articles, and just mind my own business, but this article is not written with NPOV. In fact, by reading this article, I can tell that most major contributors to this article are against Donald Trump. This article concedes that Donald Trump referred to Mexican immigrants as rapists, that Donald Trump sympathizes with the Alt-Right, when he has condemned them, and worst of all, basically tells us that all the sane people condemn him, while those "nutty" supporters of his excuse this because they are racist. Please, address this issue! Thanks --Kingdamian1 (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC) @Kingdamian1: Can you please provide a specific example of content that is not written from a neutral perspective, or is not reliably sourced? Bradv 16:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC) There is cherry picking going on. There is so much on Donald Trump, that literally ANYONE can find the article they want to make him look as they wish. For example, here is Donald Trump, UNEQUIVOCALLY, condemning racism, KKK and alt-right, yet this is NOT mentioned in the beginning of the article. From reading this article, I can guess that it was written by a person who opposes the beloved president. I should NOT be able to do that. Since this is an encyclopedia. --Kingdamian1 (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC) The second sentence of the article contains his denial. O3000 (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict) While we do quote the subjects of articles often (and Trump is quoted in this article several times, including the very first paragraph), the bulk of our content comes from reliable sources that are independent of the topic, including news articles, magazines, and books. This is not an indication of bias — this is simply due to the fact that we are an encylopedia. Bradv 16:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC) I must add to this that Youtube is not a reliable source, so it's not appropriate to use this video to support a statement in the article. News articles probably cover the video — you can find one of them and link to it instead. Better yet, propose your change here and gain consensus for it first. Bradv 17:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Again, I have explained that there is SO MUCH written on Donald Trump, that anyone can make him look as they wish. I could make DT look like an angel, quoting only Fox News, or make him look like a demon, quoting CNN, which has been shown to be highly biased by a Harvard study. When reading an encyclopedic article, I expect not to be able to tell what is the political affiliation of the person who wrote it. Donald Trump has denied being a racist many times, yet the Wikipedia chose to SPECIFICALLY include the quotes that make him look dumb when denying racism. --Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Please propose specific changes you would like to see made. And Fox News and CNN are just two of many reliable sources that are used to write this article. If we're only relying on one source we clearly have a neutrality problem, but I don't see evidence of that here. Bradv 17:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC) CNN has not been shown to be biased against Trump. That CNN's coverage of Trump is negative does not mean that CNN is is biased against Trump. What are those quotes that make him look "dumb"; and please read WP:NPOV - bring up reliable sources, which are the only things that matter in determining in neutrality Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Nevermind, I forgot that people who determine "consensus" on this article are themselves socialist, anti-American, Trump-hating liberals. --Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC) So, are you here to help write an encyclopedia, or was this just a setup for that insult? Bradv 17:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Of course, I want to write a NPOV encyclopedia, that is written in a non-partisan way. --Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Then please, as requested, provide examples of where this article fails to do that. We take biographies of living persons and neutral point of view very seriously, so specific concerns will get dealt with promptly. Blanket statements of bias and bad faith, on the other hand, are generally ignored. Bradv 17:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Why does this article fail to mention the BBC source I provided, where Donald Trump unequivocally condemns racism as evil, and neo-nazis as thugs? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Because it's a Youtube video, and Youtube is not a reliable source. This was explained in the edit summary, and above. Bradv 17:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC) That's not how encyclopedia articles are written. This is covered in WP:NPOV. We look at all available, reliable sources and proportionately reflect what they have written.- MrX 🖋 17:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Oh, ok... Then why is there no mention of this or this, or this? And why are the opinions of SJW writers presented, while omitting reliable opinions of people in reliable articles that insist he is not a racist. As seen here or why does it not discuss his close associated saying that he is NOT a racist, as seen here? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC) I strongly suggest you remove the pejorative term SJW from your edit. This is no way to gain consensus. Also, WP:AGF O3000 (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Article fully protected for 4 days

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

@Airplaneman: thank you, but probably unnecessary now as user:Kingdamian1 has been indeffed. O3000 (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Objective3000: Thanks for the ping! I've restored semiprotection. Airplaneman ✈ 18:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, this article is incredibly biased by not only calling Trump racist but also suggesting that his supporters likely hold racist views. Fix this disaster of an article Jacopeland14 (talk) 05:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Copy removed from lead for discussion

I removed this info from the lead. IMO it does not belong in the body either.

September 1, 1990, Vanity Fair (magazine) article "After The Gold Rush", author Marie Brenner quoted Donald Trump's ex-wife Ivana Trump, who said that Donald Trump clicks his heels and says heil Hitler, possibly as a family joke. Ivana told her lawyer Michael Kennedy that from time to time he reads collections of Adolf Hitler's speeches "My New Order". When Marie Brenner asked Donald Trump about owning a book of Hitler speeches she asked him if his Cousin John gave him the book? He said, "who told you that?". She told him that she did not remember and he said, "actually, it was my friend Marty Davis from Paramount who gave me a copy of Mein Kampf, and he’s a Jew". Later on during the interview, revisiting the topic of being in possession of Hitler speeches Donald Trump said, “If I had these speeches, and I am not saying that I do, I would never read them.” Prior to publishing the article, Vanity Fair (magazine) was contacted by Donald Trump, he knew Brenner was going to add the part about him owning the Hitler book and speeches in her article. Donald Trump phoned Tina Brown at Vanity Fair and claimed that the book and speeches were never brought up by Brenner during the interview. Vanity Fair informed him that they have a tape recording of the conversation, Donald Trump acquiesced to owning the book but went on to deny reading the book or speeches, that were reported to be keep near his bedside. New York Daily News article "Donald courting more trouble", 21 Aug 1990 by Liz Smith questions his denial of reading or owning the speeches as mearly a slip of memory or part of a big lie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandydancer (talk • contribs)

• That material should go nowhere near this article (or any other) until it has copperfastened, fire-, water-, and bulletproof sourcing—descriptions which do not, in this context, apply to either Vanity Fair or the New York Daily News. ——SerialNumber54129 16:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yeah, some clips of Liz Smith, a gossip columnist (albeit more accurate than most), and a Vanity Fair article that has a lot of somebody said, somebody said stuff. For anything this dramatic sounding, we need far better sourcing. The second addition was also a consensus rqd vio; but the editor hadn’t been warned. O3000 (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. While perhaps accurate it comes across as gossip. We don't need that here. Gandydancer (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Should stay removed per WP:NOTTABLOID. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

References

POV violations

This article has numerous instances or wording that is not in anyway neutral in stance and numerous areas where the citations are worded entirely different from the wording in the article. There are so many instances of this, it really needs a complete rewrite and re-editing. I will be up for the task when I get more time here soon but a POV tag is needed to encourage neutral point of view from editors. I had to remove the section about the birther views as well, because that in no way related to racial views in any form or fashion. Please help clean up and bring neutrality to this page as it is begging for it. Feel free to disagree or add anything. Thanks Sirsentence (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. Please read through the archives.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

You disagree, yet give no reason. Please do explain how Birther issues is related to racial views? That is POV violations alone. There are many other issues where it is worded in a non-encyclopedic fashion. I have to explain my edits and reverts, so why do you appear to think a simple “disagree” is sufficient? Reading through the entire talk page a second time, I don’t see half the issues addressed and the few that did, get no valid answers, in fact some becoming banned for “violations”. This article is definitely not putting Wikipedia in a good neutral light and I am wondering why administrators that watch this page are not addressing the blatant POV violations present all within this article. An explanation or counter reasoning, at least for the Birther issue, would be civil, respectful and nice. Thanks Sirsentence (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The article could be clearer on how Birther relates to race but the two cited reliable sources ([11] and [12]) make it clear how it is related to race. I don't see that a complete rewrite is necessary but pointing any particular places where there are issues would be helpful. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The lack of neutrality in the sourcing is your problem. However that is not Wikipedias problem as Wikipedia reflects what is in reliable sources. Suggest you take it it up with them. No really we are not going to explain in detail why the birther issue is a racist conspiracy theory. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

First and foremost, I’d like to thank you for replying in a civil and detailed manner (unusual on such controversial topics nowadays), I would beg to differ on the approach that the two sources used for the Birther issue is reliable to said article, one being in both, the connections of racial views are conjecture and assertions of the sources and not the Racial Views of Donald Trump. Assuming that the sources assertions are credible, even then, they are not the confirmed racial views of the biographical person in question, whom has denied such views and has actions, quotes and even awards that contradict this third party assertion. As for the examples of POV violations, there are so many, I will need to do some in depth research, verification and editor tasks over the course of a few days. I will return to this page with diffs, examples, counter sources and contradictory citations to alleviate the blatant issues all over this particular page. Even the prose and wording is lacking neutrality in areas. For the time being and for the sake of thoroughness, I will refrain from posting any examples or edits, but I request that in good faith, other editors and administrators reading this or those aware of the POV neutrality issues of this article, to edit in good faith, their efforts as well as to help equalize the page. I will return very soon to correct these POV violations and hopefully come to a neutral consensus with the other editors here. Thank you. Sirsentence (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I will be interested in reading your analysis of the various asserted POV violations so that we can correct any issues. I will point out that there is no such thing as "confirmed racial views", unless you mean "confirmed" by Donald Trump, in which case, that is not necessary or even desirable. Also, be careful about ideas like "equalize the page". That's not something we strive for. You can read why at WP:FALSEBALANCE. We do, however, try to ensure that the article proportionally reflects what reliable sources have written. - MrX 🖋 12:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Back to the issue at hand, let me remark, once again, that Trump has been an "equal opportunity birther". During his election campaign, he criticized John McCain for having been born in Panama, and Ted Cruz for being "Canadian". Nobody accused him of being racist or mysogynist towards these people, who happened to be white men he was fighting in a political context. Equating birtherism to racism is a propaganda technique. Some birthers were racists, some others were not, and conversely I'm pretty sure that some racists were birthers, and others were not. I agree with the OP that Trump's relentless questioning of Obama's birth records is neither indicative nor dismissive of an underlying racist animus, and therefore is undue in the lede section of an article purportedly addressing the subject of Trump's "racial views". — JFG ^talk 01:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

During his election campaign, he criticized John McCain for having been born in Panama, and Ted Cruz for being "Canadian". Nobody accused him of being racist or mysogynist towards these people, Perhaps they should have. And, I’m not certain they didn’t. Keep in mind his comments about Ted Cruz’s father. I think you’re contributing to the narrative that this has an odor of racism. Anywho, what matters is what RS say. O3000 (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Trump hated that the U.S. had a black president. He voiced that hate by lying relentlessly about Obama being born in Africa. That happened. Rational people, and no less journalists, scholars, and other learned people, have described that as racist in various forms. The fact that he also used birtherism to discredit his political opponents is no more relevant that the fact that he uses commmas, periods, and ALL CAPS in his tweets. - MrX 🖋 12:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

That's right...and don't forget the 5 million offer for proof that Obama was a college grad...because, you know, blacks are not as smart as whites...(said by none other than Thomas Jefferson, for starters...) Gandydancer (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't recall Trump requiring McCain or Cruz to prove their place of birth. In fact, he acknowledged that they were born in Panama and Canada respectively. What Trump did was make baseless claims about a person of a different race not being born in the US - he was born in Kenya, etc., and at one point claimed that some unnamed African woman may be his mother. Not sure why anyone would accuse Trump of being a misogynist in regard to McCain and Cruz though. CBS527^Talk 00:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Racial views are views on race as the statement says. Even as outlandish as claiming someone was born somewhere else or claiming x group of persons of a certain nationality are mostly criminals, or even a country that is a dump is not in any form a racial view. Callous perhaps, but not a racial view. For the Birther issue, claiming one is born elsewhere contradictory to evidence is still not a view upon race. Falsehood it may be, but nationality is not race. With the Birther issue, nationality is the judgmental implication. With the claims of illegal immigrants, nationality and law definitions are the judgemental implications. With calling other countries derogatory names, economic positions and stability is the judgmental implications. How some of you are reading this as racial views is confusing to me, as rationalities and even English definitions do not back up those claims or assertions. This is my perception via research.

I am still currently compiling my research to hopefully bring a measure of a consensus and neutrality to this article that I suspect is lacking. As for the claim I may be treading on WP:FALSEBALANCE, on the contrary, I highly suspect this page is rampant with that violation. Not to mention, per WP:POVC, the editor that removed my POV tag did so prematurely and did not allow any discussion to resolve the issue with the tag. The tag was removed within minutes. Before I even could complete the talk page discussion. Reading the procedures of POV, that was not protocol for addressing the disagreement of that tag. Which inclines me to place the tag back, but I am weary it will be rashly removed yet again. The tag is there to alert editors there is an ongoing discussion and perhaps participate. At that, I will be adding my additional contributions via talk page here soon, it is the holidays so it may take a little longer than I would want. Happy holidays everyone. Thanks Sirsentence (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Those are your views on the issue, but reliable sources regard the Birther issue and his "shithole" comments to be related to race and that is what matters. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. For example, Trump stated during his campaign that he would implement a "Muslim ban". However, the way in which he implemented it (shortly after being inaugurated) was not to ban all Muslims but to ban several countries with predominantly brown Muslim populations. Are you genuinely claiming that his ban on those "countries" was not the "Muslim ban" he predicted during his campaign? That is the equivalent of what you are arguing if you pretend that the fact that (to sneak around Constitutional restrictions) he pretended he was not implementing a "Muslim ban". You are placing form over substance to claim that what Trump himself said would be a "Muslim ban" was not racially motivated. There was no exception for Christians from those countries. However, there is no question that was Trump's "Muslim ban" - he just can't call it that anymore because it would immediately be stricken down as Unconstitutional. He has now repeatedly claimed that there are middle eastern terrorists among the brown people in caravans approaching our Southern border. Why would he ever think he could do that without evidence? Because brown people = brown people. It's a very obvious dog whistle, and referring to Muslims is itself a dog whistle in this country because it is intended to bring to mind not a white person who happens to be of the Muslim faith or a Christian from some middle eastern country but most definitely a brown person. His reference to "shithole" countries with predominantly black populations? You can only pretend that has no racial reference point if you ignore the second half of the quote, where he suggested instead the U.S. should have more people immigrate from Norway (of all places). How about referring to Mexicans sending drugs, crime, and rapists to the U.S.? Nothing racial there, right? Because we're just talking about a nationality. He's clearly not talking about Venezuela. If the sources acknowledge the very obvious dog whistle, what is the problem? How is it more appropriate to pretend that dog whistles don't exist? (Even though there's a whole Wikipedia page dedicated to the subject). In fact, we need a new term for it when it is so obvious that everyone (both the supporters and opponents) clearly hear the intended racist message and understand the racist intent but the targeted group gets to draw disingenuous distinctions. Pressing Birtherism for years after Obama's birth certificate showed he was born in Hawaii isn't racially motivated but rather a lie for no particular reason? Pointing to Cruz or McCain is a false equivalence. Accurately (if futilely) bringing up their actual places of birth is not the equivalent of lying about Obama's place of birth years after Obama disclosed his birth certificate resolving any question. Perhaps most importantly, it must be remembered where Trump is getting this stuff. He is re-posting content from white supremacist websites, where "white genocide" is the perpetual topic peppered with racist conspiracy theories. He is making actual policy decisions based on that content. He is quoting fake racist "statistics" from those websites. However, birtherism is somehow the exception to the rule? The one item that features heavily on those websites that he did not get (whether directly or indirectly) from those racist sources?MDHlaw (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, those “views” are defined by other sources and english oxford academic definitions which I am currently compiling and will present. Some of these sources can be interpreted as, or are simply conjecture and opinion of the journalists whom have come to their own views and conclusion. Wikipedia is meant to be encyclopedic. While the guidelines of WP:RS allows for some of these sources, others can be challenged or countered per the WP:POVC guidelines that require neutrality within the article. After all WP:WINARS, does clarify that sometimes certain articles can be just plain wrong. Views of editors are valid as long as contributions of sources back those views. I will add my contributions soon. Thanks. Sirsentence (talk) 07:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I think you are taking too narrow a view of the term race and of the article title, which is a compromise. Previous discussion makes it clear this article is about the intersection of Trump and race. That would include using the racial animus of others. RS have clearly indicated that race plays a part in the birther issue. And we use RS, not our compilation of academic definitions WP:OR. O3000 (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

If you have read the previous talk page discussion, you know that the article title is not be taken literally. The first sentence of the article defines the subject of the article. In other words, Donald Trump has a history of making racially controversial remarks and taking actions widely seen as exacerbating racial anxieties in the United States. - MrX 🖋 13:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Trump’s recent comments

Look, folks, I agree that his latest “go back where you came from”’comments deserve to be in this article. But we are way, way overdoing it. We don’t need to cite every reaction from every politician and commentator. We don’t need a several paragraph analysis, by one person, of exactly which congresspeople he was talking about, as if he was talking about actual immigrants; there is general agreement in RS who he was talking about, even though only one of the four is an immigrant. This article is about his views, so quoting him at length is proper. But what is currently in the article is way, way overkill. I suggest someone do some trimming. I can’t because I am traveling and can only contribute by phone. MelanieN alt (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this should be trimmed. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Objective1000 did a major trim. The article is much better now. MelanieN alt (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The story continues to evolve rather dramatically with statements and responses that appear relevant to this article. But, there is so much drama these days. I expect we will need additional text when the dust settles. O3000 (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there is a lot of reaction to the story. But IMO this article is about HIS views - that’s its title after all - and that’s what we should focus on. We probably will want to mention the condemnation resolution by the House after it passes; that’s a lot more significant than comments from individual people. MelanieN alt (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The whole article should be trimmed to 1/5th. Recenteism. Zezen (talk) 07:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect quote

This is at the top of the article: "Trump has denied accusations of racism, saying, "I am not a racist. I'm the least racist person you will ever interview".[4]", whereas the correct quote from the racist, as per the video from the source itself, is "I'm the least racist person you have ever interviewed." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:C88:4000:A004:D59D:74ED:BB15:FB4 (talk) 12:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The BBC article [13] provides "I am not a racist." starship.paint (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The issue was not "I am not a racist", but instead the back end of the quote. According to the source (BBC News), the correct ending to the quote is "have ever interviewed", not "will ever interview". This is per the audio of the news clip, the video captions in that clip, and the text of the attached news article. Ckatz^chat_spy 08:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Correction

Trump did in fact settle the case noted without admission of guilt. The article suggests this is as "according to Trump." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.162.11 (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

While it is technically true, it is simply editorializing from Trump, his manner of spinning the settlement after the fact. I'm not aware that the Department of Justice was pursuing an "admission of guilt" as a meaningful aspect of the investigation. To prioritize Trump's rationalizations over the actual evidence against him would make this page get ugly and useless very quickly.Dankster (talk) 09:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Question Cohen addition

I question the new addition ("Statements to Michael Cohen"). I don't doubt its authenticity but I'm not sure that we should use Cohen as a source. What do you think?

In February 2019, Trump's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen declared in sworn testimony before the House Oversight and Reform Committee, “Mr. Trump is a racist.” As an example, he testified that while driving through a poorer Chicago neighborhood, Trump had stated to him, "only black people could live that way." He also stated that Trump had told him, “black people would never vote for him because they were too stupid" and challenged him during the Obama presidency to name one country run by a Black person that wasn't a 'shithole.'" Gandydancer (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I removed that: Cohen's allegations are not reliable. — JFG ^talk 23:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Not reliable why? Besselfunctions (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Read WP RS for BLPs. Gandydancer (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I read it and I'm not seeing what the issue is. The quotes were included with citations from a reliable, published source reporting on assertions that were made under oath in Congressional testimony and which have not been legally challenged. They are explicitly relevant to the topic of the page in a manner that is almost always going to be missing in public statements.Dankster (talk) 08:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: - Cohen's allegations are not reliable .. why? starship.paint (talk) 04:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Native American casino remarks in the 90s

My additions have been removed as the editor opined that Trump's remarks were not racist. Before the congressional committee Trump remarked that they "don't look like Indians to me, sir." Not racist because of what reasons? Besselfunctions (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Saw that clip today and thought it was clearly, classically racial, even more so than the remarks repeated by Cohen in the section above this. And he repeated the comments over and over, and was taken to task for it. But, that's just my opinion. I don't think either should be included without stronger WP:RS. O3000 (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I might not understand what WP:RS means in this instance, didn't he make the statements in question publicly in front of the congressional committee? Dankster (talk) 09:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I think we should use it. It seems like some good investigative reporting from WashPo and it is covered by The Atlantic as well. Here [14] and here [15] I do, however, think the wording needs a few changes. Gandydancer (talk) 03:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Definition of longstanding consensus

Yesterday the reason SPECIFICO gave for changing the edit I made was "editing contrary to longstanding stable consensus". Question for other users: what is the definition of "longstanding consensus", since the user making that claim (SPECIFICO) only changed the wording 3 days prior. If text that was in an article from July 16 - July 19 is considered longstanding then the current text should remain, otherwise the text should be changed back to the previous text which appears to be there much longer than 3 days ("Donald Trump, the President of the United States, has a history of making racially controversial remarks and taking actions widely seen as exacerbating racial anxieties in the United States"). Pawpur (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

BLP violation

The article currently says that Trump was referring to The Squad, which can only be suspected not stated as fact. wumbolo ^^^ 13:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Numerous media reports such as NBC News have reported that his follow-up statements confirm he was indeed referring to those four Congresswomen.Dankster (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Article in The New York Times on Trump's race record

This week, The New York Times published a lengthy in-depth article devoted entirely to Trump's race record: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.252.109.122 (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Based on this and discussion of related editorial issues above, I am restoring "racist speech" removed by @Wumbolo:. Wumbolo, you have not given any explanation as to why you disagree with discussion above nor does the WP:RACIST link in your edit summary prohibit or give any rationale for omitting such well-sourced wording. SPECIFICO talk 22:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I support SPECIFICO's edit. Gandydancer (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Actions

I've undone the removal of "actions" from the lead, per my edit summary. SPECIFICO talk 15:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the three examples mentioned in your edit summary show clear bigotry and xenophobia on trump's part, but to be called racist as a statement of fact in the opening sentence I don't see support for strong wording like that in the sources. The word "racist" is a controversial term to use and there was debate about this issue recently in the media e.g. this article[[16]. You also mentioned censorship but using caution/balance on an encyclopedic article is not censorship so I tweaked wording in the opening sentence. Pawpur (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up: the first sentence is stating as fact that Trump has committed racist "actions" but I don't see any reliable sources documenting that (besides the racist housing discrimination issue in the 1970s) as far as verifiable/documented examples of "racist actions". If I am incorrect on this matter please point to sources that state differently. Pawpur (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Pawpur, it says "racist speech" and it said "actions that have been widely viewed" "racist" modifies "speech". Please note the title/topic of this article. It's about racial views, not xenophobia. You are editing contrary to longstanding stable consensus supported by the article sources and mainstream RS description of the topic. Please read the entire Warning box at the top of this talk page, including the hidden part, and exercise due restraint when editing this article. Also, to thread talk page discussions, you may use colons rather than dashes to effect indents. SPECIFICO talk 02:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Just went through the edit history and it looks like the opening sentence text was changed just a few days ago (July 16) by Specifico. It appears (please correct me and point out if I'm mistaken on this issue) that the user "editing contrary to longstanding stable consensus" is actually Specifico, not me. The previous text pre-July 16 read "Donald Trump, the President of the United States, has a history of making racially controversial remarks and taking actions widely seen as exacerbating racial anxieties in the United States." Can another user please correct the opening sentence text since apparently I am not allowed to fix it until at least 24 hours from now. Pawpur (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

The article page for Donald Trump says the following under the the Racial views section: "Many of Trump's comments and actions over the years have been characterized as racially charged or racist. Trump has repeatedly denied accusations of racism". At a minimum the opening sentence of this article should include the text "racially charged or racist" along with Trump's denial (without the confusing follow-up text of "I'm the least racist person you have ever interviewed"). For the record I am not a supporter of Trump and certainly will not be voting for him in 2020, but this article (esp. the opening sentence) seems like it was not written in a fair/neutral manner and is attempting to STATE AS FACT that Trump is a racist (which I am assuming wikipedia is not supposed to be doing). Also, what appears to be the actual longstanding stable consensus text (pre-July 16 when it was changed) has not been reinstated yet for some reason, pointing that out to other more knowledgeable users on this talk page. Pawpur (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Again I noticed yesterday that the Donald Trump article contains the following text: "Many of his comments and actions have also been characterized as racially charged or racist". Yet this article uses stronger language in the lead, and leaves out the "racially charged" wording, which seems more appropriate and neutral. The lead sentence of this article basically calls Trump a racist. Another user, Wumbolo, said this violates the WP:RACIST policy.Pawpur (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Insufficient inclusion of counter evidence

An example of counter evidence not included is the inclusion of blacks and other minorities at Mar-A-Lago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mar-a-Lago). The article reads like someone with an axe to grind that does not like Donald Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NottocDo (talk • contribs) 20:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Or this POV example:

Trump then hypocritically accused the congresswomen of ... Zezen (talk) 07:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Fake article Trump isn't a Racist, the people that wrote this article are. Rockymountainway65 (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rockymountainway65: free free to be bold and make relevant changes to the article, based on verifiable, reliable sources.  Eyer ^contact  20:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Send her back chants

The first time I can clearly hear the chanting of Send her back start is at 5:25. Trump resumes at 5:27. It is later on, when more people are chanting, and the chanting is louder, that Trump is silent for 13 seconds. 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0nbnReq2C_4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.163.6 (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

"Thousands of Moonies"

I question the inclusion of this section about the Moonies. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 12:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Think it should stay...plus it is backed up by two reliable sources.Pawpur (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization

Note "Ugandan president" is uncapitalized because "president" is preceded by modifier "Ugandan", per MOS:JOBTITLES bullet 3 and table column 2, example 5: "Mao met with American president Richard Nixon in 1972." Any proposal for modification to the guideline should be posted at its talk page, WT:MOSBIO. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 19:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

South African Farmers - the numbers

Farm murders may have come down in South Africa - but these things are relative. One man's low crime level is another man's massacre:

According to AgriSA’s statistics, there were still 47 farm murders recorded between 1 April 2017 and 31 March 2018, down by 19 from the previous year’s figure of 66.

More recently, there has been an increase in the number of attacks, with 561 recorded in 2017/18, almost 100 more than the figure reported in 2016/17 which was 478.

These figures would be regarded as being high anywhere in the civilized world. Cassandra.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.101.226 (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

One sided

This article seems one sided. No mention about charities Donald Trump has donated to, or projects to help minorities. Without these, it seems to be only an article about potentially negative racial views, and not the complete picture.

Be bold and edit the article to added whatever sourced content you'd like. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 22:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

A healer and uniter

Accolades for Steve Quinn — JFG talk 06:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this shows I am a healer and a uniter and NOT a divider :>) :>) I do expect appropriate accolades and acknowledgement :>) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Thank you very much indeed. — JFG talk 22:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC) @Steve Quinn: - nobody knows more about healing and uniting than you do. You are the least divisive editor that I will ever meet. starship.paint (talk) 05:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC) @JFG: and @Starship.paint: Well, I can see I *am* receiving sought after acknowledgement. I would say LOL but that is probably not appropriate for an article talk page :>) Someone might want to consider hatting this part of the conversation because it seems to have veered off topic :>) Well, I will create a new section for this. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Article Name Change

With the benefit of time since this article's creation, let's consider a better title for it.

How about Racist speech and actions of Donald Trump. Any thoughts or alternative suggestions?

Our goal should be to make it better, not perfect. SPECIFICO talk 14:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, it seems that ten-year-old kids have figured this out so I think we can follow their lead. This is from the latest thing I've been reading - a book by Margaret Hagerman who interviewed children about their opinions of Trump and racism and then wrote a book about her findings.

"Trump does some bad things,” 10-year-old Kenny tells me one afternoon. I’m sitting across from him at a coffee shop in a small town in Mississippi. Kenny is black and loves soccer. As he talks, he anxiously spins a pen cap on the table between us. “Trump talks about racist things … and he does racist things! He puts inappropriate things on Twitter. Like, people won’t admit it but saying, ‘I’m going to build a wall from Mexico,’ and saying bad things about Mexicans is racist and [people] won’t admit it!” Kenny pauses, looks down to the ground, and shakes his head with disbelief. “To me, that’s something."[17] Gandydancer (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh great, we're supposed to source Wikipedia to 10-year-olds now? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — JFG ^talk 17:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Why not? Of course if a 10 year old says Trump is a racist, and all mainstream reliable sources say the same thing, that must mean that Trump is objectively a racist neonazi white supremacist (who a few days go called white supremacy a sinister belief system and has numerous Jewish family members and friends). Pawpur (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Irony doesn't work well in writing. Beware of inadvertently triggering Poe's law… — JFG ^talk 06:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I had hoped for a friendly discussion rather than to be ridiculed for my thoughts so I will instead note that the article no longer reflects the title we came up with when it was first added and it needs to be changed. We can't get into his head to know what he thinks, but we do have numerous well-documented incidents of racist things he's done or said. Racist speech and actions of Donald Trump seems OK to me unless someone can come up with something better. Gandydancer (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

"Many of his comments and actions have also been characterized as racially charged or racist" is the text that the DT article uses so the name of this article would have to be in line with that or something very similar, but not "Racist speech and actions of Donald Trump". Changing the name of the article to Speech and actions of Donald Trump characterized as racially charged or racist seems OK to me. Pawpur (talk) 09:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Trump's teleprompter statement on El Paso murders

In this diff, an editor has removed widely sourced content concerning Trump's out-of-character prepared statement concerning the white supremacist slaughter in El Paso. (Unfortunately the edit summary also included a rather preposterous personal attack on yours truly.) I am providing a few references here, because the reverting editor seems to be claiming in that edit summary that the nature of the haltingly-read prepared statement is UNDUE. But it's been widely reported in just about every account of the event, particularly since Trump has continued with his racially-charged narrative before and after he read the prepared statement. Here are a few sources. [18] [19] [20] The reverting editor should self-undo the removal. SPECIFICO talk 19:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: When you talk about one of my edits, I'd appreciate being named and pinged, rather than being referred to as "the reverting editor", to which I can't reply without randomly dropping by on this talk page. To the substance of your rationale, I would suggest leaving Trump's quote alone, and adding a separate sentence mentioning criticisms of his speech, which include accusations of insincerity. Would that work for you? — JFG ^talk 22:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, because I comment on content and not contributors in both talk page and edit summary remarks, I thought it more civil not to personalize my disdain for the editorial view you are expressing. I also generally assume that those who have recently commented are following the page and generally do not annoy them with unnecessary pings. SPECIFICO talk 22:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with SPECIFICO's edit because it has been clearly shown these are "scripted" remarks with a teleprompter. This matters because Trump's off-the-cuff remarks consistently differ with his "scripted" remarks [21].

Also, Trump's expressed attitudes towards Mexicans, Muslims, Central American and South American migrants, Puerto Rico after the hurricane, Baltimore, a black Congressman from Baltimore, 4 female non-white congresswomen, "shithole countries", and more reveal beliefs and intentions that markedly differ from this and any other teleprompter remarks.

As an aside, It is best not to comment on another editor's motives such as "That's not copyediting, that's deliberate insertion of bias." It seems perceptions between editors have differed and will continuously differ, so sticking to commenting on the editing is the best approach. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: My comment referred to SPECIFICO calling their change a "copyedit",[22] which was patently wrong hence misleading to other editors reviewing the page history. And SPECIFICO is well aware of the importance of writing honest edit summaries, as she goes around warning other editors against such practices.[23][24] Pot, meet kettle. — JFG ^talk 22:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: - your second last link goes to a Pokémon page from 2006, you must have gotten the ID number wrong. starship.paint (talk) 05:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Link corrected, thanks, diff ID missed one digit. — JFG ^talk 06:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

OK. I'm not going to take sides on SPECIFICO and JFG edits at this time. I would like to add, I think @JFG: seems to have proposed an acceptable compromise above. Leave the edit as is and provide sourced commentary afterwards. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

This source is a good read to help us understand this issue: "Everyone knows Trump is a racist, so why can't the media say it?" [25] BTW re putting ce with a source correction in an edit summary is sometimes done by the (excellent) copy editor that does a lot of work on the articles that I work on. There's no better way to get me to read the source for myself. Gandydancer (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, and seeing Specifico's edit I double checked the source: the cited BBC article did NOT make a point of stating that Trump was reading prepared remarks from a teleprompter. Read it for yourself.[26] Probably other sources make this point, but in that case Specifico should have not only added her text Trump read prepared text that said he strongly condemned […], but also added her sources. Ergo, her edit summary "ce conform to source" was disingenuous, and my revert was justified. Now if you feel RS coverage of reactions to Trump's speech deserve to be mentioned after his quote, do go ahead, as I suggested above. — JFG ^talk 17:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes. it seems that Spec was WRONG and you are RIGHT. For one that seems to know every WP guideline to use to quote how right you are, it is unfortunate that you assume that she was being "disingenuous" rather than that she made a mistake. You need to read the AGF guideline as well, rather than condemn a fellow editor of being disingenuous. You and I and the other editors here are doing our best to present a good, unbiased article. A friendly talk page rather than one filled with ridicule and accusations of other editors can go a long way to make our job here a little more enjoyable. To enjoy our editing may not be important to you but it is to me and even Jimbo backs me up on that. Gandydancer (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree 100%. Will hat thie. — JFG ^talk 10:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

My comment was not unnecessary nor was it "dabbling" and it should not have been hatted. You have called SPECIFICO dishonest and I was making a sincere effort to reply to that accusation. Gandydancer (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Good grief, I hatted my own dabbling first! In there I responded honestly and politely to your oblique accusation of not having checked the source, you mentioned that I should have AGF'ed a bit more from Specifico, so that we can all be happy campers. I agreed with you and hatted the discussion, so why re-start the personal comments now? — JFG ^talk 18:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

How to handle "Send her back"

I created the redirect and at the time, it seemed worthwhile to redirect "go_back"_to_their_countries here but this article has the more detailed description.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Minority outreach section

Signedzzz removed well-sourced and longstanding content describing Trump's appeal to minorities during his 2016 campaign, citing WP:SYNTH and a need to WP:ATTRIBUTE.[27] I restored the text,[28] and SPECIFICO immediately deleted it again,[29] calling the content UNDUE. The paragraph is well-sourced and does not strike me as more or less undue than anything else on this page. I also fail to see where synthesis applies: the text does not infer from the polling and voting stats that Trump's appeal had a particular effect, it just states relevant facts. I'd like to see a return to status quo ante while editors opposed to this content would seek consensus for removal here, or would suggest amendments to remove the perceived defects in synthesis or attribution. — JFG ^talk 16:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Instead of saying what you would like or what strikes you, please explain why you think this belongs in a WP article, given the defects identified by zzz and myself. SPECIFICO talk 16:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Care to be specific about the text's defects? — JFG ^talk 17:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The two removal edit summaries are amply specific. ONUS is on you. SPECIFICO talk 17:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

No: ONUS is on people who wish to change longstanding content. — JFG ^talk 17:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

See WP:CONTENTAGE for why that's not necessarily true. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the edit summaries, the arguments for removal are: WP:SYNTH, lack of attribution, and WP:UNDUE. The arguments for inclusion are that it is well-sourced and longstanding. Ideally the status quo would remain while it was being discussed, but discussing that probably won't be as productive as discussing the content itself. ~Awilley (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Just to frame whatever arguments might be made for inclusion: Most SYNTH and most UNDUE content are well-sourced. And there has been no explicit consensus or prior discussion affirming the deleted content. So in the absence of compelling arguments in favor of it, we now have a new version that has been tested on the talk page. But let's see whether there are some new arguments to include. SPECIFICO talk 01:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

90% of this article is about other people's opinions of Trump, and nobody calls this coverage undue. Now when one paragraph actually mentions what Trump has said about black people, and addressed their community directly, that's eminently DUE, as one of the rare direct examples of "racial views" actually expressed by Trump. — JFG ^talk 17:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

"rare direct examples of "racial views" actually expressed by Trump"? The preceding section contains numerous Trump quotes covering the same Trump views, from the same time period. zzz (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is not to rebroadcast Trump's words. Please read and carefully consider WP:DUE, which you seem to be misapplying. Mainstream RS reporting is not "other people's opinions", it's the core narrative we must reflect in the encyclopedia. Mainstream sources do not conflate Trump's scripted deflections and false race-related statements with his "views" -- and neither can WP. Moreover, the euphemistic "views" title needs replacement to reflect the content of this article and the Donald Trump article, where there's been active discussion of WP:NOTCENSORED. SPECIFICO talk 13:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you that the title does not reflect the contents of the article. But we've had that discussion before and no consensus ever emerged. Try a move request? — JFG ^talk 17:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Restoring well-sourced, appropriate, longstanding text, but removed the part about "expressing concern for their situations", which another user gave as the reason for removal of the text. Pawpur (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

A user named Signedzzz removed the longstanding text for the third or fourth time now (without discussing on talk and against what JFG and Awilley have stated) and also made the false claim that "connecting an increase in votes with a Trump comment is WP:SYNTH". I just read the SYNTH policy page and don't see how that makes any sense. In addition, I removed some text to address Signedzzz complaints but that didnt't seem to matter and he just removed it again anyway without discussing on talk. I was going to revert just now but I might be breaking the rules since this is a 1RR page. Can someone else please correct this and revert, or I guess I'll just have to wait 24 hours. Pawpur (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll explain the SYNTH policy for you. If there is a RS that says Trump won a lot of extra minority votes because of the quoted statement, then the text is fine, although you should probably attribute the source. If howvere, as I suspect, there is no source making the connection, then neither should this article, as to do so would be WP:OR, and essentially misrepresents the source. I believe the statement in question is generally seen as an attack on minorities, in fact. The preceding section covers statements of this type. zzz (talk) 07:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

The neutrality of this article is questionable. The first paragraph sets the tone that President Trump is probably a racist because so many people believe it's true. That's hardly a neutral viewpoint. Phrases like '...has a history of...' and '...widely been viewed as...' wouldn't appear neutral to the average reader.

The vast majority of references link to left-leaning or strongly left-biased media, as rated by the multi-partisan, crowdsourced media ratings site, AllSides. Since the media sources are overwhelmingly politically-biased against President Trump, it seems reasonable to conclude that an article which is based upon a rough estimate of about 90-95% left-leaning or strongly left-biased media sources would also not be neutral, nor perceived as neutral by readers.

The wording throughout the article reveals a strong bias against President Trump.

Just a slight difference can make a statement biased rather than neutral. For example, in the section titled 'Housing discrimination cases', the second paragraph starts with, 'Testers from the New York City Human Rights Division had found that prospective Black renters at Trump buildings were told there were no apartments available, while prospective White renters were offered apartments at the same buildings.' This makes it appear as if they definitely found discrimination and that fact is unquestionably true.

However, the case was resolved without any legal decision or fine against Trump Management, Donald Trump, or his father. Thus discrimination was not proven to have occurred. Of course readers are free to believe what they want, but there is more than one side to the story, and all sides should be fairly represented in a neutral article. We may never know what actually happened, so even if it wasn't required by Wikipedia, this section should be neutral, out of fairness and integrity.

Adding only two words could effectively render the above statement neutral: 'Testers from the New York City Human Rights Division said they had found that prospective Black renters at Trump buildings were told there were no apartments available, while prospective White renters were offered apartments at the same buildings.'

It no longer makes it appear as if it was an open-and-shut case in which the court found the defendants guilty of discrimination, but makes a neutral statement and still provides the same basic information as before.

In that same section, it is stated that the Justice Department attorney, Elyse Goldweber, related that Trump said to her, 'You know, you don’t want to live with them either', apparently intended to refer to black people. That event happened almost 50 years previously, which makes her verbatim recall extremely questionable, absent notes confirming what was said...and she stated in the same interview that 'Everyone in the world has looked for that deposition. We cannot find it', meaning that no documentary evidence of this supposed event actually exists. Given that she effectively lost that case (her first in court) and is a liberal Democrat today, she has a strong motive and bias for making a false statement.

For that reason, that portion of the section should be re-written to reflect a neutral POV, or otherwise be removed.

Most of the rest of the article is just as biased, if not more so, than the section I've described above. For these reasons, I believe that the entire article should be extensively re-written to correspond to a neutral POV, including a well-balanced perspective, or it should be deleted altogether.

Wikipedia isn't a politically partisan news outlet. If the article cannot be made neutral and unbiased, then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. There are plenty of media resources available for those of any particular persuasion to find the viewpoint which they prefer...

JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 11:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Removal of "racist"

I removed the word "racist" because I thought it was redundant to have "racist" and "racially-charged" to describe the speech and actions. I think I did so because of WP:RACIST. Thoughts?Manabimasu (talk) 04:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump&oldid=909302159

Please self-revert that edit and restore the previous version. The word "racist" is used to describe his speech. That is very well verified by the cited reference sources. The "racially-charged" refers to actions, because as you suggest that is a less judgmental assertion in Wikipedia's voice. WP:RACIST specifically requires us to use "racist" to describe his speech, because, as the MOS guideline says, "racist" is widely used in the cited Reliable Sources. Your rationale being incorrect, therefore, please undo your removal of "racist." Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The removal makes sense. A lead sentence that says "racist speech […] has been viewed as racially charged" is utterly bad grammar, and strangely self-defeating. — JFG ^talk 17:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

There's no problem with the English grammar. That objection is simply incorrect as a matter of English usage. In English, there is often a sequence of parallel objects of the preposition "of", i.e. "of racist speech" and "of racially-charged actions", and it is not necessary to repeat the preposition "of" in such a sentence. So much for that issue.

If you have a substantive objection, notwithstanding that the overwhelming weight of RS cited call his speech racist, please state your substantive objection. The "racially-charged" euphemism was chosen quite some time ago (initially on the main Trump article and then used here) to address dissenting views among editors -- not among sources. The current narratives of RS would certainly support "racist speech and actions..." if that would address your objection on style. SPECIFICO talk 18:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The "current narratives of RS" do not support the strong "racist speech and actions" wording in the lead. Pawpur (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Also the second sentence states "journalists, as well as friends and former employees of Trump, have criticized him for fueling racism in the United States". So the racism word is right there in the lead already. Pawpur (talk) 10:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I've previously told you on your talk page not to use the "minor" check box when your edit does not fit the bill. Read WP:MINOR.

There have been extensive discussions here and at the Donald Trump article that differentiate mentions and sourcing of "racism" from those of "racist speech". Please review these thoughtful discussions and do not continue to revert text simply asserting that you prefer this or that version. If you have any WP policy- and source-based rationale to share, we haven't seen it yet. This is a difficult subject on which to edit. You need to slow down until you have a better familiarity with WP editing. SPECIFICO talk 11:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Pawpur, I see that you have already been asked to not use M for changes that are not minor - and you just go right on doing it. Either you are being disruptive on purpose or you are not capable of editing in a manner that lets the rest of us keep this article in as good condition as we can manage. You need to stop editing or conform to WP expectations of how to properly go about it. Gandydancer (talk) 12:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I have returned the word "racist". Racist actions produce a "racially charged" atmosphere. Gandydancer (talk) 12:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no consensus for keeping this word in the very first sentence. Try an RfC. — JFG ^talk 18:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

"No consensus" is not a substantive argument against the well-sourced text "racist speech". You gave an erroneous grammar-based objection, but that's now been resolved. You'll need to argue against the overwhelming body of RS citations in this article that call his speech "racist". Consensus is not required to improve the article, and there is ample documentation that "racist speech" is better than what preceded it. We are not dealing with the replacement of an extensively litigated consensus, poll, or rfc outcome, so as previously requested, either make a substantive argument wrt the cited sources, or drop the stick. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The majority of cited sources report on various people's opinions about Trump's utterances (it's racist, it's a dog whistle, it's racially charged, it incites violence, whatever). In that sense, the phrasing "has been widely characterized as" is closer to the sources than bluntly placing the "racist" qualifier in front of "speech and actions". Writing "Trump has a history of racist speech and actions" makes this judgment call in wikivoice, and that's against core policies (NPOV and BLP, possibly others). That being said, I would not be against writing "racist or racially charged" after the "characterized as" phrasing, in line with the consensus text in the lead section of our Donald Trump article. — JFG ^talk 22:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL. His speech is "characterized as" racist by nearly all mainstream RS narratives, in news, in scholarly and journal articles, and increasingly openly by world leaders. So, if you aren't aware of that, I suggest you review all the references in this and the related articles and supplement that by some fresh looks at RS treatment of matters such as the caging of children left to die, the fatalities dues to Puerto Rico hurricane relief negligence, and other content in a dozen Trump articles. We're giving him the euphemistic "pass" on all those deaths by calling those actions "racially-charged" but nobody who's paying attention denies that he owns a substantial body of racist speech. And that's all the lead said. A history of racist speech. Before you erased it.

From your comments on Trump and racist speech, it appears likely that you're not nearly up to date on how sources have treated this subject. SPECIFICO talk 22:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC) SPECIFICO talk 22:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Weasel, the majority of the references in this article are extremely biased. Very few are neutral or conservative. (I think none are conservative.) I'd estimate that about 90-95% of the references are left-leaning or strongly-leftist media outlets. Media like Vox, The Daily Beast, and even the Washington Post can hardly be called fair and neutral journalism.

Almost all of what you wrote is based upon a one-sided liberal perspective. For every issue you brought up, there is another which contradicts it completely and utterly, based upon the evidence.

For example, the claim that children were caged and left to die is a completely unfounded accusation. The L.A. Times, which is hardly Trump-positive, gives an account of each of the six children who died in Border Patrol custody (https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-migrant-child-border-deaths-20190524-story.html).

One child had a congenital heart condition. She was placed in a shelter (not a cage), then had medical treatment, including surgery, for her condition, then was taken to be close to her family, and eventually died despite medical care.

Another child died 12 hours after she and her father were caught. She was already infected with streptococcus bacteria. The Border Patrol flew her to a hospital but it was too late. She was never mistreated, but died of a pre-existing disease that came with her.

Three other children also died of infections that they had BEFORE they were detained by Border Patrol. Each was given adequate medical care, but sometimes a sick person can't be saved, despite all the medical care in the world. These people come from countries where their medical care was already poor and brought dangerous infections with them.

One little boy was hospitalized for a month, but died despite extensive medical treatment.

None of these children were actually 'caged' in the common perception of the term. A couple were held in detention, perhaps behind bars, but that's a far cry from a 'cage'. Saying that President Trump 'caged children' is both a lie and bad journalism.

Perhaps you disagree, but that's the point. The article is supposed to be from a neutral POV, despite what any of us think about President Trump, despite our political viewpoints.

What you wrote above appears extremely biased. I would guess that you do not read opposing viewpoints for perspective often. It is important, particularly with articles like this one, that we try to see things from every viewpoint to present a fair and accurate picture of the situation, not merely a 'majority' viewpoint or the most popular one.

JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 11:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

You people are whats wrong with America, and this website

Look up the definition of racism. Just because you want something to be true, doesn't make it so. There is not one unbiased piece of literature on this page. In fact, most if not all of the information on this page is not an example of "racism". While inappropriate as some of you kay find his language, none of it is technically racist by definition. You are the reason why Donald Trump will win again. Because you separate fact from fiction, and the American people see right through it. Starcitizen2021 (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

And where in the world do you find unbiased literature? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

you separate fact from fiction - good. That's what we want to do. Please don't see through facts, read them. starship.paint (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

It does highlight a general problem with Wikipedia. 'Racism' has a specific definition that anybody can look up in the dictionary or on its Wiki page, and apply it anywhere objectively. If properly understood, it cannot be attributed to Trump's statements. But that is what many RSs are doing. So the problem is, what happens when RSs fail us? 115.69.20.197 (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Racial Views of Donald Trump

The use of over-exaggerated words, such as "history" in "history of speech and actions," "widely" in "widely been viewed..." and "many" as in "many journalists, etc." Such words, without empirical statistical evidence, are no better than the author's personal opinion.

The article isn't any sort of journalism at all. Quoting what happened in 1973 is a non-sequitur, not because it's unimportant, but because groups who don't feel they're getting what they deserve often sue on the basis of protected status i.e. race.

Settling out of court is the most commonly chosen course of action by corporations, even when there isn't a lick of evidence to support the allegations for two simple reasons: Demands are high and judges and juries are far from perfect. Settling is often far cheaper than taking it to court and being wrongly ruled against.

Trump's statement wasn't about Mexican "immigrants," but rather, undocumented aliens coming through our border from Mexico. Immigrant status is ONLY conveyed by USCIS approval of a request to move to the United States on a permanent basis. Those who are approved receive green cards (USCIS Force I-551). ONLY THEN does their status become: "Immigrant Alien." They can still be deported for cause, such as committing a crime.

Trump did not link African-Americans and Hispanics with violent crime. The linking was accomplished entirely by African-Americans and Hispanics themselves, who have a long statistical record for committing violent crime at a per capita rate significantly in excess of the general population as a whole.

Bottom Line: Again, this isn't in the least bit any sort of objective journalism. It's a anti-Trump fluff piece, cherry-picked with ZERO objectivity to make Trump look bad.

Does this article not violate many of Wikipedia's most cherished and strongly enforced standards of content? DLbero48 (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

No. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Y Yes, the NPV rule has undoubtedly been violated in this article. It's not at all objective. It's nothing less than anti-Trump propaganda. It should be re-written to neutrally represent all opinions regarding this issue. JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 03:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I concur with User:Only in death. The lead is already written as neutrally as can be, as it is. @DLbero48: It's important for me to mention that Wikipedia is not a battleground, and isn't an ideal place for you to right great wrongs. It's also not a newspaper, so it's inappropriate to refer to this article as "journalism," "reporting," or a "fluff piece." OhKayeSierra (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I too concur with User:Only in death. This is a consensus lead, worked out over many months by persons (editors) with varying viewpoints and during a number of discussions.---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Add disclaimer at top of article...

This is very clearly a biased article and uses many biased sources to bolster the article's position. It sprinkles opinion and bias in with factual and unbiased information to make it more palatable but in the end, it remains very biased and partisan. Many of the citations are of liberal/progressive news organizations or people.

Isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to aspire to be a user-contributed encyclopedia, a compendium of knowledge? I recall college professors refusing to accept Wikipedia sources in any submitted work for the reason that none of the information here is properly vetted, peer-reviewed, or from academia perspectives. This particular article is a prime example of just why professors might not allow Wikipedia to be used as a source and contributes to the viewpoint that Wikipedia is not a responsible source of information.

I propose (and I see that a decision has already been made for deletion) that this article should be removed for the reason that it does nothing other than to paint Donald Trump as a racist or one who harbors racist views by citing biased news sources to support that view. It further splinters off from the main topic by injecting other controversial events and people to further dilute the topic.

Barring that, I would suggest that a disclaimer be added to the beginning of the article informing visitors that it contains biased and partisan source material taken from biased and partisan news outlets/people--to exercise caution and perform their own research before using the said article to form any opinions on whether the contents presented in this article accurately and definitively present evidence that the views held by Donald Trump are racist and that he embodies any or all of the traits of racism:

rac·ism

/ˈrāˌsizəm/

noun

noun: racism

• prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's race is superior.
• the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

Cdaters (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseam. Please read the talk page. Volunteer Marek 17:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I have read the talk page, and that is why I am adding this here. I am proposing a disclaimer is all, not trying to re-hash discussion. Cdaters (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Ehhh...

I am sorry to say this and I don't care if this gets "reverted" or not, but this article is politically correct as all hell. Just saying.

FreezingFlameSaint64 (talk) 06:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Euphemisms for "racist"

This article uses the words "racially charged" several times. It seems to me that (following for instance the AP stylebook) anything that's described as "racially charged" or similar should be instead described as racist if appropriate, or the description as racially charged should be dropped if it doesn't refer to hatred of a given race. The article uses the word "racist" often enough that it doesn't seem to be a policy issue. 128.223.222.50 (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Disagree The phrase "racially-charged" is distinct from "racist", in that a racist is "a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another", while racially-charged may simply mean that the terminology within a communication is believed to be racist by some or that the communication heavily or primarily regards race. Something which is racially-charged does not necessarily have to refer to hatred of a given race. It may simply be a heated discussion which involves race without any dislike or hatred involved. For example, a discussion could be racially-charged if the participants were arguing about the numbers of one or more particular "races" versus another race or races and their rates of incarceration. The participants do not have to be racist in order to discuss issues regarding race, and though the discussion may be heated and "racially-charged", the participants may not hate any particular race.

In this article, it seems appropriate to indicate that many people feel that President Donald Trump "...has a history of speech and actions that have widely been viewed as racially-charged." In other words, many people believe that his speech or actions have been racist or they have been about race, while others may not believe this way. If we don't use racially-charged to describe what people believe, the alternative is simply to call President Trump a racist, which is not NPOV. A large number of Americans do not believe that his words or actions have been racist in any way, despite the media and political spin. The article should explain what many believed without committing to a position regarding whether President Trump is racist or not.

JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 06:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Charlottesville rally issue

The second paragraph in the section is blatantly wrong. The president condemned white supremacists in the same sentence as saying that there were good people on both sides... can we please get that to reflect reality. just cite the speech itself if necessary since thats a great RS (you don't have to fact check a transcript for the things someone said). Bgrus22 (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Can't agree more. Same discussion/argument is happening on the List of Supposed Racist Utterances in US politics talk page. The article cited for the entry even has the full quote in it, but only the "Fine people" quote is allowed. Can't understand this POV insistence without including even an iota of nuance of this obviously confrontational "interview".

...and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists...

...looked like they had some rough, bad people -- neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them....

...I thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country -- a horrible moment....

Small sample of direct condemnations in the same interview. — 47.214.14.22 (talk) 10:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

References

See WP:PRIMARY. We use WP:SECONDARY sources because we rely on professional journalists, editors, analysts, researchers, and scholars for interpretations of primary sources.- MrX 🖋 11:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I am confused a bit here. Are you suggesting a story written by Angie Drobnic Holan on April 26th is a primary source for an even that took place in August of 2017? I am always trying to learn new things, and this would fit that bill. Now, the cite wasn't exactly fully attributed (I copied & pasted from the other page), I will fix that now. — 47.214.14.22 (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Immigation Policy - as written this does not address the issue of 'racial views of Donald Trump'

This paragraph seems to provide evidence of bias based on religion but no evidence that this is, in turn, related to race. Indeed, Syrians who are Christians and Syrians who are muslims are of the same race regardless of their religious views, so a policy of favouring one group of Syrians over another is not racially motivated. This section therefore needs to be rewritten to make the link with 'racial views' - if one can be shown to exist - or the section should be deleted. Birtig (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Based on the sources cited, I agree. The only mention of racism is a remark by the ACLU. Feel free to remove the section, unless someone can cite sources that link this to Trump's racial views.- MrX 🖋 18:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback. I will wait a day or so and if no one provides sources to make such an explicit link I will delete the section. Regards Birtig (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I am pay-walled from NYT so I'm not able to read the refs however I'd hesitate to remove the section considering that it has been in the article for well over a year meaning that thousands of people have not objected to it and it was placed in the article at a time that many editors were more involved in this article and approved of it. If you have doubts perhaps it would help to read our racist article which gives a very broad view of just what racism covers. Gandydancer (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback. I've read the racist article as you suggest and it does not help as giving immigration preference to Syrian Christians over Syrian Muslims can not be construed as racist. Therefore deleting the section. Thanks Birtig (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

So then I take it that you do not consider Hitler to have been a racist and you do not agree that anti-Semitic comments are racist? Gandydancer (talk) 02:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gandydancer, I'm not sure I get the link between your comment and the discussion regarding the relevance of Trump showing bias towards Syrian Christians over Syrian Muslims. While anti-Jewish prejudice is racist, that is due to Jews being a racial group (in addition to being a religious group). Muslims and Christians are religious groups that have followers of all racial groups so bias against either religion need not be racist by nature - and in the particular case of Syrian Christians being favoured over Syrian Muslims, it is clear that as both are of the same racial group any anti-muslim sentiment is not based on race.

As you have now added back the material that is not related to 'racial views of Donald Trump', I think you need to provide an explanation of why it should be included beyond the fact that it had been in the article for a long time! Birtig (talk) 06:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I have improved the section and hopefully now it will satisfy your concerns. Gandydancer (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for trying. Yes it is now better in that there is a claimed link between the information in the paragraph and the issue of Trump's racial views, but sadly it is unfortunate that you have to rely on a quote from someone who mistakenly expands the definition of 'racist' to be able to do it. Birtig (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, your attempt at humor is not very successful. And, Trump's denigration of Muslims was one of the signature items of his campaign and I would think that you would be aware of that. And again, please read our Racist article and note that religious racism is considered "real" racism.Gandydancer (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Apologies if my comment was taken the wrong way. I was genuinely trying to thank you for trying to reword the paragraph to take on board the point I made. As for the definition of racism, I can not find the specific point you are making in the article but know that the only time that religious racism is 'real' is when religions are closely associated or even synonymous with a particular race. (Clearly that was not the case when Trump was favouring Christian Syrians over Muslim Syrians, so that incident can not be viewed as racist.) Anyway, I've made my point and thanks for engaging. Birtig (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Eric Trump, Huckabee-Sanders and Ben Carson

These "defenses" of Trump don't strike me as having any factual or encyclopedic significance. Kind of dog bites man type stuff. Should we remove those and then try to find more cogent statements in favor of Trump's racial posture? SPECIFICO talk 22:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I've always felt that the whole section is rather...silly. It was obviously an attempt to find some sort of rebuttal when none actually existed. (Though actually, leaving it the way it is does make a sort of a statement anyway, IMO) Do you plan to try to find something? Gandydancer (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

This section should be deleted in its entirely and any relevant material should be moved and placed in more appropriate parts of this article. The article should be written in a balanced way and that means that any counterpoints should be discussed along with evidence to support the central hypothesis of the article. Birtig (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, here are a few sources about more noteworthy defenses that might be useful:

• The Republican Denial of Trump’s Racism Is Absurd
• Graham declines to condemn racist Trump tweets and calls Democratic congresswomen 'a bunch of communists'
• GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham says Trump’s racist statements aren’t racist but 'more narcissism than anything else'
• Leaders of religious right balk at labeling Trump a racist.

I've removed the friends and family stuff. SPECIFICO talk 17:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm all for adjusting the article to a more NPOV, but we can't combine sources to reach novel conclusions. - MrX 🖋 00:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, I can't see much in the first three but the last one seems like a good one. Gandydancer (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

MrX, Not sure what you're referring to RE: synth. Only the Trump-himself bit is in the article text now. SPECIFICO talk 01:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I was referring to this:

Trump, however, has not only repeatedly denied accusations of racism,[5] even stating to reporters in July 2019 that he was "the least racist person anywhere in the world",[6] but he has condemned racism and white supremacy from the White House.[7]

which I have already reverted.- MrX 🖋 03:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I had used my daily revert when that one went up. I don't know how anyone could have thought that would be OK - especially worded that way and added to the lead. One problem is that when we use tertiary summary sources -- sources that are valuable because a thoughtful expert has evaluated the material and obviated WP editorial WEIGHT judgments -- when we try to use those sources they are often opposed as "opinions". SPECIFICO talk 03:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Jewish section is quite alarming

I was quite stunned today to see the section with info re Trump's anti-Jewish remarks. What with three very long quotes and four photos it is way out of sync compared to the other sections. IMO it should be cut back until it is in comparison to the other items. It does no service to Jewish people as it is but rather makes it look like they think they deserve more space than the rest of us. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Totally agree and tagged as such. None of first three references relate to Trump's racial views at all. The extensive quote mining is a very poor example of encyclopedia writing. I suggest we remove it entirely and the person who wrote it can come here to defend it.- MrX 🖋 19:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, good and so thankful for your quick response. I cut it way back - what do you think? Gandydancer (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's much better. Thank you Gandydancer. - MrX 🖋 20:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, For the record - I added the large quotes and video illustrations (for the record they are below) because 1. I wanted the quotes to be in full context 2. the videos showed what was being said. I fully realize that it made a large, and perhaps outweighted section but I expected it to be edited as-needed (as was done). I do not ask or expect the section to be changed as it stands today, I'm replying because it was requested.

Trump states on August 20, 2019 "...I think any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat, I think it shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty." Video from White House

On August 20, 2019 after a reporter asked "Should there be any change in U.S. aid to Israel?"

Donald Trump replied:

"No. And you should see the horrible things that Tlaib has said about Israel, and "AOC plus three." That's what I call it. 'AOC' - just take 'AOC plus three. And you should see the things that the four of them have said about Israel over the last couple of years. I mean, Omar is a disaster for Jewish people. I can't imagine, if she has any Jewish people in her district, that they could possibly vote for her. But what Omar has said, what Tlaib has said. And then, yesterday, I noticed for the first time, Tlaib with the tears. All of a sudden, she starts with tears. Tears. And I don't buy it. I don't buy it. I don't buy it for a second because I've seen her in a very vicious mood at campaign rallies - my campaign rallies - before she was a congresswoman. I said, "Who is that?" And I saw a woman that was violent and vicious and out of control. And all of a sudden, I see this person who's crying because she can't see her grandmother. She can see her grandmother. They have her permission to see her grandmother, but she grandstanded and she didn't want to do it. So, that's a decision of Israel. That's not - a lot of people are saying that was my decision. That's a decision of - of Israel. They can let them in if they want, but I don't think they want to. When you read the things that they've said about Israel - how bad. And if you look at their itinerary before they found out - you take a look at their itinerary, that was all going to be a propaganda tour against Israel. So, I don't blame Israel for doing what they did. I have nothing to do with it. But I don't blame them for doing what they did. I think it would've been very bad to let them in, including the four - I'm talking about all four - but these two that wanted to get in: Omar and Tlaib. And I think it would be a very bad thing for Israel, but Israel has to do what they want to do. But I would not cut off aid to Israel. And I can't even believe that we're having this conversation. Five years ago, the concept of even talking about this - even three years ago - of cutting off aid to Israel because of two people that hate Israel and hate Jewish people - I can't believe we're even having this conversation. Where has the Democratic Party gone? Where have they gone where they're defending these two people over the State of Israel? And I think any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat, I think it shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty."

The quote caused outrage, shock and disdain from Jewish leaders and citizens in the United States that the president was perpetuating anti-Semitic stereotypes. 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders responded at a campaign rally in Iowa City: "“I am a proud Jewish person, and I have no concerns about voting Democratic. And in fact, I intend to vote for a Jewish man to become the next president of the United States."

Trump looks at the sky and states on August 21, 2019 "I am the chosen one"

The next day Trump sent out a tweet from author, radio host and conspiracy theorist Wayne Allyn Root that said "Thank you to Wayne Allyn Root for the very nice words...President Trump is the greatest President for Jews and for Israel in the history of the world, not just America, he is the best President for Israel in the history of the world...and the Jewish people in Israel love him like he’s the King of Israel. They love him like he is the second coming of God...But American Jews don’t know him or like him. They don’t even know what they’re doing or saying anymore".

Trump responds to a reporter on August 21, 2019 "...In my opinion, you vote for a Democrat, you're being very disloyal to Jewish people and you're being very disloyal to Israel. And only weak people would say anything other than that."

President Trump also doubled down on his August 20 remarks the next day in the following exchange with the press:

The Press: Yesterday you said that Jews - American Jews who vote for Democrats are disloyal. To whom are they being disloyal, sir? And that's a well-known anti-Semitic trope.

The President: So, I have been responsible for a lot of great things for Israel. One of them was moving the embassy to Jerusalem, making Jerusalem the capital of Israel. One of them was the Golan Heights. One of them, frankly, is Iran. Iran is a very far weakened nation right now - much different. Hopefully, if something works out. We'll see. If it happens, it happens.

The Press: But sir -

The President: Wait a minute. Wait. Wait. No President has ever done anywhere close to what I've done between Golan Heights, Jerusalem, Iran - and other things.

The Press: But American Jews are Americans, sir.

The President: Excuse me. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. No President has done what I've done. We have a group - I call it "AOC plus 3" - you can call the person Representative Tlaib, you could say Representative Omar, you could go anywhere you want to do - go. They are anti-Semites. They are against Israel. She had a plan to greatly embarrass Israel by going there with the fact that she wanted to see her grandmother. I assume that's true. I hope that's true. But it was very bad. Very bad -the things that she, and others of that group, and other Democrats have said. And they have become the face of the Democratic Party. And I will tell you this: In my opinion, the Democrats have gone very far away from Israel. I cannot understand how they can do that. They don't want to fund Israel. They want to take away foreign aid to Israel. They want to do a lot of bad things to Israel. In my opinion, you vote for a Democrat, you're being very disloyal to Jewish people and you're being very disloyal to Israel. And only weak people would say anything other than that.

The Press: Mr. President, your critics have said that is an anti-Semitic remark. What - how do you respond to that?

The President: I haven't heard anybody say that; it's just the opposite.

The Press: People have said that over the last 24 hours.

The President: I think that if you vote for a Democrat, you're very, very disloyal to Israel and to the Jewish people.

When asked, "Isn't that anti-Semitic to say?" Trump replies, "No, no, no. It's only in your head. It's only anti-Semitic in your head..."

20 minutes later Trump replied to a similar question:

The Press: If Jews - if Jews vote for Democrats, would they be disloyal to Israel? Is that what you're saying?

The President: Oh, I'd say so. Yeah. Yeah.

The Press: Isn't that anti-Semitic to say?

The President: No, no, no. It's only in your head. It's only anti-Semitic in your head. If you look at what Tlaib, Omar, Cortez - if you look at what these people I say - if you just - AOC plus four or plus three. If you look at what they say, what they are - they are so bad for Israel. They are so bad for Jewish people. You take a look at the horrible, anti-Semitic statements that they've made. You take a look at what they want to do to Israel. Take a look at the fact that they want aid - all of the aid - almost $4 billion - all of the aid cut from Israel. You take a look. You know what? The Democrats have to own it. And I say this: Anybody that votes for Democrat, they're voting for that. That's the face of your party. And that's very bad for Israel.

Victor Grigas (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Is there a reason why I'm not allowed to add information about Trump calling for racism, bigotry and white supremacy to be condemned?

Is there something I don't get here? Is there any reason why sources that give a different picture of Trump's racial views from that portrayed here are not allowed other than for the reason that they give a different view? I would have thought that the fact that Trump actually called on the nation to condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy was relevant to this article. Birtig (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reason being discussed in the previous section. In short, you can't synthesize conclusions and you can't add your own interpretations of facts. - MrX 🖋 21:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. In that case, would it be acceptable to merely add without comment, "In August 2019 Trump called on the nation to condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy" and add the reference that reports this? Birtig (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The lead section already quotes Trump saying he's the least racist person in the world. SPECIFICO talk 00:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see that currently in the article, nor do I know which source you are referring to. He did say something similar to that while making the "many sides" moral equivalency, but of course that's not what you're proposing. - MrX 🖋 01:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Here is the article [30] Birtig (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, I think that source would support something like the following:

Following a 2019 mass shooting, Trump called on Americans to "condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy", in contrast to his usual "divisive and racist rhetoric".

I have no objection to adding his something like this, as long as we don't omit the rest of the story. However, it doesn't belong in the lead.- MrX 🖋 23:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

But of course, by the time the rest of the story is added, it will tell readers that Trump is frequently handed politically correct retractions of his spontaneous statements after they attract condemnation. It will be tricky to summarize that CNN piece and similar coverage without appearing unduly disparaging of POTUS. Birtig, you might consider letting sleeping dogs lie. SPECIFICO talk 00:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)