Jump to content

Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

"very fine people"

The following sentence from this article is an outright lie: 

"Trump made comments following a 2017 white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, that were seen by critics as implying moral equivalence between the white supremacist marchers and those who protested against them as "very fine people"."

Trump clarified who he was referring to specifically during that interview stating: 

"The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people -- neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them. But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest, and very legally protest"

He very clearly indicates he's specifically not referring to white supremacists, etc. This is not disputed by fact checking sources at PolitiFact and USA Today.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/17/fact-check-trump-quote-very-fine-people-charlottesville/5943239002/

USA Today clarifies that he didn't state it outright directly, but on a follow up question (ruling it partly false because the quote they use skips follow up question and combines the statements).

You will probably try to justify leaving this lie about what Trump said in the article by claiming your wording enables it. "that were seen by critics", and you will have some excuse as to why "seen by critics" isn't just another way of saying "some say". But I would refer to the following paragraph which negates this argument: 

"Trump's controversial statements have been condemned by many observers around the world, but excused by some of his supporters as a rejection of political correctness and by others because they harbor similar racist beliefs."

This sentence presents a certainty and bias that makes the previous paragraph a declarative "fact" according to this website. You use the weasel words "excused by some of his supporters" both "excused" and "some of" being prejudicial to the facts, that being if Trump literally did not make a racist statement, then clarifying it, like PolitiFact and USA Today did, is not "excusing" his "racism" it is correcting an incorrect assertion. The only other group this article claims support his statement are racists; this article claiming "they harbor similar racist beliefs". If Trump did not state the white supremacists were "very fine people" as is wrongly asserted here despite multiple fact checks and years of debate and clarification. Then the subsequent paragraph stating anyone who says otherwise is making an excuse or is racist themselves is also a lie and politically biased.

If the "very fine people" issue were in a "controversy" section, and there were any clarification at all that despite what Trump literally said, and despite fact checkers, that there were critics of his statement, however incorrect their assertions, that would be an honest presentation of facts. But this article doesn't do that. It takes the incorrect assessment of "some critics" and presents it as fact, and doesn't even attempt to clarify that fact checkers have ruled their assessment to be false. You have biased debunked claims presented as fact and then in the next paragraph claim only racists and apologists would argue against this lie. Now commence the great weaseling-out where you justify perpetuating this lie despite what I have written and what fact checkers have concluded J1DW (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2020

I suggest adding the times he disavows racism and white supremacy. 240F:CF:7F2:1:C0A2:EBDE:D215:C0F2 (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Ideally it would go into the section that discusses the controversy over Trump's unwillingness to disavow white supremacists. That topic is strangely missing from this page, which is odd given its relevance to this page. An alternative place for this information would be the "Defenses of Donald Trump" section. Some examples of Trump disavowing white supremacy and other hate groups can be found here:

 Already done Third paragraph of the defences section unambiguously states that President Trump has denounced white supremacy, even including a quote. Melmann 00:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I did not see that in the defense section; to be fair it was easy to miss given the tone of the article. It is very one-sided. It has over 60 multi-paragraph sections condemning Trump's alleged racism and support of white supremacists (use of "condemn" is valid in this context; charges of racism are unequivocally a condemnation in the modern era, neutral tone does nothing to diffuse), while the "Defense" section is extremely light on details (relative to the rest of the page); it barely dedicates more than a sentence to each defense. It even includes additional condemnations (opening of paragraph 2; ref #392). These counterpoints should be given more attention and the defense section should be expanded. The current defense does not accurately represent the breadth of Trump's record. It comes across as over the course of 30 years he's offered a tepid response once or twice. This simply is not accurate. Additional references to his numerous condemnations of white supremacy are warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.184.115.194 (talk • contribs)

Have you actually looked at his decades-long record? George Wallace and KKK leaders also denied being racist. This article appears to balance his record against his occasional, perfunctory, often forced denials. O3000 (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long to respond; I was getting "your ip is blocked" errors for a while. In any case, yes, I did skim the accusations against him, and I can that tell someone (or many people) put a lot of effort and energy into making their case against him. Would that a fraction of that effort was put into the Defenses section. Even as someone who isn't a fan of DT my takeaway is that Wikipedia really has it out for him. Consider that, in 2016 this accused racist received ~3% more minority votes than Romney, and that in 2020 he received ~10% more than that. If his approval improved among minorities, it begs the question of who exactly is levying these charges. Now that the election's over and he's no longer a threat, perhaps the democrats who've locked this article can allow more objectivity. ref https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-vote-rising-among-blacks-hispanics-despite-conventional-wisdom-ncna1245787 2600:1700:56A0:1F80:544E:31C4:7937:18E8 (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)simonjester

The facts haven't changed just because he's out of office. Nor has the fact that presenting them neutrally means including what has been included. As for Trump, doing better with minorities than Romney in voting, it's an interesting subject that doesn't have to do with Trump's views of them. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Medal of Freedom

I recently removed this material from the article. Citing undue and inappropriate. Gandydancer restored it stating It is neither undue nor inappropriate to document that Trump awarded a Medal of Freedom to a racist.[1] One probably should not be calling him a racist in an edit summary. Two yeah pretty undue to the topic of Trump's racial views in general. Three not really an example of his racial views at all. Should it remain in the article or it is more suited to Limbaugh's article? PackMecEng (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

As you know, we look to reliable sources for our editing. Here is what ABC news says about this matter:
"In a night full of divisive moments, President Donald Trump's decision to award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh -- a polarizing figure who has insisted it was unfair to blame white Americans for slavery, blamed gay marriage for the decline of Christianity, and attempted to slut-shame a woman seeking coverage for contraception -- stood out."
You may think that Trump's views on racism are not related to honoring Limbaugh with a Medal of Honor, the highest medal given out to civilians, but you are in the minority on this one. Gandydancer (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Fairly certain I am actually in the majority here as far as RS are concerned. Yes some cover it with that angle in mind, but most do not. We go by the majority of RS coverage of a certain even, and the majority do not support your assertion here. In fact if you look up the long story of his racial views written by others you will find him awarding Limbaugh a metal does not make the cut for examples cited. Also given this is in a section with, at this point, 41 subsections it is becoming quite the coatrack. We should really only be sticking to the most notable examples, which this clearly is not. PackMecEng (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Maybe the question can be approached in parts. Pack, do you believe that mainstream reporting and longtime presentation of Limabaugh is that he was a far-right who promoted and pandered to racist themes in the rise of his career? SPECIFICO talk 23:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Do you believe that we should be giving 41 examples and that this is one of the most important? That is the actual issue at hand. PackMecEng (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, it's not WP:COATRACK when the content is on-topic and reflects due weight. Any off-topic coatrack stuff in particular we should consider removing? Yes, I of think that several of his Medal of Freedom and State of the Union bits became causes celebres worthy of WP articles. We can always discuss which ones and priorities. SPECIFICO talk 23:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Are you saying this should perhaps become a list article? PackMecEng (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The sources, at least, treat it as an action as president that was relevant to Trump's racial views, which makes it worth mentioning briefly. From Vox: Limbaugh, recently diagnosed with late-stage lung cancer, has devoted his decades-long radio career to building an audience of millions of listeners with his brand of right-wing, xenophobic — and patently racist — populism that Trump borrowed on his rise to power. In other words, the fact that Trump honored Limbaugh isn't merely notable because of Limbaugh's appeals to racism, but because Trump's own rise to power was heavily modeled on this. In fact, we could probably expand the section into a more detailed discussion of the connection between Limbaugh and Trump, since numerous sources touch on it - eg. [2][3] (Limbaugh’s shtick on what he termed his EIB (Excellence in Broadcasting) Network may have been satire to millions, but countless others considered him to be a misogynistic, racist hatemonger who helped fuel the nation’s polarization into overdrive that paved the way for Trump’s 2016 election victory.), [4] When a Republican politician promoting racist and sexist policies could only use a dog whistle, Limbaugh provided a bull horn — he was, for example, an early progenitor of the racist birther conspiracy theory about Obama that Trump would later use to fuel his political career. There's significant sourcing that Limbaugh was a major predecessor to Trump's racial views and influential on his approach to racial issues. --Aquillion (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Remove it. In fact I am going to remove it. It was recently added, apparently because of Limbaugh's death, but IMO it does not belong here. Simply put, Trump is not responsible for everything Limbaugh ever said. Nobody is responsible for everything a friend of theirs believes. As for the Medal of Freedom, Trump awarded it several questionable people (Devin Nunes?? Jim Jordan???), but that does not imply that he agrees with or endorses everything that person believes. And it certainly does not say anything about Trump's "racial views". If somebody wants to write a section on "influence of Rush Limbaugh" or "influences on Trump's racial views" or some such section as Aquillion suggests, that might belong here. In fact I think it would be good to provide some background on who influenced his ideas (starting with his father?). But the fact that Trump gave Limbaugh a prestigious award says nothing about his (Trump's) racial views. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Melanie, I can't follow your thinking here. Nunes and Jordan were not known as racists so I can't figure out why you bring them up here. If you are looking for a comparison, Joe Arpaio would be a better choice. Arpaio is very well known as both a racist, among other things such as refusing to investigate abuse, including sexual abuse, of women and children, especially if they were undocumented. On the other hand he, like Nunes and Jordan, supported Trump whole heartedly and worked on his campaign. So Trump pardoned him even before he was sentenced. So it seems to me that using your thinking that action was not racist either since after all, he may not have agreed with Arpaio's racist actions? Gandydancer (talk) 12:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
My point is that even if he extended a pardon or an award to someone, that doesn't mean that he subscribed to everything that person says or thinks. If we honor George Washington, that doesn't mean that we approve of slaveholding. If we admire O. J. Simpson's football playing and agree that he belongs in the Hall of Fame, that doesn't mean we approve of everything he has done in his life. This attitude that "Trump honored Limbaugh, who was a racist, therefore Trump is a racist" does not stand up; it's pure guilt by association.
BTW if someone wants to create an article about Limbaugh's influence on Trump's racial views, here is a possible source: [5]. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
One difference however is that racist speech was viewed as central to Limbaugh's brand. Also, Trump used the State of the Union to highlight certain controversial figures. It's not like a quiet recognition. SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Like I said, I am not opposed to a section here that would analyze how Limbaugh's racial views and attitudes influenced Trump's, or encouraged Trump to follow where Limbaugh led in openly expressing controversial views. I am opposed to something that simply links Limbaugh's Medal of Freedom award to Trump's racial views. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC) BTW even more than racism, Limbaugh was notorious for his misogyny (Feminazi!) and anti-LBGTQ rhetoric (mocking people with AIDS). Does that mean that Trump is also a misogynist and for honoring Limbaugh? For that matter, Limbaugh was a drug addict; does that make Trump one? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I would answer Yes to the misogyny and anti-LGBTQ components, which are ideologies Trump himself has promoted to his voters. No to personal habits, grooming, etc. since this article is about "views" SPECIFICO talk 19:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I would also say yes to the misogyny and anti-LGBTQ components. Also, certainly important to mention, science considers drug addiction a chronic disease and not a moral failing. Gandydancer (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
It's been two days without further discussion. As it stands four editors believe that the material is appropriate while only two believe it should be removed. I am going to return the new material. Gandydancer (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2021

2601:441:4C00:59A0:A9CF:7904:5B11:DF51 (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

instead of "and by others because they harbor similar racist beliefs" could you change it to "and by others because they harbor similar beliefs" to make it sound a tiny bit more neutral, thanks

That does not seem more neutral. Just less specific. SPECIFICO talk 23:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Then establish any citation of his "racial beliefs" that they supposedly "harbor". You're entirely biased POV. It's not "less specific", it's more accurate. The sentence as is, is an unsourced lie. J1DW (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Bias

There is a heavy slant toward highlighting his "racially insensitive" statements and only a very light section on people defending him. This page is severely biased toward one view. 2600:8804:8B8F:9E00:94BF:B7AC:4699:EEB7 (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Lead sentence

The lead sentence was twice changed by one editor with no talk page engagement. This was a violation of the 24-hour BRD restriction and the editor declined to self-revert, so I have restored the status quo. SPECIFICO talk 23:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Biased Language

Listen, as I’ve said on the Trump page, I don’t like a Trump at all, but language such as “excused”, “harbor the same racist beliefs”, and “extremist” are not neutral by any means. Whether or not Trump’s align with mine does not excuse the legitimate biased sentiments that are being said in this article. Aardwolf68 (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Concerns such as this have been raised and rejected numerous times, because the article text is an accurate reflection of the WP:WEIGHT of reliable sources on the subject. Please review the talk page archives for details. The consensus text is longstanding and should not be changed without a new consensus to substitute different well-sourced, NPOV language. SPECIFICO talk 00:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Add that Trump said that whites supremacists/nationalists should "absolutely" be condemned.

In the same press conference in which Trump uttered the infamous "many sides comment" he also responded to a question asking if white supremacists/nationalists should be commended, to which his response was "absolutely." Although it can be debated that his response may not have been serious, some on the left may argue that, while those on the right may defend his original comment. Regardless, the statement is relevant to the understanding of the more famous "many sides" comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foward123456 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I think he was talking about the people who opposed the removal of the statue but were not racists.1 I don't like Trump, but I don't understand why people insist to mention this speech outside of the context to imply that he was expressing a positive view about white supremacists when he made it very clear, in the same speech, that he wasn't. Lucasdmca (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Please review previous discussion in the talk page archives. There is little support for your view. SPECIFICO talk 05:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
"There is little support for your view." This is a demonstrable lie. There is plenty of source material supporting the FACT (not view) that Trump condemned white supremacists and you're intentionally taking his statement out of context. You are being biased and deleting anyone that disagrees with your lies.
"and you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly."[1]

"There were very fine people on both sides, & I'm not talking about the Neo-nazis and white supremacists because they should be condemned totally." The two statements were separate, the second part coming later, after further questioning from reporters. [2]

"“We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides. On many sides.”..."“KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”"..."“I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups, but not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch.”"[3]

"THE FACTS: Trump is correct. On Monday, NBC News tweeted that Susan Bro, the mother of the counter-protester killed on Saturday, had thanked Trump for “denouncing those who promote violence and hatred.”[4]

These are from Politifact, USA Today, Factcheck, and PBS. Where are your sources? Before you suppress the truth and delete this again, where's YOUR citation that Trump didn't condemn white supremacists? J1DW (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


I brought this up before and included links to fact checkers of the time including Politifact that prove he was condemning white supremacists, but as you can see they deleted my comments here on the talk page and as flagrantly biased user "Specifico" says "There is little support for your view." i.e. he's a leftist and won't allow facts get in the way of trashing Trump. Even when there are multiple fact checking sources proving them wrong. They'll just delete this once again and go on lying. J1DW (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors. You can make your points ("focus on content") without accusing people of censorship, and lying. Sometime people make a judgement call on what they consider disruptive editing, and it's not unusual to remove those comments, especially if they contain personal attacks, such as your most recent comment here. It's not productive or conducive to editing. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I've made my point here. There are many sources countering the information in this article. Numerous fact checking sites have shown this story is missing context. The site should be changed. I made this point months ago without any personal attacks, and it was all inexplicably scrubbed and apparently people are still gatekeeping this misinformation. Is there any recourse for this? J1DW (talk) 04:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

It appears as though all but one user on this page has expressed support for adding that Trump said White Supremacists should "absolutely be condemned" along with his infamous "many sides comment." The fact that in the same speech he outright condemned white supremacy is a highly relevant piece of context that must be included. If no further dissents to this change are made I will edit the article to include this context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foward123456 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

What are you proposing to add to the page specifically? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I am proposing adding that Trump specifically denounced white nationalism and white supremacy in his 2017 comments on the unite the right rally. I reviewed all of the archived talk pages and found high levels of support for this idea. I believe that this is a fair inclusion of context to what he said. As you see above there is significant support for this in the current talk section for it, with only one dissent, and that dissent does not provide any reasoning (I just went through all of the archived talk pages). Would that be reasonable to include? Foward123456 (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
counter to what user @SPECIFICO stated, I did not find that adding this context has "little support" and (you can review the archives if you wish to confirm this, and the current talk page expresses support for it. Foward123456 (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/
  2. ^ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/17/fact-check-trump-quote-very-fine-people-charlottesville/5943239002/
  3. ^ https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-supremacists/
  4. ^ https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/ap-fact-check-trump-said-virginia-protesters

Hurricane Maria

Why isn't the part mentioned, where a warehouse in Puerto Rico was broken into, and the warehouse was full of unused aid being kept by the Puerto Rican Government ? The blame needs to go more towards the corrupt Puerto Rican Government, and not Trump. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:802:7F4B:B497:744E:66D7:AA36 (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see Mr. Trump mentioned in that article. What is the connection to his "racial views?" SPECIFICO talk 22:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

This was from the Wikipedia article on the page "Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York and others criticized the federal government and suggested that racism was partially to blame for the insufficient response." Aid was being sent to Puerto Rico by the Trump administration, but it was being kept hidden by the Puerto Rican Government. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:802:7F4B:B497:744E:66D7:AA36 (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ /https://abcnews.go.com/US/puerto-rico-distributes-supplies-left-rot-warehouse/story?id=68409678#:~:text=The%20aid%2C%20believed%20to%20have,a%20wave%20of%20angry%20protests.
  2. ^ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/puerto-rico-supplies-warehouse-governor-wanda-vazquez-fires-2-more-officials-over-viral-video-showing-aid-2020-01-19/

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2022

Change "Donald Trump, a former president of the United States, has a history of speech and actions that have been viewed by scholars and the public as racist or white supremacist." to "Donald Trump, a former president of the United States, has a history of speech and actions that have been viewed by some scholars and members the public as racist or white supremacist." or something along those lines. I would like this change because, obviously, certain members of the public and scholars do think he's racist, and some don't. The way its currently phrased is very, broad, and even a little vague or misleading. 151.188.25.140 (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done WP:WEASEL, not sufficiently uncontroversial to add without consensus. Dronebogus (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Yoweri Museveni

He currently appears in the article twice, for a single set of comments that he made... AnonMoos (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Post-presidency section for this article?

Just wondering if there should be a post-presidency section for this article?
Trump's recent comments about Mitch McConnell's wife, Elaine Chow, who was born in Taiwan, come to mind.
Trump recently said: "He has a DEATH WISH. Must immediately seek help and advise [sic] from his China loving wife, Coco Chow!" And there are of course numerous reliable sources discussing the potential anti-Asian racism that is hinted at here. Thanks everyone. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

And that he keeps calling black people racist on an almost daily basis. 68.198.151.24 (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Missing context

Alot of the "racist" comments quoted in here are taken out of context and are not racist or hateful if you heard or read the whole speech. This needs a serious overhaul 76.73.249.94 (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Context

Every quote is not in proper context. Even MSM has published these in their entirety. Also, trump only joined politics in 2014 ish. So I'm not sure how they enacted the restriction. Seems pretty underhanded to allow false or partial information about these quotes from much longer speeches to be input and then use that as a reason to yell racism. Journalism is reporting the truth no matter who likes it. There is no journalism here. This is propaganda from the left. 76.73.249.94 (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

You have not pointed to a single quote that you think is problematic. And, what does when he joined politics matter? Are you saying that people who lynched blacks for looking at a white woman were not racist because they were not politicians? And yes, "Journalism is reporting the truth no matter" whether or not you like it. You will need to explain this more clearly. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2023

Trump didn't say that Mexican immigrants are bringing drugs or are rapists. In that case he was talking about gang members from MS13. That part should be deleted or atleast this fact should be specified. Emreinfelds (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Holy revisionist history, Batman! May I remind you of what Trump actually said? “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 rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” He said "Mexico", not "MS-13". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
HOLY IGNORANT WIKI EDITOR Batman, you forgot the part after that statement "But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people." Quote Time https://time.com/3923128/donald-trump-announcement-speech/ Greggrag (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Secondly dont use the Washington Post article as a source due to very heavy left wing bias and misinformation / quote mining for narrative purposes Greggrag (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

commiSSion

Correct: "commision" to "commission". 79.20.213.132 (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Miner Editor (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Ugh. 😶 2600:6C58:7F:D1BA:89E6:DE50:9CD1:717 (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Central Park 5

In the article it implies that Trump still supports the convictions. Actually Trump refused to apologize for running his full page ad. And he thinks the city should not have settled the wrongful prosecution lawsuit. It should be pointed out that the lawsuit was not settled until de Blasio was elected. Were they innocent of course but at the time you had five confessions and yes they were improperly obtained confessions but that doesn't mean Trump should apologize for an ad requesting that the death penalty brought back. Regardless of how you feel about Trump the current wording seems to make it seem that he supported their convictions. He didn't support their convictions he supported the fact that he didn't feel he should apologize for an ad he took out based on his knowledge at the time. Hold him accountable for that don't imply that he still thought they were guilty without at least a quote to that specific fact. 2604:CA00:10A:C036:0:0:1068:F01E (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Revision

you need to remove / edit the "When Mexico" part because it is out of context because it didn't include the statement after it "But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people." Quote Time https://time.com/3923128/donald-trump-announcement-speech Greggrag (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

What is the reliable source that Mexico has "sent" anyone? Who are these border guards, and why we would care what an anonymous or even named border guard says? O3000, Ret. (talk) O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
First im just finishing the rest of the quote that most people haven't heard about secondly guard is plural meaning 2 or more guards have seen or heard about the statistics thirdly not being named could be just because of privacy fourthly the amount of gangs in Mexico is quite large and a lot have ties to the various crimes. 47.202.50.36 (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
here is a Washington Post article for proof https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/mexico-losing-control/mexico-violence-drug-cartels-zacatecas/ 47.202.50.36 (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
If "most people haven't heard" the rest of the quote, how is it WP:DUE to include it? People can recite the "they're not sending us their best ... and some, I assume, are good people" part from memory. The WaPo article isn't relevant to this page as it contains no info on Trump's racial views. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion just replying to the other guy 47.202.50.36 (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Well some times people misremeber look at the "Luke I am your father" and the WAPO has some very bias journalists so of course they will quote mine 47.202.50.36 (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
well I sent the link to the full transcript by time seen here https://time.com/3923128/donald-trump-announcement-speech 47.202.50.36 (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
which people can quoted it though, I linked the full transcript and you are showing bias right now and not accepting though breaking WP:DUE, a retired wiki editor is being more engaged then you right now such a shame here is more evidence/sources https://www.p2016.org/trump/trump061615sp.html 47.202.50.36 (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Because the article mentions a CIA report the Mexican cartels control 20 percent of Mexico 47.202.50.36 (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
That would belong on a different Wikipedia page. Trump is not related to these cartels. SPECIFICO talk 20:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
well that ties back to another comment from RET 03000 so sorry for the confusion 47.202.50.36 (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
I have never seen any reliable source say that Mexico has sent a single immigrant to the US. They come from many countries on their own for many reasons. That's part of why this statement by Trump is in this article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes that would be like saying the Americans send swarms to Disney World. SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Firstly Disney World is very over-rated, Secondly politics are very complex and intricate so its could be for a multitude of reasons 47.202.50.36 (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Well I what about this
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/06/world/americas/a-mexican-manual-for-illegal-migrants-upsets-some-in-us.html 47.202.50.36 (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Currently, most immigrants crossing the Southern border are from Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Cuba, Venezuela, Haiti, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Colombia -- not Mexico. Most must cross through Mexico. Nowhere does your article claim Mexico is "sending" people to the US. The last time I can think of where a country did so was the Mariel boatlift from Cuba in 1980. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Well they did assist illegal immigration with the pamphlets and during the time of the article illegal immigration among Mexicans were higher than this year not to mention the LA bestia train and the lack of Mexico's response during the most the of the 21 century 47.202.50.36 (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Well that is one view. Another is that we are supposed to allow these people into the US to claim asylum and the US is violating its own laws. But, that is not relevant to this article and this is WP:NOTAFORUM. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Well the point is I debunked the whole statement of Trump's racism during that whole escapade of his racism by bringing out the whole transcript which led to this giant debate / forum which I answered each of your counter arguments 47.202.50.36 (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

No Solid Facts on anything?

Unsourced BLP disparagement SPECIFICO talk 16:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

After reading everything here, why are there no solid facts on any of these racist statements? All of them are just "I think he is racist" statements. Unlike Biden, who has come out publicly saying he doesn't like African Americans many times. 75.108.219.37 (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

There are 475 references to this article. The vast majority of them provide clear examples of Trumps racial viewpoint. If you can't see it...well... Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 11:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Also, if what you claim about Joe Biden is factually accurate, then an article on Racial views of Joseph Biden seems in order. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 10:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
The number of sources don't matter. None point to objective evidence that Trump's racist; rather, they simply express opinions and spins, mostly from democrat supporters with a political agenda, that he is racist. This seems like an article that would be more at home on a democrat campaign or anti-Trump website than a supposed encyclopedia. Trump has explicitly denounced racism, white supremacy and Neo-Nazis, but that is not enough for these people. Meanwhile, before Biden became the democrat nominee, you did have liberal organizations, like The Center for American Progress, criticizing Biden for his 1994 crime bill that disproportionately hurt black Americans. His 1993 speech in which he called for tough laws and sentencing had been criticized for using racist dog whistles. He was criticized for his opposition to desegregation and school busing, and for his work with racist Strom Thurmond. This is a man who has had political power for decades and has used it in a way that hurt black people the most. Where is the article on the racial views of Joe Biden and how they actually hurt black Americans? It doesn't exist. Instead, you have an article on opinions presented as facts on Trump's alleged racism. Even if he was racist, his views never actually hurt black Americans since he never had political power until 2016. When he did get that power, he enacted The First Step Act, which helped black Americans most. Not sure a racist would do that. I am not a Trump or a Biden supporter. I just call out hypocrisy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D08:D17F:3800:4622:8055:6A3:AA60 (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Cheung quote

Neutrality I prefer the longer quote because Cheung says it's not merely "normal" but pervasive every day and anyone who doesn't know that is crazy. It's gaslighting to normalize what is definitely not normal, at least not from a former and prospective president. soibangla (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  • I agree with you as a normative matter, but as a stylistic and practical matter, if we include the longer quote, we would likely need to include some sort of rebuttal of the "normal" point, and that would length the article. Do we need to get to that level of detail? Neutralitytalk 16:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
doesn't the last sentence serve as a rebuttal, at least obliquely? soibangla (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
To make clear that it is a rebuttal, I would suggest to put the Hitler bit before Greenblatt's statement. Then I would include the longer quote. SPECIFICO talk 17:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Happy to yield to your preferences. Neutralitytalk 18:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

No support for this comment / Debate

(Section 1) Trump continued to state, as late as 2019,[12][13] that a group of black and Hispanic teenagers were guilty of the 1989 rape of a white woman in the Central Park jogger case, despite the five males having been officially exonerated in 2002


Nowhere in the supporting documents can I find a statement where Trump said they were guilty he did say they weren't angels. A group of 30 teenagers another young adults enter the park that night to commit various assaults and robberies. The Central Park five were part of that group. While they didn't rape the jogger they we're part of that large group.

That's the thing Trump is referring to about them not being innocent. It wasn't meant to convey that they weren't innocent of the rape it was that they weren't innocent of other wrongdoing that night. Everyone just happens to forget about this because the only case that mattered was the rape case. 2604:CA00:10A:C036:0:0:1068:F01E (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

(Section 1) According to those two sources, citations 12 and 13, when Trump was asked about it in 2019, he said "Why do you bring that question up now? It's an interesting time to bring it up. You have people on both sides of that. They admitted their guilt. If you look at Linda Fairstein and you look at some of the prosecutors, they think that the city should never have settled that case, so we'll leave it at that." That's pretty clearly him refusing to change his previous statements. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Well the opinion of Linda Fairstein is that Reyes committed sexual assualt while the Central Park Five beaten the victim note https://www.cbsnews.com/news/central-park-rape-convictions-tossed/ Greggrag (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
After the first appeal, Appellate court judge Vito Titone said in an interview, "I was concerned about a criminal justice system that would tolerate the conduct of the prosecutor, Linda Fairstein, who deliberately engineered the 15-year-old's confession. ... Fairstein wanted to make a name. She didn't care. She wasn't a human."[6]
That article was 21 years ago. We don't know her opinion now. Nor does it matter as the court eventually ruled otherwise. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Well she still keeps her opinion in a 2019 WSJ article written 9 days before Trump opinion of on the case on the 19th please note the article is paywalled and only have the wiki description to go after. 47.202.50.36 (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Also the Victim and some Medical doctors disagree with the notion of Meyes testimony of him being the only attacker as recently as 2019 with different injuries from his testimony being reported and different hand print sizes and comsidering that Meyes testimony and semen DNA was what got them out prison and now that if investigators were to go do an investigation their would be public outcry so I would think it would fair to remove is from this page because racism is not the full picture
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/case-settled-1989-central-park-jogger-believes-person/story?id=63077131 47.202.50.36 (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
If you are suggesting that the Central Park Five were guilty, you are way out of line and engaging in an egregious WP:BLP violation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Sorry I am not use to the rules, I was pointing out your linked quote "Why do you bring that question up now? It's an interesting time to bring it up. You have people on both sides of that. They admitted their guilt. If you look at Linda Fairstein and you look at some of the prosecutors, they think that the city should never have settled that case, so we'll leave it at that." that Trump was listening to the other opinions of the Victim, Doctors, and Feinstein. I was being impartial to their other side of their story I am being an impartial researcher and backed my evidence with sources to understand the full context of the quote 47.202.50.36 (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for repeating Trump's horrific statement. None of the five confessed to rape. The confessions they made did not agree with each other or the crime scene and were retracted shortly after they got out of the hands of the interrogators. False confessions are not unusual, particularly after hours of interrogation of teenagers with no lawyer or parent present. [7] Neither the victim or the doctors identified any of the CP Five. A forensic pathologist who testified at the 1990 trial and the New York City's chief medical examiner in 2002 said it was not possible to say how many people were involved. DAs and prosecutors rarely admit error. The only physical evidence was the semen of Mr. Reyes, not the CP5. The court ruled and the case was not retried. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
to be fare the Victim couldn't remember via her quote 'I know I have no memory but I wanted people to know the condition that I had been in.'" Don't forget she had intense brain damage from unknown assailant. And the police officer was interviewed years later and his perspective and testimony with an interview with the Daily Mail during June 28 2019 and brought up counterpoints and supposed evidence not refuted at and their interviews are online and all 37 boys were interviewed https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7176075/amp/How-Netflix-filled-lies-claims-lead-cop-Central-Park-Five-case.html
Note I know the Daily Mail may not be allowed as a source but this an interview.
I also note this interview was just primarily for the Netflix adaptation of it but contains details of the case as well
Final note I am not concluding that they are guilty but rather the point that their are people with perspectives that state that their are still possible evidence but its is still up in the air and the lack of parent / lawyer was terrible decision via the police 47.202.50.36 (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
And also a pubic hair of Reyes was found on the victims sock as well 47.202.50.36 (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
And the statics of false confession of juveniles without parent or lawyer are high so that's almost fair point quoted 47.202.50.36 (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Also the Victim and some Medical doctors disagree with the notion of Meyes testimony of him being the only attacker as recently as 2019 with different injuries from his testimony being reported and different hand print sizes and comsidering that Meyes testimony and semen DNA was what got them out prison and now that if investigators were to go do an investigation their would be public outcry so I would think it would fair to move this section from Racial views to 47.202.50.36 (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
And the article you sourced is almost 21 years ago as and the person behind the statement has been dead for 18 years so its unknown what perspective he would have today 47.202.50.36 (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Our article is being kind.[8] O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
If anything, this article downplays the significance of Trump's conduct in this incident. He already had established himself as the NYC tabloid jester-of-the-moment, so he had lots of attention. But this was when respected commentary noted that he was not an ordinary clown, but rather that he had a nasty rotten core. SPECIFICO talk 18:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
please stop personal opinions I'm just talking about facts 47.202.50.36 (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
And I just stated facts that appear to be unfamiliar to you. Read half a dozen books about Trump and you will see what I mean. SPECIFICO talk 13:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Well validated or not I just care about facts not opinion 47.202.50.36 (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
What books did you read 47.202.50.36 (talk) 13:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
that person probably cant read. Im 63, and trumps been a public figure for at least 50 years. I remember trump warmly greeting Oprah, Whoopie, Mike Tyson and Michael Jackson(back when MJ was still black) a fun charismatic guy. Back when trump was a democrat, wealthy black americans loved trump. They didnt start in on this racism bullshit until after trump came down the escalaror announcing his candidacy for the republican party. Overnight the view of the left switched from friendly to hostile, with ceveral centrists like Mike Tyson criticized for not calling out trump. I also remember Kamala Harris lying that she grew up poor. Her mother is in americas top 10% and her father was top 5%, but she called Biden a racist on the campaign, then was best friends as Vice President.
The left weaponizes racism nonst 2600:387:15:2E10:0:0:0:4 (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Actually, I'm 74 and have lived in the same voting district as Trump when he came down that escalator for decades. Yes, he hung out with celebrities. But, the opinion of NYers was always negative toward him. However, our opinions and experiences are completely irrelevant here. And, do not post things like "that person probably can't read." WP:CIV WP:NOTFORUM (Somebody is welcome to remove or hat both our posts.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Reverts

@SPECIFICO: We CANNOT include everything with any sort of relation to the subject. Per WP:TOOBIG, articles over 15k words should be trimmed. This article is oversized to a point where it becomes difficult to read and difficult for less powerful devices (especially mobile devices) to load. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, I don't know what narrative you think I am trying to push, but I'm not trying to push any POV. I'm simply shortening an article that is too long, for the reasons stated above. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Please be more careful not to publish WP:ASPERSIONS about other editors, e.g. me. I have no opinion as to why you edit here. Too long is not a content policy. NPOV is policy, and it dominates that dubious length guideline. If you care deeply about your proposed edits, you may advocate for them here on talk. SPECIFICO talk 00:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Let's start with the David Duke section. The important information is covered in the section about Trump's support from white supremacists. Also, much of the information would fit chronologically in the 2016 Campaign section and not the Pre-Presidency section. Also, when almost all of it uses one WaPo article as the source, giving it an entire 6-paragraph subsection is UNDUE. Why do you support keeping it? QuicoleJR (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: Please answer the question. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: Could you please answer my concerns? QuicoleJR (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
It's up to you to gain support for changing lonstanding content, and you have failed to do so. SPECIFICO talk 21:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I understand that, but what are your specific objections to the removal of poorly-sourced, misplaced, redundant content? QuicoleJR (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Could you please engage with my concerns about the content of the article instead of stonewalling the discussion? QuicoleJR (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I have not seen any support for your proposal here. I don't respond to ASPERSIONS. SPECIFICO talk 01:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
I will respond to this after my vacation. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: We are the only two people involved in this discussion. Neither of us have any support at the moment. If you agree, I would be fine with using WP:3O to solve the disputes about my various content removals. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
With no support for the changes, it is moot. SPECIFICO talk 20:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: How about we use WP:3O to solve this dispute? It is made for situations just like this, where two editors disagree and there is nobody else involved. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Seems to me far too much content has been removed. But I can't engage at the moment as busy IRL. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Admittedly, I probably should have waited between removals. Still, if you have time later, can you take a look and give me your thoughts? Even if they were bad changes, I would like to know why. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Harris citizenship denial is not strictly a conspiracy theory

I think Trump's statements on Kamala Harris' citizenship rights is misrepresented as a 'conspiracy theory'. I think it's more accurate to call it 'denial'. There's no claim that people are lying or covering up any facts related to her citizenship (unlike with the Birther conspiracy theory targeting Obama). The attack is based purely on a fabricated legal interpretation. This has some similarity to a conspiracy theory, but there is no suggestion of an actual conspiracy. AdamChrisR (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump/Archive_9&oldid=1256618587"