Talk:Raj Shah

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Raj Shah article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Connecticut Low‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments

“Certain Washington politicians choose to fight for foreign countries, but President Trump will always fight for the American people,” said Raj Shah, because those are 'shithole countries' as the president said himself. By that very definition, India is also a shithole country. How daft can you be?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/11/trump-pans-immigration-proposal-as-bringing-people-from-shithole-countries

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42656433

Reverts by these Republican users, bias confirmed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Corkythehornetfan, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jpgordon

It's now been quoted by BBC as well. 69.158.179.57 (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What, specifically (as in text) do you propose adding to the article? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A 'controversy' section, in line with Wiki policies, as the comment is properly sourced and attributed. Although I'm not sure how to word it, as I don't have the time right now, so I'll leave it here in case anyone is up to this task. Possibly a mention of wilful ignorance, complacency, enabling POTUS, sycophancy; duplicity even. Although those may seem extreme or 'subjective' to some demographics, they represent the facts of this matter. For now however, a talk page reference will suffice. 65.92.116.110 (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV will come into play here. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. It was a bit of sarcasm. However, those statements are not 'biased', they represent obvious facts about 'his refusal to directly address the question' (there ought not to be a problem with this statement in the slightest). But, I still don't think any of the previous statements are editorial either, they simply state the obvious. 'NPOV' does not mean 'without criticism', it simply requires a stating of the facts as evident from the context; that's not 'editorial', it's factual. 184.146.142.6 (talk) 04:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]