Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

POV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apparently the Trump's own words aren't relevant. Ben Carson's own words aren't relevant. Yet somehow partisan media sources should be taken at face value and given greater weight. There's really nothing left to say. These gymnastics are on full display for anyone who would like to review the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.50.52.10 (talk) 12:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Disparaging?

A few editors want the article to use the word 'disparaging' to describe tweets by Trump in which he made claims about the fact that most violent crime in US cities is committed by blacks and Hispanics. The dictionary definition of the word disparaging is "expressing the opinion that something is of little worth; derogatory". Language like this is clearly not neutral - I wanted to replace 'disparaging' with 'negative' but have been reverted. No source has been provided in which Trump's tweets are described as 'disparaging' so I do not think the use of the word here is appropriate. Birtig (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

He made false claims pushed by racists. “Negative” doesn’t suggest falsity. Do you have another suggestion? O3000 (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Trump made 3 claims in the bit quoted in the article and only one of those was false - If we dealt with each claim individually we might be able to say that his false claim that '81% of white murder victims were killed by black people' is 'disparaging' but the word disparaging is not appropriate for all the claims as the other claims are true. That said, despite being true that blacks and hispanics are responsible for most violent crime in US cities, for Trump to suggest a link between crime and race when the explanations are sociological and economic rather than racial is deliberately attempting to portray blacks and Hispanics negatively. So if we want to have one word to cover all his claims, I do not believe 'disparaging' is appropriate and suggest 'negative' is a better alternative. Therefore I make two suggestions: 1) If we could cut out the other parts of the quote and just leave the false claim about '81% of white murder victims were killed by black people' then I am happy for disparaging to be the word used. 2)However, if editors want to keep the other claims in the article, then if we could split the quote and have two 'negative' parts and a 'disparaging' part I would still be content. If neither of those two suggestions, I have to stand by the view that 'disparaging' should not be used to sum up the whole quote. Birtig (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, clearly blacks commit more crimes where blacks live. That's problematic cherry-picking. But, the one falsity is extreme and makes a clearly racist message -- which is why it was made up by racist sites. O3000 (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Birtig, please give an accurate description or quote of the text that concerns you. SPECIFICO talk

This is the paragraph that concerns me:

Prior to and during the 2016 campaign, Trump used his political platform to spread disparaging messages against various racial groups. Trump claimed, "the overwhelming amount of violent crime in our cities is committed by blacks and Hispanics," that "there's killings on an hourly basis virtually in places like Baltimore and Chicago and many other places," that "There are places in America that are among the most dangerous in the world. You go to places like Oakland. Or Ferguson. The crime numbers are worse. Seriously," and retweeted a false claim that 81% of white murder victims were killed by black people (the actual percentage was 15%, according to the FBI for 2014).

Birtig (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Concerns me also as it is not nearly strong enough. He repeated an extreme lie that he got from a white supremacist site, denigrating black people. As far as I know, he has never retracted this racist lie. Are you certain you want to continue along this line? O3000 (talk) 00:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

This conversation, of attempting to describe Trump's racist comments as "negative" is a stretch way, way too far. Racist comments are geared and designed to disparage and defame an entire race and that is exactly what Trump is doing in the paragraph Birtig is wanting to change. Trump tweeted that racist comment in 2013, during the height of Trump's racist "birther" nonsense and while Trump was still playing tv host on NBC. From Tampa Bay News [4], "Trump added to his portfolio of race-based insults ... As always, it remains puzzling that NBC continues to offer a platform to someone so willing to pass along prejudice disguised as political speech." Trump's comment was racist and a lie, a racist lie. Trump said that racist lie to intentionally scare people against blacks and Hispanics. I agree with O3000, describing Trump's vile, disgusting racist lie as "disparaging" is not nearly strong enough. BetsyRMadison (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, Trump says, "There are places in America that are among the most dangerous in the world. You go to places like Oakland. Or Ferguson." Actually here are the most dangerous cities in the world:[5] Gandydancer (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Trump said "There are places in America that are among the most dangerous in the world" - The Economist published a list of the 50 most violent cities in the world and St Louis, Baltimore, Detroit and New Orleans made that list. [6] Birtig (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not able to read that article but I'd guess that those cites are rated with US cities, not cities of the world. At any rate, note that neither Ferguson nor Oakland are in your list. I think that most of us here know why Trump hates Oakland and why Ferguson would come to mind for him. Gandydancer (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

So is there a way forward here? I have no objection to his false statement being described as 'a racist lie' but the other parts of his claims that have a basis in fact should not be included in that. Better if the other parts of the quote are just deleted from the article so that the emphasis can be on the claim he made that was clearly false. Birtig (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why you refuse to admit that when Trump said, "There are places in America that are among the most dangerous in the world. You go to places like Oakland. Or Ferguson. The crime numbers are worse." that it was simply not factual. When the president of the united States just goes around blabbing whatever comes into his mind at the moment we have no choice but to take his words as an expression of his position, not just passing conversations that are not meant to necessarily be factual. When one becomes the President they are supposed to realize that their speech should now be on a higher level than it was until the day they were sworn in. As a matter of fact Oakland and Ferguson are not among the most dangerous cities in the world. But I'll tell you one thing that Ferguson is famous for and that is this: "Ferguson, Mo., is a third white, but the crime statistics compiled in the city over the past two years seemed to suggest that only black people were breaking the law. They accounted for 85 percent of traffic stops, 90 percent of tickets and 93 percent of arrests. In cases like jaywalking, which often hinge on police discretion, blacks accounted for 95 percent of all arrests." [7] In fact, then the police would throw these people in jail and fine them. In fact fine them over and over when they couldn't meet the payments. The black people in Ferguson were the one of the main cash inflows for the city. Gandydancer (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Your figure regarding those stopped for petty offenses is interesting but irrelevant to the claim about the most dangerous places/violent crime. As you will be aware, statistics about who commits violent crime is based on those arrested for the offenses - there is far less police discretion at play in these cases as almost all cases of murder, armed robbery, rape etc will be investigated if there are leads to follow. Birtig (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Trump mentioned Oakland and Ferguson. Ferguson is part of the Greater St Louis metropolitan area. So he was correct that "There are places in America that are among the most dangerous in the world" and he was correct with one of the two examples he quoted of cities. I agree we would expect the president to know all four areas of the USA that made the top 50 list. Birtig (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry but there is no point in attempting to discuss with you when you continue to falsely manipulate facts to come up with untruths to back the Trump claims. Here is the 50 most dangerous cities in the world. St. Louis includes St. Louis (note the population) and has nothing to do with your idea of "Greater St. Louis". [8] Oakland, CA is not only not on this list but is not even on the US list of the most dangerous cities. I am not going to argue with you any more about whether or not Trump lied when made that statement because you only want to stretch this argument out into eternity, or so it seems. Gandydancer (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok. So even if we accept that the two examples Trump gave were wrong, his claim that "There are places in America that are among the most dangerous in the world" was correct. So was it 'disparaging' for Trump to incorrectly state Oakland and Ferguson rather than Baltimore and Detroit? Birtig (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC on addition to Trump's comments about Baltimore

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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Yes to a point - the first part about the black woman is OK or at least as OK as mentioning Cummings was black. The later section though seems on-topic OK with President Trump remarks but the commentary about Sanders seems too far afield. On a sidenote, it drew my attention to the line above it which was also going astray from the section about the Quinnipiac poll -- I've deleted that diversion which was also problematic for content. (The piece dated July 30 article did not support the article text "On August 2", and elsewhere it was reported 'blames fake news media' not 'calls poll fake') Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• No - She is a Republican strategist who did that Fox News segment after Elijah Cummings complained about Trump Admin forcing non-white refugee children to sit in their own feces after Trump Admin took them from their non-white refugee parents. During the House Oversight and Reform Committee hearing with Trump's DHS secretary, Kevin McAleenan, Rep. Elijah Cummings said, “What does that mean when a child is sitting in their own feces, can’t take a shower? Come on, man. What is that about? None of us would have our children in that position. They are human beings.” So, the Republican strategist's skin color is not important to this article, and neither is her defense of Trump forcing non-white refugee children to be ripped from their refugee parents & live in concentration camp-type conditions[9]. BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

1. July 12, 2019: During the House Oversight and Reform Committee hearing, Rep. Elijah Cummings discussed the conditions of the cages that Trump forced non-white refugee children to live in at the U.S - Mexico border. During the hearing, Cummings questioned Trump's Secretary of Homeland Security, Kevin McAleenan and asked, “What does that mean when a child is sitting in their own feces, can’t take a shower? Come on, man. What is that about? None of us would have our children in that position. They are human beings. [10]”
2. July 12, 2019: House Oversight Committee release report regarding Trump taking non-white refugee children from their non-white refugee parents [11].
3. July 27, 2019: On Fox News "GOP strategist Kimberly Klacik on Saturday accused Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., of hypocrisy over his apparent concern for conditions at the U.S.-Mexico border over those of his own district. [12]" Fox goes on to report that GOP strategist Klacik said “There’s abandoned rowhomes filled with trash, homeless addicts, empty needles that they have used, and it’s really right next door. So, it’s attracting rodents, cockroaches, you name it ... Klacik called Cummings' concern for the border situation “laughable,” noting that “a lot of people said he hasn’t even been [to his own district] in a while.”
4. July 28, 2019: CNN reports: Fox & Friends "played a recent video clip of Cummings questioning acting Secretary of Homeland Security Kevin McAleenan about conditions at the border. Then co-host Jedediah Bila brought in a guest named Kimberly Klacik, who went to impoverished parts of West Baltimore and talked with residents and recorded videos of trashed lots and ruined rowhomes ... Trump digested what he heard on Fox and ran with it, tweeting about Cummings and Baltimore an hour later, saying “Cumming District” (he misspelled Cummings) is a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess[13]."
5. July 28, 2019: Trump's tweets came less than an hour after a Fox & Friends segment by Kimberly Klacik criticizing Cummings and his district. Klacik reacted positively, believing that Trump had watched her segment.[14]

So, DisplayName99, like I said, she is a Republican strategist who did that Fox News segment after Elijah Cummings complained about Trump Admin forcing non-white refugee children to sit in their own feces after Trump Admin took them from their non-white refugee parents. The Republican strategist's skin color is not important to this article, and neither is her defense of Trump forcing non-white refugee children to be ripped from their refugee parents & live in concentration camp-type conditions [[15]. (Notes: Underline added for emphasis to show direct relationship. Used the phrase "non-white refugees" because I cannot find any RS that shows Trump treats white refugees in the same manner as he treats non-white refugees.)

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

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

To Display name 99 - First: for the record, they are "refugees" who are legally entering America to seek asylum. You should probably stop using the slur "illegal immigrants" because it shows your bias and violates NPOV. Second: Even if you had done nothing more than simply read the RS[16] in your diff[17] that started your RfC, then you would have seen the obvious and blatant direct connection between "Klacik's comments on the Seventh District and her statements on Trump's immigration policies." The RS in your diff reports, "What sparked Mr Trump's latest tweets? Last week, Mr Cummings lashed out at acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan and conditions at migrant detention centres at a congressional hearing. In a heated exchange with Mr McAleenan, Mr Cummings demanded "improvement" at border facilities." That said, don't blame me for pointing out that you did little to no RS homework on this and as a result you do not appear to know much at all about the topic of your own RfC. Third: the "point" is also obvious and I've stated it twice already, "she is a Republican strategist who did that Fox News segment after Elijah Cummings complained about Trump Admin forcing non-white refugee children to sit in their own feces after Trump Admin took them from their non-white refugee parents. The Republican strategist's skin color is not important to this article, and neither is her defense of Trump forcing non-white refugee children to be ripped from their refugee parents & live in concentration camp-type conditions [[18]." BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

NULL, putting what I consider to be your faulty justification of the refugee label aside, I say once again that I understand the connection that this matter has to Trump's immigration policies. My only question is why we were talking about it and how it is relevant when deciding what to include or not include in the article. Betsy, despite discussing Cummings' and Klacik's comments at length and describing her version of what Trump's immigration policies look like in passionate language, didn't answer that question. I don't suppose you could. Display name 99 (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

If you believe a verbatim reading of the definition of refugee (as it appears in both US and international law) is faulty, I expect you to explain your reasoning, not put it aside after you pushed against the use of the word in the first place. I also expect you to not put aside the assumption of good faith and I do expect you to strike your personal attack. We aren't going to converse further until you return to the congenial standard expected for participants of this project. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 01:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

To Display name 99 - Since you still seem to be confused, I will spell it out in as simple of terms as I can for you, here goes: The question your RfC asks is based off a false premise, an untruthful premise. Your RfC asks "Should this content, adding the fact that a woman defending Trump for his comments was black..." But, the woman was not defending Trump for his comments. So your RfC question is based off a false premise, an untruthful premise and that is what NULL and I have tried to explain to you - she was not defending Trump for his comments.

Two more things, 1) Even though I supplied you with an RS link comparing Trump's cages for non-white refugee children to "concentration camps," it appears you did not bother to read that RS. 2) Rep. Cummings' description about the condition of cages Trump puts non-white refugee children is a 'fact' and I supplied the RS links supporting them, but again, it appears you did not bother to read those RS links either. I told you above that in my observation it appears you did little to no RS homework before you wrote your RfC. Based on your RfC question & your comments, my observation on that has not changed. BetsyRMadison (talk) 12:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison, if your problem was the way that I framed the question, I feel you should have said that at the beginning and not waited until now. I've decided to change the question from saying that Klacik defended Trump to saying that she criticized Cummings. The rest of it I still do not understand and I assume never will. Display name 99 (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

To Display name 99 - Do not try to flip this by attempting to deflect from your original faulty RfC question that was based off of a false & untruthful premise as being "my" problem. It was never "my" problem. Your faulty question has always been your problem. As I said multiple times above, it is my observation that you did little to zero (0) RS homework before you wrote your original RfC question and now that you've had to change your RfC question because of your errors only goes to confirm my observation.

As for your brand new RfC question, I'm still NO. the Republican strategist's skin color is not important to this article, and neither is her defense of Trump forcing non-white refugee children to be ripped from their non-white refugee parents & live in concentration camp-type conditions[19]. 

By the way, I've never written an RfC before, but it would seem to me that since you have a brand new RfC question, that you should close your faulty RfC and start a new RfC. You might want to check on that to see how that works. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

That was the first time that I read one of your responses as meaning that my question was the problem. I don't think you never said that before, and if you did, it must have been very unclear. Of course her defense of Trump forcing refugee children to live in concentration camp-type conditions isn't notable because Trump never actually did that. Display name 99 (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

TO Display name 99 - 4 times (above) I have supplied you with an RS link detailing how Trump forces refugee children to live in concentration camp-type conditions - and apparently you did not read the RS article, which does appear to be a pattern with you. Therefore, I'll go ahead & copy/paste from the RS "there is a serious, scholarly case[20] for describing Donald Trump’s detention centers as "concentration camps." The RS article continues and reports, "At least 24 migrants have died in ICE custody since Donald Trump took office. At least five migrant children have perished in the custody of other immigration agencies over that same period. In a report condemning the “egregious” conditions at ICE facilities, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) found 41 detainees living in a cell built for eight, and 155 occupying a room meant for 35. The people trapped in these rooms are largely asylum seekers who have not committed any criminal offense. The people trapped in these rooms stand on toilets to “gain breathing space, thus limiting access to the toilets.” While these detainees are subjected to torturous overcrowding, thousands of others suffer from torturous isolation. Solitary confinement is deployed so promiscuously in immigrant detention that being transgender or having a “bad leg” is enough to qualify a detainee for a form of punishment that the United Nations deems cruel and unusual. After extended periods in isolation, some mentally ill detainees have reportedly mutilated their own genitals. ICE’s health-services department is “severely dysfunctional,” and its employees’ negligence has resulted in multiple preventable deaths, according to ICE’s own internal memos. Thirty-seven children who had been separated from their parents were kept locked up in vans in a detention-center parking lot for up to 39 hours. Children kept in less blatantly unlawful confines recently lost access to classes, recreational activities, and legal aid, after the Trump administration ordered the cancellation of such services on budgetary grounds. There are nearly 50,000 people currently detained in ICE facilities, and that figure appears poised to “swell indefinitely.”

Keep in mind, WP articles are not based off your opinion or my opinion. WP articles are based off RS. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison, the piece is op-ed opinion article arguing that ICE detention centers are concentration camps that are inflicting appalling human rights violations. You just told me below that I should probably try to avoid opinion articles. It seems to me that you're trying to apply a double-standard here. Accoring to you, an opinion piece arguing that Trump is operating concentration camps is fine, but opinion pieces cited in order to establish the notability of Trump's comparison of his remarks to those of Sanders are not. This is unfair. This is also still a waste of time because still nobody explained to me why the immigration issue is relevant. Display name 99 (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Opinion pieces in reliable sources are reliable sources of their author's opinion, such that you could say 'New York Times contributor Johnny Opinionated disagreed, saying XYZ', but they're not sufficient to support the unqualified 'XYZ' on its own. In this case the opinion piece links to two regular news articles ([21][22]) that support many of the opinion piece claims. If needed, these would be the appropriate sources to use rather than the opinion piece directly. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 21:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

MrX, the mention of Klacik's race is not covered by an enormous number of sources, although it is relevant enough that I think it merits mention. There are numerous sources for the comparison between President Trump's comments on Baltimore and those of Senator Sanders. There's an article in the Baltimore Sun, the primary newspaper for Baltimore City, about Trump asking why Biden wasn't called a racist for his comments on Baltimore. [23] These two articles mention that Sanders' comments were used to defend Trump, although they dispute the equivalency that was drawn between Trump's words and his. [24] [25] An op-ed in the Washington Post offers a partial defense and partial rebuke of Trump's comments and draws attention to Sanders' statements in order to argue that Trump was not wrong in what he said about the city: [26] These op-eds in the New York Post, Boston Herald, and USA Today defend Trump and draw attention to Sanders' comments: [27][28][29] Here are several more articles, one from the New York Times, Roll Call, another from Politico, one from the Burlington Free Press, a newspaper in Sanders' hometown, another from Fox News, and another from The Hill: [30] [31] [32][33] [34] [35] It's discussed in an article in a minor but seemingly reliable newspaper here: [36] The Washington Times has an article on it [37], although I'm not certain how you feel about the quality of that source. Including the source that I originally gave, that gives us 15, or 16, high-quality articles which discuss it.

I wish to restate also that Trump's defense of his statements on Twitter should also return to the article. Whenever public figures say things that are controversial, they are often followed up by remarks clarifying or expanding upon what they meant. These more often than not deserve mention, and Trump's explanation that I added does I think help make his meaning clearer. Display name 99 (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

To Display name 99 - It seems that now you're trying to begin a new claim that Trump's personal attacks against Rep. Elijah Cummings are somehow equal to what Bernie Sanders said. And, if that's what you're trying to do, then the links you provided do not support your new claim. BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison, I am claiming nothing. I am simply reporting on a defense of Trump's statements and asking that it be included in the article per WP:NPOV. Furthermore, it isn't new. Re-adding the comparison to Sanders was part of my originally proposed edit. Did you read it? As for the links, many of them simply report on the claim and do not offer independent commentary on it. Some criticize the equivalency being drawn between their remarks, as I have said, while others lend that equivalency full or partial support. You'd know that if you read them. I think you're the one who isn't doing your homework. Display name 99 (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

To Display name 99 - The articles you link to (above) do not defend Trump's statement and do not make any inference that Trump's comments are somehow equal to Sanders' so why would anything about Sanders be included? BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Get back to me when you've read the articles. Display name 99 (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

To Display name 99 - from your comments, it appears that it is you who has not read your own article links. Or, perhaps you simply did not read beyond the headline. Either way, the articles you link do not defend Trump's statement and do not make any inference that Trump's comments are somehow equal to Sanders' and since I did read your linked articles, I will explain to you why that is:

1) The Baltimore Sun link you provided quotes Bernie Sanders saying, "Trump's lies and racism never end,” -- should Bernie's quote be included in your seeming desire to compare Trump attacking a black Congressman to Bernie Sanders talking about poverty & his attempts to combat poverty?

2) You linked four opinion pieces. You should probably try to avoid those.  And, of four op-eds, all four written by conservatives:

* Washington Post & Boston Herald: both written by Marc Theissen who was policy advisor to Jesse Helms. Jesse Helms was accused of being a racist who "subtly carried the torch of white supremacy" during his years in Congress[38],

* NYPost: written by Seth Barron who is project director for a conservative think-tank[39] [40],

* USA Today: written by James Robbins who worked in Bush/Cheney Administration.

3) In the other links you gave: NYT[41] link writes "The president’s counterattack is a common strategy he has used since entering politics, throwing accusations against him back on his accusers. He often alleges that critics are stupid, mentally unbalanced or losing a step through age, all things he himself has been repeatedly accused of."

4) Your Roll Call[42] link reports, "In a series of tweets Monday morning resuming his three-day Twitter barrage of civil rights leader Rep. Elijah Cummings, which critics say is a continuation of the president’s recent pattern of overt racism meant to divide the country,  Trump also took shots at 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and civil rights activist Rev. Al Sharpton."

5) Your Politico[43] link reports, "Beginning Saturday, Trump has unloaded a steady torrent of vitriolic tweets targeting Cummings and Baltimore, which is partly included in the lawmaker’s predominantly black district. Cummings is chairman of the powerful House Committee on Oversight and Reform, and is overseeing several investigations into the administration." And Politico includes "Sanders replied on Twitter that "Trump's lies and racism never end."  

6) Your Fox News[44] link reports Bernie Sanders saying “Here’s what’s really going on, Rep. Cummings has been busy revealing the failures of the Trump administration and exposing the greed of Trump’s friends in the pharmaceutical industry, and our racist president doesn’t like it.”

7) Your The Hill link reports "Trump's lies and racism never end," Sanders tweeted in response to the president."

8) Your Snopes[45] [46] link reports "Trump’s tweet [about Sanders' comment] is misleading in that Sanders’ comments weren’t recent, and the speech in which Sanders made them occurred in a different context. Trump’s complaint about being “labeled a Racist” reflects criticism he faced after he attacked several lawmakers of color." Your Snopes link goes on to report, "Sanders’ speech was not the equivalent in content or context to Trump’s statement about Baltimore, despite efforts to paint it that way after the fact. Trump’s comments were an attack on a political opponent, Cummings, who is African-American and who represents a city with a large black community. Sanders’ speech, on the other hand, denounced structural racism in a reported effort to reach black voters."

9) Your Washington Times link seems to be a dead link.

So, from the links you provided, that you appear to have not read, there are no legitimate "comparison between President Trump's comments on Baltimore and those of Senator Sanders" other than they both say the word "Baltimore." From your comments on here, I get the impression that you do not read RS articles and that is a shame. I don't know how any WP editor can expect to help create a thoughtful WP article without reading the RS articles. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison, op-eds are not necessarily the best pieces to cite in articles, but frequent coverage of a statement or event in op-eds indicates notablity. I'd be fine with including Sanders' quote about Trump's racism in the article so long as the article also includes the fact that people defended Trump's comments by pointing to what Sanders said in 2015.

What I originally said was that some of my sources-these being the op-eds- supported Trump's arguments comparing his chastisement of Cummings and criticisms of Baltimore to what Bernie Sanders in 2015, others refuted them, and others reported on them without taking one side or another. Thank you for confirming what I said. Whether they support the comparison or not, the fact that so many sources cover it makes it notable enough to be included in the article. Display name 99 (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)\

To Display name 99 - The articles say the opposite of what you claim, to put it bluntly, that means the RS articles debunk your claim. The articles clearly report that Trump attacking Rep. Cummings is not equivalent to when Bernie Sanders talked about poverty. BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison, you seem to think that these articles including criticisms of Trump by powerful Democrats is the same as them endorsing these criticisms. It is not. I already linked three opinion articles which supported Trump. So I'm afraid you're simply wrong. And once more, it does not matter whether the articles endorse Trump's views or not. The fact that they cover his comparison to Sanders at all shows that it is significant and warrants inclusion in the article. Display name 99 (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

To Display name 99 - You need to read before you comment. I already told you the four opinion pieces you linked are not RS. You need to avoid those.  Of your four op-eds, all four written by conservatives:

* Washington Post & Boston Herald: both written by Marc Theissen who was policy advisor to Jesse Helms. Jesse Helms was accused of being a racist who "subtly carried the torch of white supremacy" during his years in Congress[47],

* NYPost: written by Seth Barron who is project director for a conservative think-tank[48] [49],

* USA Today: written by James Robbins who worked in Bush/Cheney Administration.

Since it's clear that you do not read comments and you do not read RS, I am finished talking to you on this topic. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison, but your opinion piece on immigration written by a liberal (judging from his Twitter feed, which includes a reference to the "Trump regime") is a reliable source? I just want to make sure. Surely a guy who writes "Trump regime" can't be biased in any conceivable way. Display name 99 (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

To Display name 99 - what "opinion piece on immigration" are you talking about? Be specific. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

To Display name 99 - I see what happened, I gave the wrong RS link in my comment at timestamp 16.14 above (this is the diff [50]). Here [51] is RS link that I was quoting in that comment above regarding Trump's concentration camps. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison, thank you, but I'm afraid it's still an opinion piece by a progressive journalist with a Twitter feed full of sympathetic tweets towards the recent BLM protests. It would therefore fail the test that you applied to the opinion articles that I cite,, although we could as NULL said cite statistics in the article by following links that it gives to other sources. Still, I don't know why we're talking about the Trump detention centers. Display name 99 (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

To Display name 99 - You're welcome and, you're wrong. It's not an "opinion piece" it is an article from a RS. The journalist, Eric Levitz, has been used as a RS in another WP article here [52]. Reuters[53] reports that most Americans are sympathetic to the current protesters protesting against police killing unarmed black men and women. Journalists printing truthful articles about the protests does not equal them showing bias or sympathy. But, your comment disparaging BLM protesters shows bias and violates of NPOV. You should really be more careful about that. BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison, the fact that this journalist is cited elsewhere in Wikipedia does not mean that he is fully reliable. It is certianly an opinion piece. It argues for why these detention centers should be considered concentration camps and why it is acceptable to make comparisons to the Holocaust. It uses loaded and derogatory language such as "pseudo-philo-Semites" to describe those who disagree. The fact that Levitz supports BLM protests and shows that he has a bias, and one that he isn't private about, whether most Americans do so or not. I never disparaged BLM protesters, and the fact that you believe that I did suggests you did not really read what I wrote. You have been the one showing bias on this page by arguing about whether claims made by certain people should be included in the article based on whether you feel they are right or wrong, not based on whether or not they have received coverage in reliable sources. The Bernie Sanders issue is the clearest example of that. You are intent on keeping it out of the article simply because you don't like it, even though numerous reliable sources have reported on it, and some reliable sources (or sources which are at the very least no less reliable than Linetz) have agreed with it. Display name 99 (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• No I agree with previous comments in this Rfc. Smith0124 (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• No, she is tangential to the main focus of the section, so it's unnecessary to go into detail on her. The Trump quote further down is only cited to the Washington Examiner, which both low-quality and partisan; if the quotes were significant enough to cover here, I would expect that they'd have been covered in other sources. --Aquillion (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2020 (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.

Personnel

User SPECIFICO, thinks that my [edit] of changing "heroes" and "supremacist traitors" to "personnel" should be undone. I thought the edit was good for Wikipedia because there was no evidence that the people where "supremacist traitors" and "heroes" sounds too subjective. Do you Support or Oppose my [edit]? Sergeant Davin(talk) 22:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

It needs to be undone because, as I clearly explained on your talk page, it violates the Discretionary Sanctions page restriction "24-hour BRD". You need to undo your edit now. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 23:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

It has been revered due to block pressure, however, I still think the discussion should continue on if "supremacist traitors" should be used as there is no evidence for it. Sergeant Davin(talk) 23:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

If you cannot accept the rules and procedures under which we edit, your efforts are unlikely to be effective. SPECIFICO talk 00:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Sergeant Davin, although the current wording is totally accurate, I might think that softer wording could be used. Your edit is unacceptable as it has rather obvious WP:NPOV problems and was correctly reverted. You can suggest other wording. O3000 (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Plz explain to me how "Personnel" is not NPOV, it has no positive or negative connotation or denotation. "hero" has positive connotation and denotation. "supremacist traitors" has negative connotation and denotation. What more neutral word could I suggest? "Person", "Human"? Sergeant Davin(talk) 19:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

A suggestion: how about the sentence is changed slightly to make clear that the terms used are the words used by the NAACP? So the sentence would read "The NAACP has suggested renaming the bases after military heroes of color rather than what it calls 'white supremacist traitors'." Birtig (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm having trouble understanding how there could be objections to referring to leaders of the confederacy as white supremacists and traitors. I don't think there are any mainstream historians who dispute these characterizations... this is not a controversial statement.Taquim 06:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taquim (talk • contribs)

* Oppose your Sergeant Davin edit - For one thing, calling Traitors against America "military personnel" is incorrect, factually wrong. Confederate soldiers are traitors who took up arms and waged war against America - they were not part of the U.S. Military. In 1865, President Andrew Johnson issued a proclamation giving amnesty to some (not all) confederates for the offence of treason against the United States. There were 14 classes of confederate traitors who were not allowed "amnesty."[54]  For example, the amnesty did not apply to "Confederate officers" and did not  apply to Confederates who were educated at the United States Military Academy or Naval Academy. The phrase, as you use it, implies that "military personnel" are United States "military personnel" which is factually wrong, Confederates" were not "military personnel." So yes, there is mounds and mounds of historical & legal evidence that confederates are Traitors against America. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Donald Trump's use of racist phrase "Kung Flu"

• Not clear why Urgal removed addition of "Kung Flu" to the "Chinese Virus" section. The use of "Kung Flu" is widely viewed as racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taquim (talk • contribs) 22:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

because of the same reason Birgis addition was removed. it goes both ways Urgal (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

What did you mean by "like last time" User:Urgal? Why remove reliable-source references about the prominent use of a racist slur, that the White House had denounced months ago? What goes both ways? What's a "Birgis addition"? And why should one get talk page agreement before adding something new to the article - I've never encountered that, in 15 years here! Nfitz (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Im talking about User:Birtig's addition to the article, that SPECIFICO reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump&diff=963910286&oldid=963901340&diffmode=source and yeah i also think you should be able to make changes without having to have a discussion first, but apparently some people think otherwise Urgal (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm moving the discussion about User:Urgal attempt to remove the use of "Kung Flu" to a separate section, as it doesn't have anything to do with Specifico - who never mentioned it. I still don't understand why you are removing this. What do you mean "like last time"? What's a "Birgis addition"? Why are you deflecting questions about Kung Flu, with a different edit? Why did you edit summary claim you were restoring text, when you only did a deletion? In fact, you did the same deletion twice ... isn't that a 1RR violation? Nfitz (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

the kung flu thing has already been reinstated Urgal (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Not by you though - you deleted it twice (isn't that a violation?), without any explanation, other than come here to discuss it first. So let's discuss it. What do you mean "like last time" - I don't think I've even even edited this page before, or encountered you. Why should things be discussed here first? Why does your edit summary not have any relation to your deletion? Nfitz (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

i initially deleted it the second time, because no reason was provided, and because the addition of another user was deleted the same way. but now everythings fine Urgal (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure they needed a reason, given your reason made no sense, and didn't match the edit. But to the point - why delete it the first time? Nfitz (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Mass reverting by SPECIFICO

I am unhappy that an editor thinks it appropriate to mass revert a number of edits by various editors asking that each and every change has to be discussed on talk first. Ok - let's start with my change where in the subsection about NFL national anthem protests, I replaced 'black players' with the phrase 'predominantly black contingent of protesting players' because those are exactly the words used in the source. I can think of absolutely no justification for this to be reverted...I await SPECIFICO's justification with interest. Birtig (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

theyre basically just doing whatever they want. I recently reverted a new addition with the same reasoning as SPECIFICO, but that one of course got reinstated. so, either both changes/additions to the article are discussed here first, or both stay in Urgal (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

These policies and guidelines are clear and specific. Balance and due weight is not what we personally believe is neutral. It is even-handed reflection of the body of RS narratives. The following are informative. WP:ONUS. WP:V WP:SYNTH WP:NPOV SPECIFICO talk 00:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Urgal:I see that you've now violated both the Discretionary Sanctions page restrictions, 1RR and 24 Hr BRD. I suggest you undo your "reinstate" edit and provide substantive discussion here on talk. SPECIFICO talk 00:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

this is the dumbest regulation ever. so I'm gonna self-revert it now, and than reinstate the edit in 24 hours? whats the point of that? Urgal (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

i reverted it Urgal (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

You need to read the restriction and understand it before you edit here. It's nobody else's job to tutor you. You need to discuss your re-instatement, not just wait a day. SPECIFICO talk 01:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I notice you have posted a comment but not engaged with the specific point I wished to discuss. You have mass reverted so I will now have to raise each change one-by-one and attempt to discuss. But you have chosen not to explain why you think my edit that replaced 'black players' with the phrase 'predominantly black contingent of protesting players' - which I did because those are exactly the words used in the source - should not be re-inserted. So I ask you again to explain why you think this change should not be made Birtig (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

"Bad hombres and rapists" section

Per this note on my talk page I will discuss my entry:

Hi Gandydancer, I note you made a change to this article and that I reverted the phrase 'rapists' from the subheading you had added - despite this you have re-added the phrase 'and rapists' to the subheading within 24 hours of your initial edit and without any discussion on talk. I am not asking you to self-revert but I think your edit is not helpful. The point would be much stronger if it focused solely on Trump using the phrase 'bad hombres' to associate Mexicans with criminality - adding the claim about 'rapists' actually, to my mind, distracts from this central point. Birtig (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I find it hard to understand why the label of being a rapist, as Trump has repeatedly affixed to Mexican men, isn't even worth a mention in the header. It is "not helpful"? It is a "distraction"? How can the fact that Trump, more than once, has referred to Mexican men, or "hombres" as he calls them, as rapists be improved by instead saying that "Trump using the phrase 'bad hombres' [is] to associate Mexicans with criminality'" just skipping the mention of rape all-together is preferable? What? Rape, along with murder, which are world-wide considered about the worst criminal offences there are, are hardly your run of the mill "criminality". The attempt by Birtig to water this issue down and whitewash it is crystal clear in this case, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gandydancer, my reading of sources is that whenever Trump has mentioned 'rapists' it has always been in the context of a list of types of offences that 'bad people' or 'bad hombres' commit. This article is looking at possible evidence of Trump's racial views and using the spanish word hombres when discussing serious crime could be viewed as appealing to a racist stereotype. That is the most significant part of the subsection. That he has also mentioned 'rapists' in lists describing 'bad people' or 'bad hombres' is, frankly, a side issue. And why do you wish to add 'rapists' to the subheading any more than murderers, for example, that Trump also uses as an example of the bad people he is describing? Birtig (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Where you get that rape it is a side issue is beyond me and the reason that I "wish to add 'rapists' to the subheading any more than murderers" is because this is what our sources tell us. You are of course aware of Trump's famous words, "They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists, and some, I assume, are good people.” And I assume that you'd agree that the bad hombre breaking into that young woman's bedroom while her traveling salesman husband was away at work had plans to pillage the fair maiden. He has mentioned the Mexican rapists several times during his campaign speeches as well. For example: "Coming down the escalator, and you remember what I said, they’re sending, you remember that, they’re sending, and I mentioned words, I won’t even mention them tonight." Let's be honest here, "the bad guys" or "the bad hombres" suggests drugs, robberies, etc. but generally rapists are in a class of their own both in severity and in the societal/historical issues it brings to mind. Gandydancer (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. So can I suggest that the subheading becomes '"bad hombres" and "rapists"'. Birtig (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean? Like not "real rapists" but sort of like rapists, but not real rapists? Gandydancer (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I feel you may be channelling Whoopi Goldberg there... Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I mean that instead of the subheading being - "Bad hombres" and rapists - it should be - "Bad hombres" and "rapists" . Is that clearer? Birtig (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Support of Stephen Miller

This section was removed with the reasoning: "goes a little to far and makes inappropriate implications. Basically undue." Please elaborate on why open support for a white nationalist might not be considered relevant in a page on racial views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taquim (talk • contribs)

Mostly because it is not open support for a white nationalist. Also you violated the discretionary sanctions for this page when you restored the content. Please self revert. PackMecEng (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, you forgot to sign your comment. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Where?! PackMecEng (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

You signed while I was writing right before I posted the comment, I assume. After the initial post. A difference of a few seconds. Hence I didn’t get an edit conflict. Otherwise I would’ve not said anything. Apologies for the confusion. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Your initial comment. But that’s neither here nor there. Just a courtesy notice. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh when I did the unsigned for Taquim?[55] My original post I did sign.[56] PackMecEng (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Ooops, I apologize for not waiting 24 hours to revert. Stephen Miller is a white nationalist, and Trump refuses to ask for his resignation or condemn his views and actions. Please help me understand how in this case Trump is not supporting a white nationalist. Taquim 21:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Well first off we cannot really label Miller a white nationalist without strong sourcing, which does not appear to even be in his main article. Second him refusing to fire him might not have anything to do with his racial views. PackMecEng (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Mainstream media characterized his emails as "promoting the views of white nationalists." The fact that Trump would continue to support and not condemn the views of such a person is relevant on a page discussing his racial views. Taquim 21:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Taquim, we can’t call him a white nationalist in Wiki-voice. We can say he promotes ideas held by white nationalists. We reflect what sources say. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes, rather than typing out a signature. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Please review my original edit. Miller was not referred to as a white nationalist. If anyone has suggestions for edits to the section I added (rebuttals by the Trump administration, defense of Miller by suggesting he did not promote white nationalism in the emails, etc...). When 100+ members of congress and the nation's leading civil rights organizations call for the resignation of an official it is generally considered newsworthy. The section I added states facts regarding Miller's promotion of white nationalism and Trump's continued support of him; these are facts, not inferences. Taquim 21:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

From what I see the inferences is that by supporting Miller that it tells the reader about Trump's views on race and I am not sure how it can do that. That is the heart of the issue. PackMecEng (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

In our current climate of sensitivity to displays of racial intolerance, police officers and others often lose their jobs for making offensive remarks on their Facebook pages. The fact that Miller can blatantly prote white supremacist beliefs with absolutely no repercussions is remarkable, and certainly does speak to the racial beliefs of his direct boss, President Trump. Not only did Trump not fire him, but Trump refused to condemn his top advisor's promotion of white supremacist beliefs. Imagine if one of your fellow employees was found to have been promoting white supremacist beliefs and websites and his boss did absolutely nothing about it. What would that say about his boss? PackMecEng, I understand if you feel the section needs to be altered in some way and I'm happy to collaborate with you on that, but I do feel that Trump's reaction to these revelations provides us with insight to his racial views.

Unfair Claims, ex. "Chinese Virus"

The article critcizes Trump's use of the word "Chinese Virus" to describe COVID-19 and includes comments from the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund on Twitter that Trump "... doesn't care that Asians and Asian Americans are subjected to hate violence because of this racist description of #coronavirus.". The article fails to acknowledge that Trump spoke on this exact topic in a White House press conference, documented in this Reuter's article. In the conference, Trump said: "It seems that there could be a little bit of nasty language toward the Asian-Americans in our country and I don’t like that at all ... so I just wanted to make that point, because they’re blaming China, and they are making statements to great American citizens that happened to be of Asian heritage, and I’m not gonna let that happen."

The failure to convey a complete picture shown above is merely one example of the many misleading, one-sided statements that this Wikipedia article makes. It is very unfair to the reader. This article is far from neutral, and even goes so far as to falsely portray Trump and his opinions. This article either needs a lot of work or should be taken down.

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.

---

To SPECIFICO: My complaint was addressed by an author back in April to include the Reuter's reference and make "Chinese Virus" more politically balanced, but this edit was then subsequently reverted. The history of this complaint is irrelevant. I would prefer you address the contents of the complaint, which are still valid. I am happy to discuss it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.132.84.226 (talk) 00:42, 1 August 2020 (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.

Independence Day Speech

Requesting an edit. Please add: In addition, the soundtrack of the fireworks display following the speech included a tune, known as "Garryowen", which is historically associated with the massacre of Native Americans under Lt Colonel George Custer of the 7th Cavalry . While it is unclear whether Trump himself chose the song or knew of its associations, its use in the event, held on land sacred to the Lakota Sioux, has implications which can scarcely have been accidental. StoryMing (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Interesting. I think we need more cites, with some sort of response. O3000 (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

What further cites do you recommend? There is a YouTube recording of the event broadcast, and the tune can be heard from 3:07:45 through 3:08:10 StoryMing (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: StoryMing, Is there a reliable source that comes to the same conclusions as you? (i.e. that its use was not accidental). We cannot add original research/editor's views into articles. Darren-M talk 07:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Not that I know of; where and how would I go about researching reliable sources? StoryMing (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH

I read through this Politico article[57] and don't see support for the following text being included in the article:"According to Politico, Trump recognized that there were a large number of wealthy residents in Palm Beach who were unable to join the other private clubs because most of them did not admit Black or Jewish applicants".This appears to be an obvious violation of WP:SYNTH. Yodabyte (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is a quote from an article[58] that states the exact opposite of what Rampell implies in the Politico article:

At the time in 1997, then-Anti-Defamation League President Abraham Foxman praised Trump for elevating the issue of discrimination at private clubs, telling the Wall Street Journal, “He put the light on Palm Beach. Not on the beauty and the glitter, but on its seamier side of discrimination. It has an impact.” Foxman credited Trump’s move with encouraging other clubs in Palm Beach to do the same as Mar-a-Lago in opening up.Yodabyte (talk) 08:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Trump turned to Paul Rampell, a lawyer who lived in Palm Beach and came recommended by a banker with whom Trump had done business. ... Rampell understood far better than Trump how Palm Beach worked. So, in the wake of his failure to divide Mar-a-Lago, Trump invited Rampell for a meeting at the estate. ... “I think you ought to turn Mar-a-Lago into a club,” Rampell said.

After thinking about this a little, Trump decided it just didn’t make any sense. According to Rampell, Trump called it a “crazy idea.” When Trump called Rampell the next day, he squandered not a moment on small talk but carried on as if they were continuing their discussion at Mar-a-Lago.

“The memberships will never sell,” Rampell recalls Trump saying.

“The town of Palm Beach is probably about half Christian and half Jewish,” Rampell, who was Jewish himself, replied. “There are five clubs right now. Four of those clubs are restricted. No Jews. No African-Americans. And there are about four or five thousand members. There’s one club only where Jewish residents can go, and that’s the Palm Beach Country Club. It only has three hundred membership slots. They’re all full, and it’s very expensive. So, you’ve got an island with a lot of Jewish residents who have no club to go to.”

Trump adopted Rampell's strategy and converted Mar a Lago into a private club, selling memberships to those exlcuded from the established clubs. No SYNTH. Please undo your removal. It's been in the article for quite a while. SPECIFICO talk 00:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

"Rampell said"..."Rampell recalls"..."Rampell understood far better than Trump"..."According to Rampell". These are only Rampell's thoughts and opinions, how is this not SYNTH? Yodabyte (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Gregory Cheadle

Could not find any RS that state he was part of outreach for the 2016 Trump campaign so I removed the text. Yodabyte (talk) 01:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The text doesn't say anything about outreach. I restored the text because it's properly sourced, was widely reported, and is directly relevant to the subject of the article. - MrX 🖋 02:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I guess that sort of makes sense but still don't think it belongs in that specific section. Maybe it can be moved somewhere else in the article. Yodabyte (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Undue accusations

I recently removed the sentence These actions led to several accusations in the media that Trump was racist and pandering to white supremacist voters.[59][60][61] stating that I was "not comfortable with a opinion column and Huffpost for these statements, especially worded this way. At minimum undue and at most a BLP vio for insufficient sourcing on a contentious label."[62] Later BarrelProof restored it stating "The sentence refers to these as accusations, not facts."[63] which fails to address any of the issues I mention with this recent text. Should it remain? PackMecEng (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying you don't think those citations are sufficient to document that there were such accusations? —BarrelProof (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Correct. We have an opinion column and two Huffpost articles. None of which are particularly strong sources for accusations of racism or pandering to white supremacists. PackMecEng (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I think those sources are sufficient to clearly show that there were such accusations. The headline of the first one is "Let's not mince words. Trump is racist." The body of the article is similar, and so I think it is showing that there was an accusation that he was racist. There are several such sources cited, and they are in well-known publications, and at least two of the sources refer to additional statements made by Anderson Cooper, who is affiliated with another well-known news source. It seems clear to me that there were such accusations, as documented in those sources. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, they are not sources of sufficient quality. PackMecEng (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The sources are of sufficient quality to reference the sentence "These actions led to several accusations in the media that Trump was racist....". They would not necessarily be of sufficient quality to state definitively "Trump is a racist" which would be a label. His racist comments, racist policies etc have all been widely documented and discussed in many reliable sources, we have articles by the BBC reporting on specific accusations of racism against him. Attempting to whitewash it away sentence by sentence isnt really going to work. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I see you trying to make a distinction where there really is none. The well look we are not calling him racist, we are using borderline sources to say some people call him racist. Not going to work here. Looking at RSP WP:HUFFPO is not exactly a stellar source for that and neither are opinion columns. Also quit with the whitewashing comment, it does not help your argument and is just a stand in for WP:ILIKEIT. PackMecEng (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps if you didnt attemp to remove criticism of political figues of a particular leaning WP:CRYBLP while simultaneously and hypocritically using junk sources in order to spread defamatory content about individuals such as your actions regarding Peter Strzok, then you might get some leeway. As it stands however your arguments are, as usual, weak - the content is reliably sourced for the material its being used to support, its directly relevant to the article and in no way is undue given the substantial amount of impeccable sources available regarding Donald Trump's racism, accusations etc and their already existing inclusion in the article. If you dislike that, other venues available are WP:BLPN and WP:RSN. Not to mention your misrepresentation of what WP:HUFFPO actually means. Had you spent more time at RSN, you would know that it means, like a vast number of sources, it needs to be assessed on its own merit, in regards to the content it is being used to support. There is neither consensus it is unreliable in all cases (such as the Daily Mail) or reliable on the level of organisations like CNN or the BBC. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

You didn't actually read that AE case did you? It was not purposing content for the article but saying hey watch out for this crap. Then you misrepresent what WP:HUFFPO actually means in context of a BLP. Then you vaguely reference other sources without providing them. I have explained my argument and how policy and consensus at RSN applies. You have made bad faith accusations and shown a failure of understanding an AE case, and then whatever you are on about with the RSP entry that you don't like. I do not know what you are trying to do here? PackMecEng (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, I think the sentence is rather conservative. We could have pulled some pretty strong quotes from those sources, especially from Anderson Cooper, who is a leading figure in U.S. media, but that may have raised some BLP and NPOV issues. It should also be noted that we aren't doing any synthesis here. The sources explicitly accuse Trump of being racist: "He’s just leaning full into the racist he’s long been."[64], "Plus, he’s a racist."[65], "Trump is racist."[66]. I don't think there's any nicer way to present the sentence without being misleading. Kaldari (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Then we should do that, specify who said it and why those sources are good for saying that. I would shy away from HuffPost per their RSP entry and I personally don't like opinion columns for stuff like that. But if you wanted we could so something like so and so said X about Trump. Which would be more inline with what the sources are doing rather than stating opinions as facts. PackMecEng (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The article is not "stating opinions as facts". It is stating that certain accusations have been expressed, not saying that those accusations are correct. As I said in the edit summary quoted at the beginning of this conversation, "The sentence refers to these as accusations, not facts." —BarrelProof (talk) 03:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Then why not something like I suggest? Where we state an according to X type deal? PackMecEng (talk) 03:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that an accusation such as this needs strong sourcing. I agree with removing the material. Gandydancer (talk) 05:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Per PackMecEng's suggestion, I've added specific examples cited to specific media personalities. Kaldari (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

My sugguestion was also to remove the crappy HuffPost sources as well. Also the last sentence you added is unsourced. Otherwise it is a good start. I would probably just go with Jennifer Rubin wrote, "[Trump] is making racist statements and venerating racist symbols… It is part of decades of racist rhetoric. Let's not mince words."[67] I don't know about splicing parts together for one long quote like this but better than before I suppose. Might have synth issues? Do you have a better source for the Anderson Cooper stuff? PackMecEng (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The HuffPost is fine for sourcing opinions, as long as they are properly attributed. Per WP:BIASEDSOURCES, "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject… Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate." I don't really like the quote splicing either, but we need the quotes to show both some connection to Trump's support of Confederate symbols and either accusations of racism or pandering. I left the Rick Wilson quote short since the entire source is about Trump's support of Confederate symbols. I also changed "pandering to white supremacist voters" to "pandering to white voters" (as it was originally worded), since none of the cited sources mention pandering to "white supremacist voters", although they may be implying that. It may also make more sense to move the entire 2nd paragraph into the "Journalists and pundits" section, in which case we could probably trim the quotes. Kaldari (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah probably not a bad idea moving it to the Journalist section like you said, since it is largely their opinions. The question with HuffPost I see with that stuff is more a long the lines of due weight, are they technically usable? Sure they are, they are not a deprecated source or the like but in situations like this where it is not really a different viewpoint I feel it lacks weight. That said I think there is probably something worth including with Anderson Cooper if he is quoted elsewhere for those statements. PackMecEng (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Would this citation be better? [68] Kaldari (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

How about The Hill? Not a ton better but at least green at RSP. There is also the possibility of The Guardian though that does not really quote much of it at all. It looks like Cooper's comment did not get much secondary coverage. PackMecEng (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I moved the paragraph to "Journalists and pundits". I still prefer the HuffPost source for the Anderson Cooper quote since it actually quotes the same quote we are using, which The Hill and The Guardian don't. Those other sources seem to be concentrating more on the Bubba Wallace controversy, which we currently aren't covering at all in this article. Kaldari (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Using capital 'B' when using 'black' to describe Black people

I am surprised that I have been reverted for changing 'black' to 'Black' in line with the new convention that is being adopted by much of the mainstream media. If Trump had edited wikipedia in this way some editor would have added a section about it to this article to illustrate his lack of respect towards Black people. Can we not all agree that the convention should be 'Black' rather than 'black'?

The Associated Press is widely viewed as the definitive source for Journalism and mass communication grammar standards, and they have adopted capital B, so yes, this should be the new normal. See the Wikipedia discussion about this issue. Taquim 03:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taquim (talk • contribs)

[July 2020] Unfair Claims, ex. "Chinese Virus"

Background - This is an old complaint from April 2020, an author addressed it and edited the article to make the article more politically balanced. However, the article was subsequently reverted to its unbalanced form. The changes below aim to provide the reader with full information and make the article more balanced:

The article critcizes Trump's use of the word "Chinese Virus" to describe COVID-19 and includes comments from the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund on Twitter that Trump "... doesn't care that Asians and Asian Americans are subjected to hate violence because of this racist description of #coronavirus.". The article fails to acknowledge that Trump spoke on this exact topic in a White House press conference, documented in this Reuter's article. In the conference, Trump said: "It seems that there could be a little bit of nasty language toward the Asian-Americans in our country and I don’t like that at all ... so I just wanted to make that point, because they’re blaming China, and they are making statements to great American citizens that happened to be of Asian heritage, and I’m not gonna let that happen."

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2020

remove language that the central park 5 were exonerated. This is not factual, their sentences were 'vacated'. Exoneration implies a higher standard of innocence than a vacated sentence does. Small correction, but important. Caperbush (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Not done. They were exonerated by DNA evidence and the perpetrator's cofession. SPECIFICO talk 20:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, plenty reliable sources use the word 'exonerated' as well in describing the details of the case. Birtig (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Kamala Harris citizenship

I modified "Trump was widely criticized for not denouncing the conspiracy." to "promoting the racist conspiracy." My edit was reverted. Please take a look at how mainstream media covered this story, from the BBC to Business Insider. None of them use language such as "not denouncing." Instead Trump's comments are universally described as "stoking" "encourages" "promotes" etc... Additionally, almost all media accounts refer to the conspiracy as racist, so I described it as such. The section as currently written is not balanced; there is a quote from Newsweek defending the article, and a quote from trump praising the author, but absolutely no mention that the conspiracy has been proven to be incontrovertibly false. The section needs an overhaul. Instead I modified a few words to add a modicum of balance and even this edit was rejected by Emir. Taquim 18:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taquim (talk • contribs)

The quote of Trump praising the author can easily be removed if you think it improves the section - it is there because it implies that Trump may think the article credible because he thinks the author is credible. Birtig (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm more concerned that the section is using the language of Fox News, which is the main source cited in the section. The Fox headline states that Trump did not reject the conspiracy, but all mainstream media have referred to Trump as promoting the conspiracy. We also need to clarify that the conspiracy has been thoroughly debunked and is utterly false. Also, the section includes a statement by Newsweek denying the underlying racism of the conspiracy, but the section does not mention that all mainstream media have described the conspiracy as racist. Lets please talk about how these 3 points might be best addressed in the section.Taquim 18:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taquim (talk • contribs)

PS: please note that Wikipedia Admin have formally cautioned editors regarding the use of Fox News as a source of reliable information. Taquim 19:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taquim (talk • contribs)

Not quite. They stated that there was "no consensus regarding the reliability" of Fox news and therefore suggested that Fox News "should be used with caution" by editors "to verify contentious claims" related to politics and science. Birtig (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes quite, and more. That is exactly the kind of stilted account that makes Fox News problematic. When a story is covered so very widely and in depth, it's at best a waste of time to drag Fox into any editorial decisions. SPECIFICO talk 23:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

We live in a strange world where to answer a question whether something is true with an "I don't know" is now interpreted as promoting the thing that was asked about. Fox News is now viewed by some editors as unreliable because it does not try to place an anti-Trump spin on things. Wikipedia does not ban the use of Fox News as a source for politics - it just advises caution when used "to verify contentious claims". Fox News has claimed that Trump did not denounce the conspiracy theory...is that claim contentious? (In other words, is anyone arguing that the sources suggest he did denounce the conspiracy theory?) So, if the claim is not contentious, there should be no problem with using Fox News to support the point. Birtig (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Your remark above suggests you completely misunderstand the most basic principles we follow as editors here. We document and convey the narratives in the weight of RS. We don't call sources stilted and we don't ruminate about the strange world. The overwhelming weight of RS reporting on Trump describes his tactic of repeating various falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and attacks, while offhandedly reminding us that he has no opinion as to their truth or validity. If you're one of the few who take those denials and deflections at face value, good for you. But our job as editors here is to reflect the reactions of our RS references. SPECIFICO talk 22:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Fox News should be avoided as a source for political content, especially in an article about Trump. Just use other mainstream sources and everything will be fine. No need to overthink this. - MrX 🖋 22:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Emir, please explain why you are so opposed to the inclusion of the word "promote" when referring to Trump and Harris' citizenship. Even the National Review used "promotes" in their headline for the story. Please discuss here before you remove the word "promoting" for a 3rd time.Taquim (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Angry Black woman

Please see articles from Forbes and the NYT that discuss Trump's perpetuation of racist tropes by characterizing Kamala Harris as angry. I think this deserves mention on this page. Could we combine this with the citizenship issue and relabel it for eg. "Kamala Harris" or would it be better to just add a new section?Taquim (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Trump routinely describes women as "angry" and "nasty". I don't think he restricts it to women of any particular race so I don't think it clearly enough racial in nature to be included here. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps...but it has been my impression that he feels that he has free rein to call Black women angry. Of course he called Hillary angry, etc., but so did a lot of people and a lot of them (correctly IMO) did sense a lot of anger from Hillary (not at all surprising for an assertive, accomplished women of that time). Well, we'll see what others think... Gandydancer (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, please read the 2 articles linked above and let me know if you think the authors are incorrect in characterizing Trump's attacks on Harris as "racial in nature."Taquim (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:OR in section on "Black professionals"

Stringing together the fact that O'Donnell claimed Trump made a statement, and Trump's statement 6 years later to a magazine in a different context that "The stuff O'Donnell wrote about me is probably true" in order to imply that Trump somehow admitted to a specific quote is WP:OR and WP:POV. It's clear that when asked about the specific language, Trump denied it—and there's no evidence that O'Donnell was telling the truth. The entire section is from a single author's single article in Fortune Magazine—and while the quote about "a well-educated black" has been widely reported on, no where else has anyone suggested that Trump "admitted" to making the statement O'Donnell attributes to Trump. I propose to remove the sentence: Trump told Playboy magazine in an interview published in 1997, "The stuff O'Donnell wrote about me is probably true. Elle Kpyros (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Ben Carson at RNC

Dr. Carson's speech at the Trump TV convention is quoting the "defenses" section of our article! Good work. SPECIFICO talk 01:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect statements

The section refering to Trump's speech on Mexican immigrants was only directly towards ILLEGAL Mexican immigrants. The author of this post has multiple mistakes and shows a clear bias. ZActualReality101 (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

ZActualReality101, if you don't provide sources to support your assertions and suggest a rewording, it's hard for us to evaluate this. Your assertion about the editor who added the content is uncalled for and uncivil - tread carefully . GirthSummit _(blether) 19:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

"Good genes" and "good blood"

Trump's "good genes" and "good bloodlines" comments could use another example from May 21st, when Trump spoke of Henry Ford and his grandson. This USA Today article provides a good source for the event and the context of eugenics and white supremacy.

• https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/05/22/trump-criticized-praising-bloodlines-henry-ford-anti-semite/5242361002/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.35.25.22 (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Direct Admission of Racism?

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/proud-boys-celebrate-after-trump-s-debate-call-out-n1241512

https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/warriors/steph-curry-urges-voting-after-trump-tells-proud-boys-stand-back-stand

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-debate-white-supremacist-question/2020/09/30/366df500-02c7-11eb-a2db-417cddf4816a_story.html

This seems like an important event that will no doubt get added. What I want to know is what the sentence would look like. To me this seems like a direct admission to being affiliated with the proud boys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.240.171 (talk) 05:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes. It is important. I already made an edit on 12:14, 30 September 2020‎, but my edit was reverted.

I created the section header "Inciting far-right violence" under which I wrote: <<At a debate with presidential candidate Joe Biden on September 29, 2020, the moderator asked Trump if he would “condemn white supremacists and groups to say they need to stand down and not add to the violence." Trump responded, “Sure. I’m willing to do that,” but he then added that most violence "is from the left wing. Not from the right wing.” When the moderator repeated that he was asking about “white supremacists,” Trump addressed a particular far-right group directly: “Proud Boys — stand back and stand by...Somebody has to do something about antifa and the left.”>>

The editor gave three reasons for reverting it: "undue," "does not inform about his racial views," and "misleading section title." I disagree on all three points. When the President of the United States says on TV that a particular gun-toting racist group should "do something" about his political opponents, it is indeed inciting racist violence (hence it was an appropriate section title) and therefore it says something about his racial views. The president's threat, not my edit, was undue.

I do not enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing, but still less do I like white supremacist violence. I am leaving this comment here because it feels ethically necessary for me to do so. I wouldn't respect myself if I didn't reassert my view on this.

I know I'm not the only one who can read the racial views in the President's remarks. It's all over the news today. So, whoever agrees with me, feel free to find a better way to state this within the article.

-- Tuckerlieberman (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• Looks like Gandydancer has restored the misleading section here. The section title is obviously inappropriate as nothing in it mentions inciting violence nor does it talk about his racial views. I see a lot of original research and synth making the claims they do but no sources or wording for the article that even come close to that. PackMecEng (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I was not aware that there was a TP discussion. I added to that which was already posted which shows that it is clearly already "inciting violence". Plenty more refs could be found as well. Furthermore, he gave his standard "Oh I didn't know who they are", which is laughable and if it actually were true, besides showing the bad habit he has of authoritatively commenting on things he does not understand, there would be no excuse for him not to know who they are. Gandydancer (talk) 03:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
    • A few things, why not follow WP:ONUS & WP:BRD? Second why not follow BLP policy on WP:PUBLICFIGURE? Specifically If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported. Next are you really trying to imply that mention of a meme is enough to accuse someone of inciting violence? Finally still nothing that points to his racial views. PackMecEng (talk) 03:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Add Trump’s “white power” tweet to the wiki article

Don’t forget Trump tweeted out a “White Power” video ... Allthegoodnamesaretaken2020 (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Neutral POV

I don't care what anybody says - this is clearly a highly balanced article. I can tell, because as much as 3% of it defends Donald Trump against the accusations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.37.83 (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

"They're rapists" vs. "their rapists"

"They're rapists" vs. "their rapists". Note added. Unfavourable transcription of words, not quotation of written speech. Trump's actual meaning is unclear and open to negative interpretation. He said in his speech: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're (sic) rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Transcribed not from Trump's written speech (if a written version exists/existed) but from his spoken words; no evidence exists that he meant "they're" (i.e. they are) rather than "their", as in "They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, their rapists", as in "they are sending us bad people, including their criminals and rapists". The press appear to have interpreted Trump as calling all Mexican immigrants rapists. Note needed to explain that the word "they're/their" is merely an interpretation by the media, possibly an unbalanced point of view. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

This is your original research. Please self revert and see whether you can gain support for any edit on the talk page. SPECIFICO talk 16:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Lobsterthermidor: I saw the reference you added. For goodness sake self-revert before you get warned again - like last time. Ping Bish.  —SMALLJIM  17:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Me..? OK, Smalljim, that's certainly original research with bells on. I have warned Lobsterthermidor and urged them to self-revert. Bishonen | tålk 19:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC).

I've reverted it. It had been sitting around for seven hours. That's quite long enough. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

DanielRigal, Bishonen, Smalljim, SPECIFICO: there are, indeed, several transcripts from reliable sources that write "their rapists" instead of "they're rapists". CNN[69], NPR[70], MSNBC[71]. I've added it to Donald Trump, let's see how it goes. Alcaios (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO I didn't think that adding the other transcript from reliable sources would be so controversial. You asked for a source, I have provided reliable ones. What's the issue now? Alcaios (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO: you said that the context makes clear he is talking about people. This is pure original research: he could have meant "Mexicans are rapists" or "Mexicans are bringing their rapists" (which is not better in my opinion). If you consider those transcripts to be primary sources, then the quotes provided by newspapers are also primary sources. There's no official transcript and nothing can make you choose one version over the other since "they're" and "their" are homophonic. That's why I semi-retired some months ago. Even providing multiple, reliable, liberal sources is not enough for some contributors. I know I won't reach a consensus because other editors are just going to ignore this discussion from now on, as it happened in so many conversations in the past. Best regards, Alcaios (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I will reach de facto consensus if no one answers. Alcaios (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by de facto consensus, but please read our policies on WP:V (and its sections WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS) and WP:NPOV and its section WP:WEIGHT. You should not continue to add this to any article without prior talk page agreement. SPECIFICO talk 18:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you but I'm perfectly aware of WP policies. I didn't try to add it to any article after it was contested. To be clear, I don't care about Donald Trump and my history of edits speaks for myself: I'm not sympathetic to the far-right and I always try to follow WP:NPOV. I only wanted to point out that it's a very common strategy on WP to just ignore someone who is proposing to include something to an article in order to circumvent WP:ONUS. Alcaios (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

My proposition is to include within a footnote the fact that some transcripts write "their" instead of "they're". The majority of readers won't even see it. Alcaios (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

You would need to demonstrate consensus. SPECIFICO talk 13:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I've given my arguments in length. I'm now waiting for other contributors' replies. Alcaios (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

That's great. I am just trying to explain that unless you get affirmative approval, there is no consensus to include. Silence is not approval. SPECIFICO talk 16:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this change. It is spelled the same way on Wikipedia's page on the Trump administration's foreign policy. At the very least an effort should be made to pick one or the other interpretation and apply it globally across the site. BigMan003 (talk) 09:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I am unconvinced that making the distinction between "they're rapists" and "their rapists" would actually be an improvement to the article. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Clumsy wording in article's opening

I'd suggest the following be edited slightly (first sentence of last paragraph in lead section): "...and by others because they harbor similar racist beliefs". This implies that Trump holds racist beliefs which isn't explicitly said elsewhere in the lead thus appearing out of place. The cited sources are also both opinionated; from Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

My proposal is that either the statement be removed or changed to fit with the rest of the lead section ("...and by others because they agree with the controversial statements.") or something along those lines.

Due to the article's protected status I cannot edit it myself; I am new to Wikipedia so apologies if there were any formatting errors here. Any feedback on this suggestion is welcome. BigMan003 (talk) 06:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree but suggest complete removal if no context is supplied.

Respecting opinionated sources I've srarted another talk provided with an example.

(It's hard to read past the first few paragraphs given the lack of substance) Feistyfawn2016 (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

False statements biased sources supplied, and assumptions made lacking specifics

Requires evidence from neutral sources rather that left leaning tabloids known to contains wording that attempts to influence an audience.

Ideally peer reviewed studies if available. Conjecture and biased suppositions e.g. ... 'He retweeted false statistics claiming that African Americans are responsible for the majority of murders of white Americans, and in some speeches he has repeatedly linked African Americans and Hispanics with violent crime.' Again, no evidence. When you follow the first link to the Washington Post (a widely accepted left leaning publication) it mentions he retweeted 'anti-muslim' (arguably not racist) and racist tweets lacking evidence based or facts.

Another provided quote : 'Journalists, friends, and former employees have accused him of fuelling racism in the United States'. Provides a statement with multiple links without specifics which will sway readers, most of which don't check sources. On the flip side it would not be appropriate to state 'multiple journalists and Democrats accused Obama of being born in Africa'.

This accusation, of which Hilary Clinton advisor Sydney Blumenthal helped gather traction, is not racist 'From 2011 to 2016, Trump was a leading proponent of the already-debunked birther conspiracy theory claiming president Barack Obama was not born in the United States.'

Feistyfawn2016 (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

This is all well sourced by reliable sources. If you think The Washington Post is a tabloid, you're going to have difficulty here. O3000 (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)