Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Query on quality

I realize this will go nowhere, but I have to ask: are the editors who have been working on this "article" satisfied with the quality (or lack thereof)?

• After several read-throughs, I still cannot make heads or tales about the definitive subject of this article; Accusations of Donald Trump's racism, Opinions on Donald Trump's racism, and Times when Donald Trump was thought to be racist seem like more accurate titles. I just would expect Trump's views, not the media's, to be the focus of this article.
• Since no other "article" like this exists on any other president, Abraham Lincoln and slavery, chiefly his views on African-Americans, seemed like the closest thing to compare this to. Amazingly, it has the views from the subject of the article and is to-the-point.
• Why does a neutral article need "Defenses of Donald Trump" if it is, supposedly, representing his own racial views?

Like I said, I no this will go nowhere; quality has not been a concern for these types of "articles" for awhile. I considered trying to fix this "article", but it is just a train-wreck on a subject that deserves better effort, hopefully from editor(s) who can actually write an encyclopedic article. Disclaimer: I am not here defending Trump's ignorance; I am just saddened when lacking quality becomes routine procedure.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Correct. At AfD, it was concluded that this article should not be a mere WP:ATTACK page, and that Trump's actual views should be emphasized rather than only opinions from others. It has been however very hard to make progress, with a recent discussion even denying that Trump's utterance in his inauguration speech that "black, brown or white [people] bleed the same red blood" had anything to do with race. Can't really keep AGF after that. More recently, a proposal to change the title to Accusations of racism against Donald Trump resulted in no consensus, although that would match the current article contents much more accurately. I hope that with time, we can indeed write an encyclopedically valid article about Trump's race-related words and actions. — JFG ^talk 18:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

NPOV requires the criticism side to be represented as well, and there is no better place to put it. Assuming the article does so, "accusations" is wrong on two counts. It misrepresents the article content, which is not limited to criticism, and it implies that the criticism is mostly unfounded. The neutral and sufficiently vague title is Donald Trump and racism, as I and others have suggested in two RMs. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree that an NPOV article would have to give due weight to criticism of Trump; the only problem today is that "due weight" is equated to "100% weight", and that's not neutral, whichever way you slice it. The lead sentence in itself has quite an WP:AGENDA. On the article title, your suggestion is as good as some others. I do hope that a future RM can get enough support, because the current title does not remotely match article contents. — JFG ^talk 21:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

So here we have, yet again, a complaint. An unconstructive rejection of the article title -- which is demonstrably the best we've been able to come up with after airing all the difficult issues. Gentlemen and ladies of the jury, I submit there's no reason for anyone to continue sharing their heartfelt distress unless they are prepared to offer a better alternative. Because as soon as anyone does propose a better title, it will blaze on to consensus and everyone will be happy hippo. SPECIFICO talk 21:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick, quite frankly, according to uninvolved people far removed from WP with whom I've conversed, this article is an embarrassment to the project. While readers who oppose Trump's political views may believe everything that's published about Trump's racial views in op-eds and political commentaries, I believe it turns away far more readers than it attracts, and that should be of concern to all. Veteran editors at both AfD and NPOV/N have acknowledged the article has NPOV issues. Most of it occurs through the ommission of Trump's actual views which the same few editors refuse to give weight because it doesn't support their POV regardless of how many sources support it as I have already demonstrated by citing many different sources. It's pretty easy to lend a lot of weight to a particular POV when all you search for and cite are biased RS that support the same POV while excluding opposing views, often with claims of unreliability. Reliability depends on WP:RSCONTEXT. I went back in time to see what was reported about the actual incidents being mentioned as Trump's history of racially charged remarks and racially motivated actions, and what MSM reported back then is nothing like what they've been reporting since he announced his candidacy. Surprise, surprise. I'm certainly not alone in thinking this article is far too one-sided, but from what I've gleaned from some of the comments I've read, it's apparent there's a reason for sticking with a particular POV as evidenced in this diff. You are certainly welcome to join in the discussions and express your views when you can. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Really? The people I know who are far removed from WP with whom I've conversed think this article is great.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Awwww...how sweet! I believe the old adage is, "flattery will get you everywhere", especially if one happens to have a unicorn zit others pretend not to notice. Well, at least one-half of our readers will maintain some level of interest while others search for alternatives. That's what tends to happen when NPOV falls through the cracks. If Trump hadn't come along, I sometimes wonder how much longer print media moguls would have lasted, considering they were pretty much on their last leg. Glad I got out of that business when I did. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM O3000 (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Atsme thank you for the invitation, but I only work on articles that have potential and benefit readers. This is a news and recentism issue; why else do you think articles like this do not exist for any other president -- say Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, or LBJ -- where their racial views are actually analyzed in academic sources? Perhaps I can be convinced a seperate article on Trump's racial views is due, but I do not want anyone sitting back and telling me an effort to be neutral was made here. The best course of action, currently, would be to analyze his views in the Donald Trump article and delete this. But I realize editors worked "so hard" to slab this together so I understand that is unrealistic.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Then the argument would be that such an extensive - or even a summary - analysis would be UNDUE in the main Donald Trump article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Across the political spectrum

MrX recently reverted here from the changes made by Birtig here. Stating "Challenged - Restoring long-standing wording that is both accurate and less awkward sounding." which I am not sure I agree with. Birtig's rational was "'across the political spectrum' is too sweeping based on a limited number of examples. 'of different political standpoints' is more appropriate." which seem entirely reasonable. Time for discussion! PackMecEng (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

"different political standpoints" is ambiguous and awkward. Different than what? The previous version was much better. As an alternative, I would support the following wording:

"... that have led many observers to conclude that he is racist." There are plenty of observers who's political leaning are unknown to us. - MrX 🖋 15:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Propose title change to "Controversies involving race and Donald Trump"

Such a title would avoid editorializing but keep the essence of what the article is about.Atrix20 (talk) 08:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Matters such as the proposed inclusion of his Palm Beach clubs racial inclusion are not really controversies. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I would support a title like this, though it might be hard to get the community to back this since other recent title changes proposals have been unsuccessful. Examples commonly used to "disprove" the argument that Trump is racist (Palm Beach clubs, pictures of Trump with black people, etc.) could be moved to a section like the current "Defenses of Donald Trump" section. ^Falling_Gravity 20:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

But they are not defenses nor disproving the proposed titular controversies, they are a separate part of Trumps racial views. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

That's why I put quotation marks around "disprove". The section could just be dedicated to defenses and counter-examples. ^Falling_Gravity 03:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

This gets us into a lot of Original Research as to what events or public statements are "controversy". I think it's best to let the current title have some more time. SPECIFICO talk 20:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

You have a point, tho maybe if several newspapers of record deem something to be a controversy, it could be accepted as such here.Atrix20 (talk) 07:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Yup, and that's why my suggestion is Donald Trump and racial issues as a simpler and more neutral name for the article. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I second that potential title. Tho I might like "Donald Trump and race related issues" because "racial" might suggest a side in this.Atrix20 (talk) 07:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

There doesn't have to be original research to determine if something is controversial and probably race-related. If a Reliable Source determines that something is controversial, then it probably could be included. ^Falling_Gravity 22:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

But "controversy" is not the extent of the topic. What if there's no controversy -- like the Jesse Jackson office lease or mocking the Muslim gold star parents? Were there controversies about those? SPECIFICO talk 22:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Islam is not a race or ethnicity and his remarks regarding the Khans had nothing to do with skin color or ethnicity.Atrix20 (talk) 07:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. And "Jesse Jackson" is not a race. "Patriot blood" is not a race. "Neo-nazi" is not a race, etc etc. Mexican is not a race. Nothing is a race, actually, according to current academic discourse. SPECIFICO talk 15:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@ Atrix20 - Skin tone, religion, ethnicity, culture and even nation of origin all get mix together in these discussions of race as these are concepts, biases and prejudices pass down from the past, long before we knew there was only one race - human. Many people still use these antiquated terms and hold to these outdated value systems that place one 'race' above another as noted by someone stating they have superior genes as to the reasons for their current success and wealth. Just because these are not rational views, does not make them valid for the people that hold them. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Right. But editors who seek to water down or eliminate the information in this article cannot hang their hats on some claim that we do not properly define "racial". The article includes various forms of group-based identity bias that are commonly, but not rigorously defined as "racial" --- This is an appropriate, and likely the only -- approach to take here. Quibbling over the definition is just hobbling progress on the article. SPECIFICO talk 16:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

If editors want to include all different 'group-based identity bias', maybe the title of this article should be 'Trump and group-based identity bias'. But if it is to be about race, it should only deal with race, and not also religious based prejudices. Birtig (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Birt, your comment still begs the question as to "controversies", which is the main point of this proposal. SPECIFICO talk 18:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

'Group-based identity' is the very basis of the definition of 'race', such as the Celtic or Jewish race which often includes religion, along with physical characteristics and other social distinguishing factors. The entire concept of 'Race', like many older prejudicial concepts was not well thought through or very scientific and are lacking a fully reasoned scope of usage, even going back to discussions of 'race' in the 1840s, these flaws in the concept were being pointed to by intellectuals. Thus to be arguing though these points now, is not helpful to the article. Look up the definition of 'race' and all it's forms, then it will help to understand why certain items are included on this article. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump and racism. Anyway, the way to propose a controversial title change is WP:RM. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Not everything is quiet, 'racism' so thus I argue for the more general term 'racial issues' to better include the scope of the article as it currently stands. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

NPOV tag for lead

I've added the NPOV lead tag because this article has been challenged over its NPOV issues, and there is an open discussion at NPOV/N. I took the advice of editors, and will attempt to address the issues one section at a time starting with the lead since that shows up in Google Searches. In addition to the first sentence of the lead, the last paragraph is problematic, possibly even a BLP violation. To include allegations such as "his supporters harbor similar racial sentiments" is not unlike calling a large portion of US citizens racist and that is unacceptable. The inclusion of such a racist statement in combination with the rest of the sentence is also SYNTH. The sources cited include a CNN political commentary and The Nation which considers itself a social justice advocacy, not the kind of exceptional sources for such an exceptional claim as required by our PAGs. In reviewing both articles, I could not find anything that supports the material included in the lead. ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

PROPOSED that the following be removed from the lead:

Trump's racially insensitive statements have been condemned by many observers in the U.S. and around the world, but excused by his supporters either as a rejection of political correctness or because they harbor similar racial sentiments.

References
References

.Survey

• REMOVE - it is SYNTH and a possible BLP vio. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
• Remove only the last part of the sentence ("but excused by his supporters either as a rejection of political correctness[4][5] or because they harbor similar racial sentiments.") which indeed violates WP:OR and is not a significant point already covered in the body of the article.- MrX 🖋 13:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC) (ETA "only" 19:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC))
• Keep and Keep tail and Remove NPOV Template - Atsme, your epic thread at NPOV/N ended up going nowhere and with all the verbiage here, you have not shared with us how this sentence could possibly by called "SYNTH" or "OR" for that matter. "Either...or", if we're going to be logical about things, means that either the either or the or could be empty -- but RS clearly verify the statement and need not be fully cited in the lede. Elaborating on it in the lede would be clunky and awkward. I could see replacing "excused" with "accepted" or "encouraged" if you wish to propose some little tweakies. Anyway, please remove the POV crown you placed on top of the page. SPECIFICO talk 14:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
• Remove - Atsme and MrX make convincing and reasonable points on Synth and OR. It should be removed. PackMecEng (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
• Remove the last part per MrX Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
• Disruptive beating of a dead horse. Just stop.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Is that a vote or WP:IDONTLIKEIT? PackMecEng (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• Partial remove – as per MrX. The first part of the sentence certainly belongs in this article as it’s well established in RS and what the article is about. The last part is true; but argumentative and unnecessary. (Also agree that the NPOV tag shouldn’t have been added.) O3000 (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
• Remove per Atsme. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
• Keep first part, remove second part. Or start a real RfC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Keep or start RFC and provide coherent reasons for removing reactions of Trump's base. Agree that "accepted" might be an improvement. zzz (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Reword the first sentence to something like "many observers in the U.S. and around the world have condemned Trump's statements as racially insensitive," to avoid saying "racially insensitive" in Wikipedia's voice. What's considered racially insensitive to some, may not be seen as racially insensitive to others, even among members of the same race. Obviously those condemning believe they are racially insensitive, so the sentence could easily be reworded. The second part is SYNTHy to the point that I say remove, unless we have a source that lists the main reasons Trump's supporters defend his various comments, not just the two cherry-picked reasons. ^Falling_Gravity 02:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Please use this section to discuss to avoid cluttering up the Survey section. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO - please use this discussion to air your grievances. I'm not going to respond in detail; rather, I will point you to WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH because, in retrospect, you accused MPants at work of "describing OR and a SYNTH presentation of editor-cherrypicked primary content..." when neither were involved, and now that OR and SYNTH are blatantly obvious, you deny it, not to mention the fact that the sources does not support such a racial slur against nearly half the people in the US. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

If you're going waste your time disparaging all the editors who question your undocumented and spurious recitation of OR, SYNTH, POV, and other inapplicable violations of policy, you will be very busy indeed. A request for documentation of your concern is not a "grievance" -- it's a supportive approach that signifies I and others would be willing yet again to consider your view if you can explain it. SPECIFICO talk 15:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the tag and it's highly disruptive to add it just because you failed to get consensus in any discussion you started. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is a thing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Chaos - OK guys, not surprisingly (because it happens "every.time" we have splintered the !vote section. Folks are saying "Remove" per MrX but MrX appears to say "Remove" only the tail of the part that Atsme's "Remove" actually wants to remove. So let's all go back and do "Remove" "Remove tail" or "Keep". Otherwise we'll have to have a formal RfC and wait a month. SPECIFICO talk 18:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

This is why we need to follow proper procedure and conduct a proper RfC, rather than these idiotic and disruptive "straw polls".Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Repeated denial in lede

The lede includes two almost identical quotes by Trump denying that he is racist. FallingGravity removed the second one, stating "repeated quotation", and SPECIFICO reverted, saying that the lede can and should repeat article contents, in particular in BLP cases where the denial "protects the denier". That is not the issue that FallingGravity attempted to correct. Trump's denial is already mentioned in the first lede paragraph, and therefore does not need repeating later in the lede. Can we agree to remove the second quote? — JFG ^talk 09:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

No need for two near identical quotes in the lead. We can however say things like he has repeatedly denied it. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

That sounds good for the lede. Then the denials with various wordings can stay down in the article section. SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

First sentence

The very first sentence basically says Trump has definitely made racist remarks and makes racist policies, no qualification, no indication who thinks that, just straight in with a fact. It then follows that this certain fact has caused people to think he a racist.
Donald Trump, the President of the United States, has a history of making racially-charged remarks and pursuing racially-motivated actions and policies that have led observers across the political spectrum to conclude that he is racist.
I think this can be improved upon, something that is worded netrually would perhaps be an improvement. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Racially charged is not the same as racist and is used by RS. Probably need to cut racially-motivated, don't think we have the sourcing for that Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The current version is better in my view, and has been extensively discussed. However, we should consider removing the last phrase "... that have led observers across the political spectrum to conclude that he is racist." per WP:RACIST.- MrX 🖋 15:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that would be a decent start. I might even go as far as removing "and pursuing racially-motivated actions and policies that have led observers with different political standpoints to conclude that he is racist." But that maybe to broad for the content and sources in the article. PackMecEng (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Mr X on removing that wording, mainly because this is supposed to be about Donald Trump's views, rather than Donald Trump.

My complaint is that it says his remarks are racially charged without specifying who thinks/says that. I am sure some people must disagree, and this probably includes Trump and most the white house staff. The second part of the sentence which says it's "observers across the political spectrum" that have concluded he is racist is a good example of something being qualified.

I am also not sure what exactly the supposed difference between "racist" and "racially charged" and so forgive me if I don't have that spot on, I have looked for a definition but can't find one. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, the article is about Trump's 45 year history of racially-charged remarks and racially-motivated actions. "Racial views" is simply shorthand for that.- MrX 🖋 16:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

We could say "that has led critics, some of whom are democrats, some of whom are republicans, some of whom are left, some of whom are right, etc. but the "accross the spectrum" is lede-worthy summary of the article content. And it doesn't need a specific source that stated "across the spectrum" in the lede when the spectrum is cited in the article. Anyway, anyone who continues to be troubled by the spectrum could simply add a citation from the many RS that say exactly that. SPECIFICO talk

• That bit is fine in my opinion, although it could be removed per Mr X's reasoning. Consider:

Donald Trump, the President of the United States, has a history of making racially-charged remarks and pursuing racially-motivated actions and policies.

Donald Trump, as the President of the United States, has a history of making remarks and pursuing actions and policies which observers across the political spectrum have described as racially charged.

Followed if applicable by the statement that Trump is considered racist. Which do you think is more neutral? Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Current wording is fine, and brand new accounts who seem to have been created with extensive Wikipedia knowledge ex nihilo should at least make a pretense at acquiring more experience on non-controversial articles before they jump in here with both feet.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Nice to know my knowledge is considered extensive. Perhaps I should explain: SPECIFICO posted some discretionary sanction templates on my talk page. I checked to see what he normally edits, he had recently edited this article that looked interesting. I started reading the article and in the first sentence it basically says: "Trump makes racially charged comments", "Trump's actions are racially motivated", "People from all parties think Trump is a racist". Now obviously if this is what you want, or if there is some clever subtlety I am missing, or if this wording has consensus, then that's fine, but I don't personally see how it is neutral, and since this is the only article on Wikipedia about someone's racist views, living or dead, I don't really have a comparison. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

For an account created less than a month ago, you sure are fluent in Wikipedian ("consensus", edit history, etc.) Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Volunteer Marek: I didn't get the insinuation at first. I just read your talk page, and userpage and now I think I need to excuse myself from this page. I won't respond here again unless mentioned. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• This edit by JamesBWatson seems to go against the trend of this discussion. I think we need to go back to this version of the lead sentence which reads:

"Donald Trump, the President of the United States, has a history of making racially-charged remarks and taking actions perceived as racially-motivated."

- MrX 🖋 20:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

For a sentence which has four sources its ludicrous. If there were no history of 'racially charged' statements or his other various overtly racially-motivated actions over the years, it would be impossible to even have an article on the subject. Also people need to read and understand WP:NPOV - it explicitly does not mean individual statements are required to be worded neutrally. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

And it is very well supported by the article text. The extra sources in the lede are to protect against drive-by complaints. The lede is by definition a summary and so it makes declamatory descriptive statements that will always lack the rich detail and supporting context in the article. SPECIFICO talk 20:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't confuse "numbers of sources" with circular reporting - NEWSORG tends to repeat the same things - such as an AP wire, or WaPo or NYTimes. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

You can't just say that. You could say it about the concept that the Earth isn't flat. You have to show that it is a relevant criticism by showing how it is circular in this particular case. It isn't. O3000 (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I was looking into these four sources, and apparently one is an editorial from the opinion magazine The Nation. While this might be an acceptable source for use elsewhere in the article, it doesn't have a place in the first sentence, so I'm removing it. ^Falling_Gravity 23:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Please, please, please - I am reviewing this article from a NPOV...as a pragmatist - a reviewer of GAs and FAs...as someone who has spent a career subjected to NPOV internationally because of PBS requirements...and more importantly because it IS who I am. JFK was my hero - I was alive when he was assassinated and I still shed tears over it to this day. I loved Martin Luther King, he was another of my heroes. I rejected Nixon and deplored what his administration did during the campaign. I loved Bill Clinton...until the Lewinsky scandal hit...I laughed at GW Bush...how could we not? I invested in Obama's hopes and dreams...so PLEASE stop the allegations, the inuendos, the PAs against me and focus on the encyclopedia and how the world sees what we publish. Local US politics and MSM are NOT representative of a world view, much less an academic evaluation. Say what you will, but what I've said is the absolute truth. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but if someone tells you they know the "absolute truth", hold on to your wallet. O3000 (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely - never trust anyone...and you can believe what I'm saying or not...the difference between my ID on WP and most others is the fact that I am not an anonymous editor and have far more to lose than those who are editing anonymously. Keep in mind...the only thing we take to the grave is the character that is recorded in our spirit and what we stood for as human beings. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Give me a break. My id here was outted years ago and I was harassed by phone and on other wikis for years under my full real name. And, I am the only person in the US with that name. Stop playing the victim. O3000 (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Give you a break? Where? Arm - leg - big toe? So you've been outed...interesting...where can I find that info? ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

If you don’t understand how absurd that response is, you need to take a long break. O3000 (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Sounds like MrX's version is heading out, version A. Just trying to clean up the mess here.

A -

"Donald Trump, the President of the United States, has a history of making racially-charged remarks and taking actions perceived as racially-motivated."

B -

"Donald Trump, the President of the United States, has a history of making racially-charged remarks and pursuing racially-motivated actions and policies that have led observers across the political spectrum to conclude that he is racist"

Is that the version we want to go with vs the status quo, version B? Please vote below and keep discussions above. PackMecEng (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support A - Seems like the cleanest we can get for the first sentence at the moment and a step in the right direction. PackMecEng (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support A or B per my previous comments above.- MrX 🖋 14:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support A or B I support A on the basis of it being more concise, but B is not an option that I would really disagree with. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support A – The line "across the political spectrum" cherry-picks instances of Democrats and Republicans calling Trump a racist to make a misleading statement about those on the left and right. Polling shows that most Democrats believe Trump is a racist, and most Republicans believe he isn't [1][2]. The partisan divide should be noted in the article, not swept aside by a broad statement. ^Falling_Gravity 20:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Ambivalent – I care less about what polls say than what leaders in his own party say. If the speaker of the House opines that a statement by the POTUS in his own party is the definition of racist – that’s rather a strong statement. OTOH, he didn’t say that he is racist. He said his words were racist. Subtle, but important, difference. O3000 (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support A - It is simple and less convoluted. This makes it easier to support and harder to challenge. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support A – Avoids WP:LABEL — JFG ^talk 02:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support following Wikipedia guidelines on NPOV and BLP The idea that Trump "has a history of making racially-charged remarks" comes from liberal Democrats and is not recognized by America as a whole. Close to half of them might agree with it, but not the rest. The fact that this vocabulary is currently in the article is evidence of rampant liberal bias in Wikipedia's coverage of modern American politics. Display name 99 (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

That is neither true nor does it constitute "following Wikipedia guidelines on NPOV and BLP". Indeed, it's the opposite.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment – Implemented option A. Discussion may continue to improve the text further. — JFG ^talk 02:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• A -- B is overkill. talk to !dave 09:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Problem - this assumes there's going to be a change. We need to choose between this and the current version, A or B. And in this case, MrX's proposed version introduces a weasel by saying "perceived" without the "by observers across the political spectrum", which is amply supported by RS. SPECIFICO talk 14:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Another freakin' "straw poll"? Start a fucking RfC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Eh as shown above they do work and get to the heart of the issue. If you like you are certainly welcome to contribute to the discussion, vote, or even start a RFC of your own. PackMecEng (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually they don't work they're a waste of time and if this is used to further weaken the article, I or someone will immediately launch an RfC. What would be constructive is to engage a discussion of ideas, sources, and policy. These "polls" are just a tool that can be used to cram a minority UNDUE version into the article without proper discussion. SPECIFICO talk 02:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Should that be the first resort? Seemed RFC was a little big for such a small question. It just didn't seem like the above discussion was going to produce a concise answer. But I would have no issue with an RFC if you feel it is needed of course. PackMecEng (talk) 02:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion to parse and hash out the component issues and concerns should come first. Informal polls make it too easy to overlook valid alternatives and then they result in an outcome that's ambiguous and not even binding. SPECIFICO talk 02:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Trump donated Wall Street office space to Jesse Jackson's PUSH Coalition

Just a small point. In the 'defense of Donald Trump subsection it says that 'he announced that he would donate'. I have found a source in which Jesse Jackson is quoted as saying that he followed through on that promise. [3] I suggest the subsection is amended to state that he 'donated' rather than 'announced he would donate'. Birtig (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think any of that relates to the topic of this article. SPECIFICO talk 17:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow! He actually did donate to something? Usually he promises, but doesn't follow through. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Well not him -- remember it was a slow-selling condo conversion of an old Wall Street office building. Anyway, this is apparently a right-wing whataboutism meme or "some of my best friends are former civil rights leaders" or something or other. It's in the NY Post and Tucker Carlson helpfully found some old coverage. SPECIFICO talk 17:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The five sentence article refers to a video link that does not work and a Daily Caller article with the same bad link, and which is not RS. I looked for sources before changing the text. O3000 (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

In reply to Specifico's I don't think any of that relates to the topic of this article – Trump supported Jesse Jackson by donating office space to his Rainbow/PUSH project. Given Jackson's focus on anti-discrimination activism, this does look relevant to an article about Trump's "racial views". Not liking it is not an argument for deleting the information, so I have restored it. Surely, better sourcing can be found. — JFG ^talk 18:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Better sources needed, as none of those are RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

" Given Jackson's focus on anti-discrimination activism, this does look relevant to an article about Trump's "racial views"." <-- that's about as blatant of a violation of WP:SYNTH as you can get.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Actually, the sentence was already sourced to The New York Times, so references to Daily Caller et al. are irrelevant. — JFG ^talk 18:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

If we're going to dig out passing comments by Trump 30 years ago to support accusations of racism, we might as well dig out passing comments by Jesse Jackson 30 years ago showing his support for minority activism. WP:NPOV, WP:BALANCE, etc. — JFG ^talk 18:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

JFG- Your reinsertion is a DS violation and I ask you to undo your edit and engage seriously here. I stated my objection both in my edit summary and here on talk. Your dismissal of my challenge as "i don't like it" is uncivil and unconstructive. We editors cannot infer a view of Trumps from an action one of his business ventures made 20 years ago. Please undo your reinsertion without consensus. SPECIFICO talk 18:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

"We editors cannot infer a view of Trumps from an action one of his business ventures made 20 years ago"...You mean like when Trumps' business was sued in 1973 for housing discrimination? Birtig (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

JFG - cite this NYTimes. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, that's a good ref for Jackson's intentions and Trump's promise, but where are sources documenting that Trump actually followed through? With his track record, our default position must be that he never did it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The New York Times citation is already in the article. — JFG ^talk 18:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

After you revert and get consensus here to add the material. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. When I challenged Specifico's removal of well-sourced and relevant material, I didn't notice the sentence had been added very recently. I just self-reverted pending discussion outcome. — JFG ^talk 18:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

While trying to find sources, I did see two NYTimes articles. But, they only reported Trump said he would donate. I found no sources that said there was a donation or record of any actual office space. O3000 (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Which is fine, because the article says "announced he would donate". We can amend the article to says he "donated" if/when good sources are found for that corroboration. — JFG ^talk 18:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

No, not that way. His consistent track record shows deceptive promises to donate to charities and other causes, and then a failure to do so, or even worse, using the monies for personal use. Including promises, without anything else, leaves the impression of a wonderful and generous person, when reality is something else.

We should only include when he has actually done so, or, if he has promised and not done it, document the promise AND failure to do so. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

For more on this, see the work which won a Pulitzer Prize: David Fahrenthold#Reporting on Donald Trump donation claims and the Trump Foundation -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes he did follow through - Jackson said: “When we opened this Wall Street project,” he continued. “He gave us space at 40 Wall Street, which was to make a statement about our having a presence there.” There's this NYTimes article that also verifies it. There's a C-Span clip here showing Jackson giving Trump an award. As one might expect, today's left-leaning MSM will not relent from their onslaught in their war against Trump which is constantly fueled by Trump calling them "fake news". That's why as WP editors, our editorial judgment is paramount to sift through the political rhetoric, rumors, and unsubstantiated allegations. RS will publish both sides and/or all views available via ethical reporting. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Caller isn't a reliable source for anything political (pretty close to the "fake news" Trump complains about), but the NYT and C-Span are RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I found it: "At one point, he gave free office space to Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow PUSH Coalition." The article is also of relevance on the subject of Trump and racism. It's a mixed bag, with comments for and against him. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Is that the same C-Span clip where Trump says he offered the unrented space in his struggling project to Jackson at $40 a foot, but Jackson refused? BTW, they are personal friends so I don't know how you impute a racial view to this whole business. The project was not in 40 Wall for long. The building was rented out and Jackson's project is now up in a remote location at an old building in the Garment District on 7th Avenue. SPECIFICO talk 20:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Text being discussed

For clarity, here is the material being discussed:

In 1997 he announced he would donate Wall Street office space to Jesse Jackson's civil rights group, the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, stating of Jackson: "He's out there pushing for a lot of good things".

Sources

In my opinion, this event should be placed together with other anecdotes in chronological order in the "History" section. — JFG ^talk 18:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

We just need to distinguish the difference between (1) generosity and (2) words and actions indicating a racist or non-racist mindset. In this case we have words which don't show a racist mindset. Whatever happened with the promised office space isn't really necessary here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support - although I would prefer to see the article properly weighted and balanced with statements of fact like this one interspered throughout the lede and body per NPOV rather than hidden away in its own separate section at the bottom of the page. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

My proposal is to add this event to the "History" section, like other events, not in the "Defenses" section where it was first placed. — JFG ^talk 21:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

And so what is the historical "racial view" and its RS secondary citation? SPECIFICO talk 21:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support ONLY his last quote, unless RS document he actually did it. Otherwise it would only fit his pattern of promises of charitable giving and failing to do so. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

BR - see this NYTimes article, and I also included 2 others in the section directly above. He did follow through on the Wall Street Project as promised. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - If we are going to add an example of a black leader saying complimentary things about Trump 20 years ago; shouldn’t we add what that same man has said about Trump recently? It would seem that only the former would be a misleading statement about that leader’s opinions. O3000 (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Isn't it the other way around, ergo Trump about Jackson? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it's a bad reflection on both, but true to the political arena. I prefer to contribute encyclopedic information that will maintain the quality and integrity of the project and not sink to the level of political mud slinging. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I fail to understand how it is unencyclopedic to include only a statement from 20 years ago without more recent statements made by the same man directly related to the subject of this article. Statements by Jackson about Charlottesville, shithole countries, and NFL players. This leaves a false, POV impression. For example: "The Rev. Jesse L. Jackson said Mr. Trump had effectively challenged athletes of all races to rise against him, by using language Mr. Jackson described as displaying a 'slave-master-servant mentality.'"[4] O3000 (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

What you're asking for is not unreasonable O3000, and pretty much mirrors what I and others have challenged in other areas of this article beginning with the lede, except from a different perspective. Negative opinions of Trump published in news sources shape the context of this article creating UNDUE and BALANCE issues because it simply does not "indicate the relative prominence of opposing views" per NPOV policy. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support seems reasonable to put it, rationale for removal was a rationale for moving the text Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

What secondary source do we cite and what "racial view" does it describe. We are not journalists observing and reporting on what we see. We need to cite RS that describes a view. Incidentally, "donate" is not what this is about. "Donate" doesn't describe a landlord who offers a brief rent reduction on vacant space, followed by the tenant leaving for inferior space elsewhere. "Donate" is giving something, not letting them use it until a paying tenant comes along. SPECIFICO talk 20:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Read the NYTimes which should be cited. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Which part - the part where it says he offered his unrented office space to Jackson as a personal friend, the part where his girlfriend dodges the question of whether he's a racist and discounts his "elbow-rubbing" with influential Black folks, or did you mean the part where she "despaired over Trump's stoking of racial tensions"? The most interesting line in that article is the quote from the guy who observes that Trump doesn't care about race one way or the other - he only cares what kind of deal he can get for himself. That actually should be in the article, because it's typical of many observers' reactions and it explains what his critics would call his indifference to racism. SPECIFICO talk 21:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Read the parts that don't align with your POV - that's how you arrive at a NPOV. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Did you mean to post that in this location? It makes no sense. SPECIFICO talk 21:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• sigh* Yes, it's posted in the right place. When you asked "Which part - " and then included parts that fit your POV about Trump, which is no secret, and ignored opposing views, including Kara Young's statement, “I never heard him say a disparaging comment towards any race of people,” or the NYTimes comment, "While there is no evidence that Mr. Trump personally set the rental policies at his father’s properties," or that Trump's lawyer was quoted as saying there was “no merit to the allegations” or that MSM determined in the court of public opinion that Fred Trump's infamy was inherited...and so forth. That is what I was referring to but it's all stale now. We have bigger fish to fry. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose unless Jackson’s several, recent statements directly related to this article are also included. WP:NPOV O3000 (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Several of us would like to see that same formula throughout this article - starting with the lede. Maybe together we can make it happen? ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

You can argue other sections elsewhere. Your opinion that there is a lack of BALANCE elsewhere is not relevant to this suggestion. O3000 (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Possibly, with modification- I could probably support this is we didn't start it with "He announced...", if we excluded the direct quote, and if we included a little more context. Their friendship should be mentioned, and the reader should be told how this is a counterexample of Trump's racism. We should simply state that he donated the office space, rather than that he announced it. - MrX 🖋 21:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

  The discussion below has convinced me that there is little-to-no connection between Trump's views on race and the rental to Jesse Jackson. The New York Times articles are not compelling in that regard, and the blog introduced near the end of the discussion is unusable.- MrX 🖋 12:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support (edit conflict) No need to reason censor this just because I or another editor doesn't like it. It is original research to claim that Trump failed to donate, and even still the proposed text just says he announced he would not that he actually did it. We can include recent statements by Jackson too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support - had an editor found evidence that Trump had opposed the work of Jesse Jackson and the PUSH Coalition, you can guarantee that it would find its way into this article as evidence suggesting that Trump was racist. Well we have found evidence showing the opposite - it equally deserves to be in an article that claims to be examining Donald Trump's racial views. Birtig (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

You would need to demonstrate that reliable secondary sources state that this brief rental to Jackson and Trump's friendship with Jackson relate to or demonstrate "Trump's racial views" -- if you have such a case to make, this is the time and place for you to do so. Please review WP:OR SPECIFICO talk 23:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

All Birtig has to do is cite a RS, and use an inline citation. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, we find the sources first and then we evaluate their statements for article content. SPECIFICO talk 23:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I certainly hope that is the case. WP:CIR comes to mind. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, you've just contradicted your own words 1.4 cm above. SPECIFICO talk 15:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

You still don't get it. ☎️ Hello? You initially referenced (my bold), "reliable secondary sources", plural, and I responded with a singular - all he has to do is cite A RS, and use an inline citation. Now do you understand what I was saying? Sorry, but I don't know how I could've made it more clear. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I realize you don't know how to make it clear. That's the crux of the problem. (insert emoticon here) SPECIFICO talk 16:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• This event is being brought up by RSes in stories about Trump's racial views. Any suggestion that this is not about his racial views is pure OR. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Can I see these stories? The source provided is NY Times from ... 1997 and says NOTHING about Trump's racial views. Where are the sources? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Seems fairly straightforwards and uncontroversial for this article that he donated property to a prominent civil rights group. PackMecEng (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

(ec) The NYTimes article appears to be the best source we have. It doesn't support the text that started this thread, but there's certainly good reporting there from which to create some article content. Its mention of Operation Push is incidental, but the main point is one that's consistent with lots of other reporting on Trump's racial views. Namely that he associates with people who he believes can be useful to him -- including wealthy or powerful people of any sort -- and that he has no particular concern, moral, civic, or otherwise, about racism. According to the narrative of that article, racism is just not something he cares about -- so focusing on it as key determinant of his statements or actions is slicing the cheese inside-out. SPECIFICO talk 15:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - the source provided is about something else entirely and only mentions this in passing. This is quite obviously a case of someone looking for "a time when Trump said something nice about a black person" on google, dredging the internet and then finally finding such an instance. It's clearly cherry picked, off topic and undue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose After reading the new "Where are the sources" section I have changed my mind, especially considering that the reason I ended up using was very poor - perhaps just an excuse to get off the fence after sitting there for so long.Support with further information, perhaps make the paragraph as long as Warren's section. I hope that I don't regret this decision as it was not an easy one and goes against the suggestions of several editors that I admire for their judgement. Plus I really did not find much in the "Support" thinking that was of a lot of help. What mostly swayed me is the fact that several of our sections that support Trump's racism that may seem iffy to some (not me) are included, so perhaps this iffy one should be appropriate as well. Gandydancer (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This is another cherry-pick special from the endless orchard. Any article text would need to take account of all the detailed objections and qualifications that even the "support" !votes have raised here. It's an unproductive tactic to use purpose-built text to insinuate POV before a broad discussion of the surrounding issues or ignoring such discussion where it's already on record. SPECIFICO talk 18:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support. This article from Daily Beast could be used for additional context which connects the incident to the article's subject. ^Falling_Gravity 20:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Sounds SYNTHy. Anyway, plenty of folks went to see Mike Tyson in the ring. Maybe half of them were hoping to see his brains spilled on the mat. SPECIFICO talk 20:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Sounds IDONTLIKEITy. Anyway, plenty of Wikipedians ramble on about some random sentence in an article when they don't have an actual point to make. And no, using a reliable source in an article is not SYNTH. Cheers. ^Falling_Gravity 20:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Look, after the many many editors here have explained the error of your ways, it's not nice to pull the don't like it bit. But more importantly, you're making a biiig mistake here. SYNTH is usually RS. Just like UNDUE stuff is usually RS. BLP violations can be RS. All kinds of garbage is RS. That's actually why the definition of SYNTH exists. To stop folks from claiming "RS" and then doing a SYNTH. Also, in my experience denying a clear case of SYNTH is the last step before Donut Lickit and then the next stop (not that you do this) is soapboxing and disparagement. In short, denying SYNTH is usually what happens when there actually is synth. As in this case. SPECIFICO talk 21:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Adding background/context straight from RS is not SYNTH. In fact, it's the exact opposite of SYNTH. ^Falling_Gravity 01:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Conclusion

The survey indicates a pretty strong consensus to include this event. Will proceed. — JFG ^talk 18:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

 Event included — JFG ^talk 19:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

 Please don't close your own RfCs.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

* Bold text! PackMecEng (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• NO -The survey shows some support, but with modifications. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Bad close

It's really not good form to close one's own disputed poll after 4 days and then not take account of the amendments and sourcing discussed in the now-closed thread. If there's indeed consensus to include this bit, then it should not be a problem -- and would avoid any possible appearance of POV-pushing or gaming -- to let an uninvolved party review it after a decent interval has elapsed. This is really not constructive. SPECIFICO talk 19:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Consensus to include this event is nearly unanimous, with just you and Objective3000 opposing, and everyone else (9 people) supporting. This was not a formal RfC, just a quick survey following your challenge of the material. Suggestions of additional text by various editors can be worked into the article by regular editing. — JFG ^talk 20:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

If there is consensus, it is not nearly unanimous. Since your close of your own discussion is being challenged, it would be best to re-open it and let an uninvolved editor close it. That said, it would not be unreasonable to read the discussion as a rough consensus and insert the material into the article on that basis.- MrX 🖋 20:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that this "close" lays the groundwork for POV ratcheting to skew the article in a certain direction. It's obvious from the sources discussed above that there is detail and context omitted from the "consensus" language. If we now set about making the article consistent with all the discussion and sourced coverage of this matter above, the same tactic -- filibuster poll, filibuster, poll -- will end up chipping away and cherrypicking more and more misleading language into the article. Once an issue has been raised on talk, it's not constructive to chip away at it, rushing to put bits and pieces in the article and hoping to grab another piece later. Issues need to be aired in a broad context to prepare a neutral, balanced, and neutral version. SPECIFICO talk 04:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I almost always wait for a few days when I'm not sure about a decision so as to benefit from the views of others. It was not right to close this discussion so quickly, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 06:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, we can also leave the discussion open, I have reverted the archiving. The material stays in, though. — JFG ^talk 15:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree with SPECIFICO, it's disruptive to close an RfC you started (and you can pretend that it's not an RfC but a "straw poll", but that's just WP:GAMEing policy). ANd four days is not enough - I was busy and missed this discussion and obviously I have an opinion on the matter. And there's no reason why it should be included while discussion continues. This looks like a straight up attempt to railroad preferred POV into the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Bad because it didn't go your way perhaps, but status quo stonewalling is much worse because it is disruptive. The consensus is clear, besides this is not a formal RfC - it's local consensus. Do I need to provide all the diffs where just 2 or 3 of you have decided "local consensus" and add or remove things from the article without consequence? *sigh* ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Can we have one day go by without you attacking other editors and sarcastically adding “sigh” to an edit? O3000 (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake - will you stop trolling me? It's worse than my grandkids constantly asking "are we there, yet?" Go find something to edit. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

And once again you tell an editor to go away and engage on condescension. And once again, you add your sarcastic "sigh" to an edit summary. Seriously, editors are allowed to disagree. Attacking the faith of VM's edit was out of line. O3000 (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Uh, where are the sources?

Am I missing something or is the only source here the NY Times article from 1997 which says NOTHING about Donald Trump's racial views? A couple commentators make the claim above that sources which link this occurrence (renting to Jesse Jackson) to DT's racial views exist... but I can't find a single one here. Unless such sources are provided, this is pure WP:SYNTH. (And no Daily Caller or whatever fringe batshit crazy conspiracy source somebody dredges up do not as they're not reliable).Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@JFG:, @MjolnirPants:.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Here's what I found: [5] Lots of historical analysis of Trump's relationship with the black community in there. Would certainly be useful elsewhere in this article too. — JFG ^talk 16:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

So, um, after claiming that there were multiple sources which link this occurrence to Trump's racial views on race all you got is a single, vague, sentence ("Mr. Trump does have a small handful of close friends, but most are people he has done business with over the years. At one point, he gave free office space to Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow PUSH Coalition.")? No way, man. This is UNDUE and SYNTH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

You are not referring to the source I mentioned. — JFG ^talk 02:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it's always necessary to restate the problems several times in these POV bit pry-ins. The 40 Wall space was empty space in a struggling conversion that Trump Org managed. Trump asked for $40 a square foot from Jackson, according to a video of Trump linked above. Jackson refused and told Trump he should give a rent-free deal. As to who was making the donation of unrented (and arguably worthless until the second-last space was rented) offices, that's not discussed in the cited sources. It would ordinarily be the owner of the building whose space is being "donated" rather than the managing agent. At any rate, the NYTimes article has good reporting that describes this (short term) provision of space as an attempt to court favor with the NYC power elite who themselves associated with Jackson due to his high profile within certain NY constituencies. The Times piece shows us that this was not about Trump's racial views at all but rather that it was about keeping his name and access in front of NYC decision-makers. It's actually a rather favorable explanation of Trump's motivations as a businessperson who was motivated only by financial self-interest and who was not motivated one way or the other about race in his public actions. SPECIFICO talk 17:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, there's the other NYT story. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's THE SAME ONE that JFG just linked. And it's a single vague sentence which doesn't link Trump's racial views to renting of the space to Jackson. It's a couple words out of hundreds. But above you claimed, quote, "This event is being brought up by RSes in stories about Trump's racial views. ". Where are these RSes? Come on @MjolnirPants: I expect much better from you. If you can't find all these ethereal RSes then please revise your comment and !vote.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly, other sections in this article say nothing about Trump's racial views. For example, this whole subsection says nothing about Trump's racial views;

"Immigration policy

On January 27, 2017, via executive order, which he titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, President Trump ordered the U.S border indefinitely closed to Syrian refugees fleeing the civil war. He also abruptly temporarily halted (for 90 days) immigration from six other Muslim-majority nations: Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. A religious test would give immigration priority to Christians over Muslims. Human rights activists described these actions as government-approved religious persecution. The order was stayed by Federal courts.[68][69]"

I assume you also want sources that link Trump's ban on people from 6 Muslim majority countries (while not banning travel to the USA by Muslims from most Muslim majority countries, including the world's largest, Indonesia) as being linked to his 'racial views'? Birtig (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

1. It's helpful to specify who's "you" in talk page discussions. 2. It's not helpful to make "assumptions" about other editors' views. SPECIFICO talk 17:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Jesus fucking christ, you people can bring this to ANI if you want, but I'm a fucking liberal who hates Trump and I agree with motherfucking Breitbart right now that you fuckers are bending over backwards to push you POV into this article instead of making even the slightest good faith effort to be an encyclopedia. He donated office space to Jessie fucking Jackson, and the RSes explicitly fucking bring it up in articles about Trump's racial views. Every objection to this material except for the one about the 1997 source has been pure bullshit (and that one was half bullshit) and everyone editing this section damn well fucking knows it. Grow the fuck up or stop editing political articles. And don't bother whining on my fucking talk page about it either. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

One more time. Where are these "RSes" that you keep talking about? You got one article from 1997 that doesn't say jack shit about his racial views. And you got another article which, yes, is about Trump's racial views, but the renting of space to Jesse Jackson is a single fucking sentence - 14 words out of 1557, or less than 1% - made in passing and in a way which is actually unrelated to whatever it says about Trump's racial views. How about you actually present these "RSes" that you claim exist, or you stop making up bullshit about "his event is being brought up by RSes in stories about Trump's racial views", which based on sources provided so far is completely false.

And seriously, just step back a moment and look at this from a wider perspective. What is the actual claim that the text is trying to insinuate? That Trump can't be racist because he ... rented space to a black dude. Fucking seriously. That's the level of argument and POV pushing here. It's bad faithed and even more idiotic than the usual "some of my best friends are black" trope. Do you seriously want something this stupid in a Wikipedia article? Because you want to seem "even handed" or play the tragic role of "look at me, I'm a liberal but not like those other mean liberals on Wikipedia"? POV is POV and UNDUE is UNDUE and nobody has actually provided these magical sources which supposedly tie this in to Trump's racial views.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

And fucking a', renting space to somebody is NOT "supporting them", which is what the piece of shit lying section heading claimed before I changed it. It's, like, what you HAVE to do if you don't want to get your ass sued for racial discrimination.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you should read the fucking discussion: I've posted the source twice now, once in direct response to your bullshit question, and I'm not the only one to directly answer it, either. And yes: giving someone something for free instead of making money off of it absolutely is considered "supporting" them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. Maybe YOU should read the discussion.

You said "RSes", plural, not "source", singular. You claimed there were multiple sources.

The one, single source you posted, has and had already commented on. Several times. And that's because it's the same source as the one posted by JFG

And that source, as I already pointed out twice only mentions the Jesse Jackson thing in one sentence, in passing - 14 words out of 1.5K.

But yes, you're right, my bad, he didn't rent it, he "donated it".

The fuck that still has to do with his racial views? It's still the "he has a black friend" argument. And there are still ABSOLUTELY NO sources which link this to his racial views.

Like, why did he do it? Maybe because he appreciated Jackson's work as a religious minister. Maybe because he liked Jackson's "brand of capitalism". Maybe because of something to do with his racial views. But we don't fucking know which one of these it was because no source given talks about it. So it's total UNDUE and SYNTH.

I'm guessing what happened here is that you read Atsme and JFG's and this new account Birtbig comments, made the mistake of taking their claims about "multiple RSes" on good faith (plus, sure, we don't all have time to fact check everything), so you agreed with them even though they were all trying to BS their way through this, then when it was pointed out you were wrong you decided to double down and started insulting people to parade your "I'm a liberal but unbiased" credentials. We all do that sometimes. But seriously, if you want to prove to the Wikipedia community, or Breitbart or wtf that you're "liberal but can edit neutrally" this is a strange battle to pick - because the proposed text really really really is that stupid. I'm sure you can find a different article to instrumentalize for your purpose.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

AND, the recent NY Times article cited repeatedly here makes clear that Trump's personal associations with colored folks -- like more or less everything else he does -- have to do with things like, wait for it: whether they are useful to him. Also Mr. Pants, it's hard for churchladies and old nanas like me to hear you when you're cussin' and a-cusin' like that. Time to chill. SPECIFICO talk

Jackson was out of that office as soon as the rental market turned around and a paying tenant came along. And once again, Trump did not own the building, just managed it, so who did the "donating"? If there were any detailed sources they would likely explain that this was the managing agent promoting this dog of a building by getting a bunch of free press. Smart business move, nothing about his views on race. SPECIFICO talk 01:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't read the NYT due to a paywall so I must try to go by what I find here. After reading this section I very strongly feel that a JJ section is not appropriate for the article. Though, speaking of appropriateness, I did find the excessive cussing appropriate as it helped to give emphasis to the thoughts being offered. Gandydancer (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Crazy Americans. SPECIFICO talk 01:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Wait... Weren't you just giving Atsme shit about analyzing sources and deciding what to include based on that? I know I was, and if you think I care whether it's coming from someone I agree or disagree with on whether Trump's a racist, you don't fucking know me very well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey VM, next time you decide to say something stupid about both sources being the same, you might want to click on them, or at least hover your mouse over them and look at the URL, first. Last time I checked, the New York Times and the New Standard Press weren't exactly the same thing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

You're right, it's the same source Atsme linked, several times, not JFG. So what? The point is that you ain't got shit for sourcing. You got one source which says nothing about Donald Trump's racial views (from 1997!). You got one source which is about his racial views and which has a throw away line (less than one percent of the article) about how he once did something for Jesse Jackson. And that's it. And you want to include this text based on that? Gimme a fucking break.

Now, how about instead of trying to find ways to insult people, you actually address the big fat issue at hand - there is no source for this stupidity.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Pants you are so excitable. I am worried. Maybe you could go visit Dr. Jackson for a checkup before this gets any worse? SPECIFICO talk 03:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: The source I linked is not the same as Pants or Atsme's. It also includes a rather long analysis of Trump's relationship with the black community over decades. In particular the Jesse Jackson support is made quite explicit. Snippet from source:

In 1984, Reverend Jesse Jackson became the first African American to run a nationwide primary campaign for the Presidency of the United States. He ran again in 1988.
At the time, many rich white people disdained the black man running for President. Yet among those who legitimized Jackson’s efforts was Donald Trump. Looking back, Jesse Jackson said that Trump “created for many people a comfort zone when I ran for the Presidency, in ’84 and ’88."

Please read sources before dismissing them, and let's see how we can write relevant and balanced article text. — JFG ^talk 18:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The source you linked to [6], while not the same as Pants' or Atsem's, is utter garbage. Having being around for awhile, I'm sure you're aware of that. So why are you posting it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek (talk • contribs)

Here's a bio of the author of this piece, Alberto Martinez, a professor in the department of history at Austin University.[7] Why do you consider his analysis "utter garbage"? — JFG ^talk 15:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Is he a WP:NOTABLE authority on the subject? There are approximately half a million college teachers in the USA alone. I'm sure we could match at least a dozen of them up with just about any POV on the planet. SPECIFICO talk 15:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no requirement for source authors to be notable. You played that trick on Jeffrey Carr back when you didn't like one of his citations, going so far as to sanitize his WP bio to bolster your claims that he was not an expert on cybersecurity. Not the way it works. Professor Martinez is not a "college teacher", and his analysis is as credible as any other historian. — JFG ^talk 02:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Because "New Standard Press" is just a crappy website, apparently with the aim of conducting apologia for Trump and attacking that evil "mainstream media". It's more or less a group blog.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you don't like it. Fine, Wikipedia can still use it. — JFG ^talk 02:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Your last 2 posts contribute nothing toward article improvement. They're just uncivil. Cut it out. There are 500,000 college teachers in the US. Can we just pick one and use whatever she has to say to stuff our Wikipedia articles one way or another. No. Please read WP:WEIGHT and offer us a substantive rationale for this non-notable fellow's opinion. SPECIFICO talk 03:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

There is rampant liberal bias on this page as with many on Wikipedia. The fact that this incident with Jesse Jackson is not in the article is ludicrous. Any little thing from years ago is used against Trump, but when he is praised by a civil rights leader, it can't be used. But there is birtherism on here, which has nothing to do with racism. Saying birtherism is racist is saying that if Donald Trump says anything negative about a ½ black person, it is a racist comment. The video of Jackson praising Trump is all over the internet. The New York Post pulled out the relevant quotes here: https://nypost.com/2016/08/31/jesse-jackson-once-sang-donald-trumps-praises/ JimmyPiersall (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

One prominent person of color who likes Trump is an aberration, we would not give undue weight to Jackson's praise when the prsident's approval rating among African-Americans sits in the single digits (Gallup). As for birtherism and racism, the connection has been made by reliable sources (Washington Post), (New Republic), (TPM, quoting the former RNC chair!), it isn't something that Wikipedia editors are making up. SO, 0-for-2 you are, really. TheValeyard (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Make that "liked" not "likes", if you look at recent statements. O3000 (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

An opinion poll from January 2018 is not a reason to censor statements made twenty years ago. You could use the same line of reasoning to scrub all references to Ben Carson endorsing Trump during the 2016 primaries: that it somehow gives undue weight to all the black people who didn't endorse Trump. WP:UNDUE is not your catch all censorship card, despite what some Wikilawyers might argue. Jesse Jackson's statements (both past and present) should be included, with appropriate context. ^Falling_Gravity 22:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The NY Times source makes it very clear that the brief office space donation had nothing to do with race and everything to do with Trump's belief that Jackson was, at the time, able to draw the attention of powerful and well-connected New Yorkers who could be useful to Trump's failing real estate business. SPECIFICO talk 23:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Which passages from the NY Times source are you using to back up this assertion? Remember, this is not the place for any WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. ^Falling_Gravity 07:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Cited on this page -- who knows where at this point. Please review the thread(s). SPECIFICO talk 12:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I did, and it says nothing about it having "everything to do with Trump's belief that Jackson was, at the time, able to draw the attention of powerful and well-connected New Yorkers who could be useful to Trump's failing real estate business." All the NY Times article says is that Trump did business with Jesse Jackson and gave him free office space. ^Falling_Gravity 14:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

All this speculation about Trump's motivations and what's inside his head is completely pointless and irrelevant until some editors can cough up some sources which actually discuss this whole episode in the context which is the topic of this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Both listed above here and here both talk about jackson, rainbow push, his donation, and relate it to race. PackMecEng (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Please stop it with the disruptive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. We've been over this. Let's do it again. The first source has ONE - uno, eins, un, odin, moja, wahed, yī, 1, .9999999999999999, cos(0), 42*exp(0) - sentence, out of hundreds (specifically 14 words related to Jackson, out of a 1550 word article, or .009 of the article). No way. Second source, as has repeatedly been pointed out is junk. It's basically some dude's blog. Why do you keep doing this? Why do you keep repeating the same absurd "arguments" when they've already been addressed?

Hey, I know, maybe we should list every single black person that Trump has ever been sorta-nice to, would that make for a neutral article? I mean Michael Jackson is mentioned in that NY Times piece too. Maybe you can start List of black people that Trump was once sorta nice to so he could never be racist article.

Look, I know. The crazy far right press sometimes pushes some sketchy story. Some editors want to cram that sketchy story into Wikipedia. But they have a problem. They know that the crazy far right and fake news conspiracy websites are not considered reliable here. So what do they do? They trawl the vast expenses of the open internet like drunken Louisiana sailors looking for jumbo shrimp for gumbo until they find... well, the thinnest and weakest sauce sources that may just somehow perhaps maybe fool some people into misbelieving that these are reliable or relevant. Nope.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay WP:IDONTLIKEIT that's fine. RFC time? PackMecEng (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Nope, not "I dont like it". It's actually "irrelevant source and an unreliable source". In other words WP:RS (and also a more fundamental misrepresentation of a source) You know, when somebody takes the time and makes an effort to make a policy based argument as I did here, it's actually sort of ... untruthful, to try and label that as a "I just dont like it". And this "straw poll" is enough. And this is why I've been objecting to them - because they appear to be a vehicle for WP:FORUMSHOPPING (start a "straw poll", if that doesn't go your way, try again with a formal RfC).Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The only policy you cited above was WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT the rest was borderline WP:FORUM. I can even agree with you the second source was not that strong. The first source was just fine for the claim, but if you would prefer I could find some others as well. It is a topic fairly well discussed especially these days. It's not that the straw poll "doesn't go your way", it's that it did not actually produce an answer. So the next step would be get larger community input. PackMecEng (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

One or two filibusterereres doesn't mean the poll didn't have an answer. The content was rejected. For well-documented reasons relating to the proposed citations and WP policy. Let's move from the jungle jim to the parallel bars now. SPECIFICO talk 16:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I always liked the rings or pommel horse myself. PackMecEng (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but anyway it's in the last paragraph of the Times article and supported by several other paragraphs and details as well. Promoting an empty office building is not a racial view. SPECIFICO talk 14:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

To answer the opening question: where are the sources? Here are a couple that discuss the incident within the context of Trump's racial views (and they aren't just right-wing rags or college professor blogs): The Globe and Mail (op-ed), Daily Beast, and HuffPost. ^Falling_Gravity 14:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The first is an opinion column, the second has an incidental mention of his friend Jesse and is a fairly damning recitation of racist incidents by the POTUS. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Right, the sources that say "Jesse Jackson: Donald Trump Endorsing Me Is Fake News" and the one that says "O’Donnell wrote that Trump once said, in reference to a black accountant at Trump Plaza, “laziness is a trait in blacks.”" - that's suppose to support the proposed text how exactly? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you could try reading past the headline of the Daily Beast story. It discusses this incident, and how Trump was viewed by African Americans in the the late 1990s:

But the relationship between the two men was predominantly in the 1990s, according to Jackson. It was then that Trump rented Jackson office space as part of a project to get more minorities in Wall Street jobs, which he had undertaken with the help of President Clinton and business leaders.

“We would be at the boxing matches to see [Mike] Tyson or Sugar Ray Leonard,” Jackson said. “He would be there. That’s all I know about him, really.”

Trump, by the late ’90s, was actually quite well-regarded in the black community, owing largely to an outsize image and reputation. A Fortune article from 1999 cited an 800-person survey conducted by pollsters in Florida that had Trump with a 67 percent favorable rating among black voters. Culturally, he was ubiquitous, appearing in commercials, television sitcoms, and often referenced in rap songs.

The article then goes on to explain how Trump lost favor from the African American community: That good will built up even more during Trump’s Apprentice years. But as he continued to dabble into electoral politics, it dissipated. The birtherism, the nativism, and the not-so-subtle dog whistling added up and drew black voters away. ^Falling_Gravity 20:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Trump's reaction to Charlottesville

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.

---

There is disagreement among editors about the way to mention Trump's second reaction to Charlottesville events. Two proposals are on the table, cited to the same New York Times article:

• Version A:

Two days later, responding to the wave of disapproval that met his initial remarks, Trump delivered a prepared statement, saying "Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs."

• Version B:

Two days later, Trump denounced far-right violence, stating: "Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs."

Which one shall we add?

For context, the disputed text would sit between current paragraphs:

In his initial statement on the rally, Trump did not denounce white nationalists but instead condemned "hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides". His statement and his subsequent defenses of it, in which he also referred to "very fine people on both sides", suggested a moral equivalence between the white supremacist marchers and those who protested against them, leading some observers to state that he was sympathetic to white supremacy.

and

Ten days after the rally, in prepared remarks at an American Legion conference, Trump called for the country to unite. He said: "We are not defined by the color of our skin, the figure on our paycheck or the party of our politics. Rather, we are defined by our shared humanity, our citizenship in this magnificent nation and by the love that fills our hearts."

— JFG ^talk 21:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Survey

• Version B, a straightforward quote of Trump's statement, with no comment or editorializing. — JFG ^talk 21:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• B - nonjudgmental language per NPOV; i.e., neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• B - whether the statement he made was pre-prepared or ad lib is irrelevant. What matters is that he choose to condemn and in a way that was quite unequivocal. Birtig (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• A - mentioning it was a prepared statement puts in into context of why Trump later went back to statements more in line with his initial statement that there were some good people on both sides. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• B - as per the above reasons. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• A - as it actually reflects what the source says. The source is not just about the quote, it's about the fact that the statement was made after the disapproval. To omit that fact is to carry out misrepresentation of the source (and POV) by omission.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• A - reflects the cited NY Times source about the prepared statement. It's important to read that source to see that the "evil" bit was read with a strange air of detachment and that Trump returned almost immediately to race-baiting remarks of various kinds, and that the "evil" bit was "not taken seriously" by observers across the political spectrum, etc. etc. Adding more and more sources, e.g. the much later cherrypicked Hill reference, does not change the facts surrounding the event at which Trump read the "racism is evil" remark. There having been no previous support for including this scripted air kiss to political correctness, the stated motivation of the current RfC appears to suggest forum-shopping. SPECIFICO talk 23:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• B - More natural, to the point, neutral without pushing a undue pov. PackMecEng (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• A - B is self-serving, and would tend to mislead readers. A is far more representative of the source (and other sources) in that it places Trump's dubious sentiments in the appropriate context. - MrX 🖋 01:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• A - I don't have assess to the NYT but I did read the Hill link. Ditto to what MrX said. Gandydancer (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• In Between A and B (A with language mod). I think that we should mention the very wide criticism the initial stmt received. However, it would be incorrect to state in our voice that Trump was responding and not delivering this of his volition - my understanding of his stmt is that he did not say he was responding to anything in particular. I suggest: Two days later, following a wave of disapproval that met his initial remarks, Trump delivered a prepared statement, saying "Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs."[1]Icewhiz (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: -- we need to choose one or the other for the purposes of this poll. If you re-read the NYTimes source cited above for both texts, I think you'll see that the connection between the initial criticism of Trump's equivocation to the prepared statement "racism is evil" is directly from the cited source. SPECIFICO talk 14:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

RfCs often closeout on a different option than what they started out with. I can not support A as it is currently worded, as responding has us taking a position on Trump's motivations (that I agree are likely per the sources, but I would not state it as a definitive). I agree that the outcry following his initial statements is highly relevant. If I have to choose between two (which for the record, I don't believe I do) - This is a !vote for B. I will support A with a minor language modification per my suggestion above.Icewhiz (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I think your proposed change actually does improve the text of A. I would support it. My only concern is that this is at least the third time that the cherrypicked POV version B has reared its head, and I am afraid we'll see endless repetitions of what's basically a settled issue. I don't know a good way to deal with this and switch to your improved text. In fact, that's a core reason why this formal RfC is so pointless. I suppose if all previous commenters agree, we could change the language to your version. At this point, we can't just add yours as alternative C because it will fork and diffuse the poll. SPECIFICO talk 15:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that WP:NPOV clearly states: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. It applies to statements challenged as noncompliant per WP:YESPOV, nonjudgmental language and no editorializing. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• A -- clearly explains why the shift occurred. Per Icewhiz, I would prefer: "...following a wave of disapproval", rather than "responding". --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Version B as more straightforward and neutral statement of objective facts and chronology as commonly reported. Version A is leading with a speculation about motive that is specific to that source. (For example NPR says it as "followed", AP/USAtoday/Philly Inquirer make no allusion, CNN says "in response" ...) Such might be in a second line following, but would be attributed as their opinion and not a general statement. Markbassett (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• B is clear and straightforward. But my faith in the consensus process on articles in this topic is waning. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• A - Option B statement does not contain in itself a clear reference to far right ideology. Option A is widely documented and more specific to the events Arcillaroja (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• A Version B is misleading, by means of excluding context in RS. zzz (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• modifed A (Summoned by bot), per suggestions of Icewhiz and K.e.coffman. Specifically 'following' rather than 'responding'. B is neutral to the point of being anodyne. Pincrete (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Modified A(Summoned by bot) per Icewhiz and K.e.coffman. Implying a causal link is a bit much, but we should otherwise say what the source says. Vanamonde (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Modified A, else A I think over B. Maybe cut the delivering a prepared statement to, but mention the disapproval basically. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
• Modified A, and even then, I would support A. But the mod version balances it out even further. talk to !dave 09:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• Modified A Summoned by bot. Best matches the sources on this subject. B writes the wave of disapproval out of the story. A goes too far by implying motive. Icewhiz's modified A gets the balance right. Chris vLS (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• A in the context of the events adn reporting at the time.

Discussion

It is completely and utterly false and deceitful to assert that the first version involves some kind of "editorializing" or is "judgmental" (sic). The first version is simply more accurate. Trump at first failed to denounce the racism of the rally, he was criticized and THEN he made the statement. The fact that the statement was made only AFTER the criticism is a key piece of information and including it is NOT "editorializing". And it is textbook POV and WP:AGENDA to try to exclude that information from the article with an apparent purpose of misleading the reader.

"Non-judgmental" means "present all the facts". "Judgmental" would involve cherry picking only some of them to portray them in a false light. And that appears to be the purpose of this RfC and some of the "B" !votes.

Also, please change the name of this section.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, let's see...the term "racially charged" first sentence in the lede is cited without in-text attribution while ignoring the opposing views in the only RS which is the NYTimes and it actually includes other views which were ignored, including: The White House rejected assertions that Mr. Trump is racist. “This president fights tirelessly for all Americans, regardless of race, religion, gender or background,” said Raj Shah, a White House spokesman and Mr. Trump’s aides and allies expressed frustration that his comments were interpreted through a racial prism. Other cited sources include The Nation, which is a progressive left magazine, then there is the Real Estate section of Fortune Magazine (which is owned by Time), and Rolling Stone magazine, which is known as a music magazine. Yet, in WikiVoice it states in the lede, "...that have led observers across the political spectrum to conclude that he is racist." How is that compliant with WP:NPOV? What political spectrum? The left's spectrum? Rolling Stone and Fortune Magazine's spectrum? Now that the breaking news hype is over, it's time to deploy neutrality such as this CNN article, and what about the entirely different view by Fortune, the Chicago Tribune, even Politico had to tone down their sensationalism somewhat. To say RS overwhelmingly justify the racist label in WikiVoice is simply incorrect. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

What? I honestly can't make any sense out your comment or understand what it has to do with the subject of this RfC.- MrX 🖋 01:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

My comment isn't encrypted, MrX, so you should be able to make sense of it. You know what kind of sources our PAGs require in order to include contentious and disparaging material about a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and I know you're aware of WP:SOURCETYPES - Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree. WP:NEWSORG - If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. I even provided a few quotes from the within the same cited sources, from updates of those same sources, and from sources that disagree with the contentious label used in WikiVoice in the lede. I've stated my position. If you need further information, please refer to the section below titled Recent edits - textbook SYNTH and WEASEL. Happy editing, MrX. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Your comment may not be encrypted but it is hopelessly confusing and completely irrelevant to this discussion. One more time - please watch WP:SOAPBOX.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

My comment isn't encrypted, MrX, so you should be able to make sense of it. - Chuckle. I don't think that follows at all, Atsme. I mean, considering that I read tons of unencrypted stuff in Wikipedia talk spaces that makes no sense to me whatsoever. Sorry for being so logical, carry on. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand Spock logic but prefer the more futuristic Data who had an "emotion chip" added to his positronic net, but let's keep that a secret from Cpt. Kirk. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not convinced by the same failed arguments. Oh, and all the condescension that has been directed at me isn't working, either. The issues with the article remain, several editors have challenged them, and we're getting the same resistance from the same group of article regulars who refuse to accept NPOV as the prevailing policy to which we all must adhere. Editorializing is neither warranted nor acceptable, and neither is cherrypicking only the derogatory opinions from RS to push a particular POV. It is beginning to appear very advocacy-like when editors refuse to adhere to NPOV. Any RS that is worth its weight will have opposing views and it is our responsibility to include them per policy. The very first sentence in the lede is so POV, I'm dismayed that admins have not acted on it because it clearly violates NPOV policy. There are mulitiple RS that have published articles which focus entirely on the denial of racism and there are updated articles in some of the cited sources that also reflect a more neutral position than what has been cherrypicked from the sources used in this article. I've already pointed that out and so have other editors above and below this particular thread. It's our job as editors to use editorial judgment (which is opposite of editorializing a source) in order to present a NPOV and not rely on a single POV that supports one's own. I cannot over-emphasize the importance that NPOV is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. Read the latter again. No one has suggested that we exclude the derogartory opinions sourced to biased sources (and advocacies like The Nation) but we must comply with PAGs which require in-text attribution to particular POVs that are opinion-based. If it's a widespread opinion we say that it is a widespread opinion, but we do not state it in WikiVoice like what was done in the lede. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Milady, it's not condescension, it's exasperation. Have you had a chance to review all the mainstream sources in the next little subsection thingy beneath this? What say you? SPECIFICO talk 17:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

working on it now...^{Atsme📞📧} 17:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

🙏 eternal gratitude. SPECIFICO talk 18:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Additional RS to consider

@Atsme, JFG, Emir of Wikipedia, Birtig, and PackMecEng: The overwhelming majority of RS reporting makes the connection cited in version A above. Please review and consider. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. In fact, these sources suggest we should consider adding further context to the POTUS remarks, e.g. his public approval ratings hit their lowest levels of his presidency following his initial response to Charlottesville, and that there was sharp criticism from within his Republican party. SPECIFICO talk 16:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Adding old WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS to an already weighted article isn't the best option. I'd rather we summarize notable, encyclopedic events, not one-time episodes of MSM's news frenzy fed by the Trump, Obama or Clinton resistance (or the Russians). I like it better when biases are left at login and we are all collaborating productively to build a neutral encyclopedia. Regarding the sources you listed re: Trump's low ratings - well, ratings fluctuate, are not dependable (as Trump's election has proven), so what purpose do they serve? If you must look at ratings, look at the avgs & comparisons as what Gallup provides. It's best if we avoid citation overkill when we've confirmed there are multiple sources that share a similar POV (either hate Trump or don't hate Trump) so verifiability checks out just fine. I prefer RS that more closely represent an unsensational, realistic reporting beyond the bait & click headlines the news orgs have exhausted. Example: USA Today, (01-15-2018), CNN, (01-14-2018), the Time Magazine article, WaPo-08-14-2017 article & The Hill article you included above, this NYTimes article, the Chicago Tribune which brings another common sense perspective, AP via NBC News is another RS that presents both views and so on. The key is not even so much the sources but how editors apply good sound editorial judgment per NPOV. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have not looked at all the sources but for example the first source from my reading doesn't support A. The source[16] says Mr Trump was criticised for not specifically denouncing extremists in his initial comments on the violence., But some felt Mr Trump's comments came too late., and After finishing his remarks, the president quickly exited the room, as reporters asked why he had not spoken sooner. The president did not answer, but such questions will follow him in the days ahead. which don't verify the fact that it was responding to the wave of disapproval that met his initial remarks. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Just for a change of pace on this apparently immortal question, I gave you a non-cherrypicked list to look at, so I'd appreciate it if you could address the sources as a whole. Thanks for looking. SPECIFICO talk 19:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

To claim that it was responding to the wave of disapproval that met his initial remarks is a very specific claim and requires good sourcing. Keep in mind that this article is about Racial views of Donald Trump and not his presidency so if a detailed source like the BBC one doesn't make this clear then it is probably undue even if true. The Time source[17] says President Donald Trump sharply condemned racist, white supremacist, and neo-Nazi sympathizers on Monday afternoon, after nearly 48 hours of bipartisan criticism over his response to the weekend’s violent clashes in Charlottesville, Va. and Trump’s comments came amid censure from both Democrats and Republicans over his initial tepid response to Saturday’s violence in downtown Charlottesville. again showing the disapproval but not that his further comments was a response to disapproval of initial comments. Again with the NPR source[18] where it shows the disapproval of the initial remarks Almost 48 hours after violence engulfed Charlottesville, Va., President Trump called out white nationalist groups by name. Trump's remarks on Monday followed criticism that his initial statement about the clash of protesters did not condemn racist groups specifically.. These are the first three sources from the list you gave not some "cherrypicking" of my own. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't suggest you cherry-picked, just that I didn't censor the list of more or less the first search results I found. As to "responding" -- in the sense of doing something as a result of the condemnation he received -- yes I do think that's clearly supported by the bulk of the RS. @Icewhiz: suggested "following" rather than "responding to" above. Remember this whole bloated discussion began with a primary-sourced snippet that was cherrypicked and clearly misrepresented the even and the source. SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

"Following" is supported by the sources unlike the questionable "responding to". Even if that was changed A still suffers from mentioning that the statement was prepared, without any context as to why this is. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

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

LOL

this article looks like it was written by a 7th grader, what even is the definition of how black or white someone is? there has to be one people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.227.56 (talk) 07:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Palm Beach clubs

@Signedzzz: Why did you remove this section? Consensus at Talk:Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump/Archive_1#Palm_beach_clubs was to include. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I actually did not notice the talk section. I removed it because it all seems to hang on other clubs not allowing blacks or Jews, but the refs don't confirm this. Another problem is stating that it "has been called "one of the more Jewish-friendly clubs on Palm Beach"" when that is not actually a direct quote, and the person who expressed the opinion is just someone who was strongly in favour of moving the embassy to Jerusalem, not a huge fan of Mar-a-lago specifically. zzz (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you support having the section included in someway but reworded or are you totally against its inclusion? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I certainly don't think it deserves a section, that is why I moved it to the "Defenses" section before deleting it. If you have a source that directly confirms the racism of the other clubs, then I have no objection. zzz (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I felt it was appropriate. I read the refs and what we have at Mar-a-Lago and it is my impression that it was a smart move on his part, besides the fact that he needed to open his place to those other than the old wealthy aristocracy if he wanted to get clientele, rather than a moral position. Never the less, he apparently did open his club to all. No one came right out and said that the other clubs don't allow Jews, though it was inferred. I wish we could find a good factual site on the subject as well... Gandydancer (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Having looked at the text, I think it does not currently belong in the article. I also don't see where it's declared "consensus". SPECIFICO talk 21:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

"But Trump undercut his adversaries with a searing attack, claiming that local officials seemed to accept the established private clubs in town that had excluded Jews and blacks while imposing tough rules on his inclusive one. Trump’s lawyer sent every member of the town council copies of two classic movies about discrimination: “A Gentleman’s Agreement,” about a journalist who pretends to be Jewish to expose anti-Semitism, and “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” about a white couple’s reaction to their daughter bringing home a black fiance." from [19] describing how Trump had to fight for his inclusive club in a way that the private clubs that excluded black and Jewish people didn't have to fight. Lin4671again (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

From the same article: "Wyett, who is Jewish, said he would hear Trump talk with pride about Mar-a-Lago’s nondiscriminatory policy, but wondered if it was a business strategy: “Was he smart enough to realize that Palm Beach is about 40 percent Jewish and he was not going to attract the old guard anyway?”" I have already done a revert today, but that addition to the lead definitely needs to be reverted.zzz (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Really? Is this article just setting out to deal with the evidence that suggests that Trump is racist or is it trying to deal with all evidence? Had you said you felt the addition should be moved to the 'Defences' section I may have thought the latter....Lin4671again (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The following text should be removed from the opening sentence of the lede: but, also, in the 1980's he turned his Mar-a-Lago mansion into an inclusive private club at a time when Palm Beach private clubs excluded black and Jewish people,[5] and in 2017 unequivocally stated that "racism is evil". SPECIFICO talk 23:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. This is anecdotal and does not belong in the lead. Trump's public remarks and actions are far more noteworthy than what someone claims they heard Trump say with pride.- MrX 🖋 00:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

What about outside of the lead? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you lot think that we should include this somewhere outside of the lead? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Bumping thread. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Support inclusion - and also include the fact that his daughter and son-in-law are Jewish. There are far too many holes in the anti-semetic, racist claims against him which are based on opinions. The results of lawsuits are notable but so is his position of no admission of guilt - we use the statements of fact in the sources, use in-text attribution for the opinions, and maintain a neutral dispassionate tone, with proper balance & weight. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: Do you have a proposed wording regarding the Palm Beach clubs? I think his daughter and son-in-law are not appropriate for this section. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it belongs in this article, Emir. In fact, it carries WEIGHT, because (1) multiple RS support his views, and (2) what he did is highly notable and groundbreaking - see the PBS article which explains how he smashed the white-only membership policies of Palm Beach, Florida. See Trump's words in the Vanity Fair article: I said, ‘Of course!’ Do you think if I wanted to be a member they would have turned me down? I wouldn’t join that club, because they don’t take blacks and Jews.” Another RS is The Houston Chronicle quoting Ronald Kessler's July 2015 interview: “When Donald opened his club in Palm Beach called Mar-a-Lago, he insisted on accepting Jews and blacks even though other clubs in Palm Beach to this day discriminate against blacks and Jews. The old guard in Palm Beach was outraged that Donald would accept blacks and Jews so that’s the real Donald Trump that I know.” There are many more which for whatever reason have been either overlooked or dismissed. Give me a bit of time to propose the wording. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Now we just need to work on the wording then. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that there are any black members at Mar-a-Lago? O3000 (talk) 11:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

As an aside, Florida TITLE XLIV 760.60 states: It is unlawful for a person to discriminate against any individual because of race, color, religion, gender, national origin, handicap, age above the age of 21, or marital status in evaluating an application for membership in a club that has more than 400 members, that provides regular meal service, and that regularly receives payment for dues, fees, use of space, facilities, services, meals, or beverages directly or indirectly from nonmembers for business purposes. This is from the 1993 version. [20]. Trump converted to a private club in 1995. It currently has 500 members. Of course it didn’t on day one. And, of course this is WP:OR. O3000 (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Has anybody worked on some new wording or will I have to try myself again. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you Atsme? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping, Emir. I'll give it a try - just need a bit of time to catch-up on the discussion, and re-read the sources. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Fred Trump

I think it should be mentioned that DJT's father Fred was accused of racist rental policies as far back as the 1930s, and Woody Guthrie even wrote a song about it. NYT coverage Woody Guthrie Wrote of His Contempt for His Landlord, Donald Trump’s Father Song on YouTube Pashley (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

He was arrested at a KKK rally, which might not in itself be necessary to mention, except that DJT has denied the fact (I think?). zzz (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Too atomized

He has said a lot of offensive things, it is true. Still, I fell that Racial views of Donald Trump#History would be better structured if it highlighted major themes, rather than giving a separate section to every offensive statement, which makes for less of a narrative.--Pharos (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I think there are many editors who agree with you. We can improve the article by using sources, including tertiary sources, that give an overview of Trump's views, statements, and policies on racial and race-related matters. If you have time to contribute along those lines, it would be most appreciated. SPECIFICO talk 17:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree about basing more on tertiary sources and the bigger picture. I've made a couple of organizational changes, although I think more expansions and mergings are still called for.--Pharos (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Excellent observations Pharos and I agree. Gandydancer (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

In regards to Trump's comments on those who enter the country illegally

The following is contained in the Sky News article about Trump's comments, "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." In this remark, he is referring to those enter the country illegally and that most of them are bad people, not all. I think this article should be reverted to my edit because of this. Billybob2002 (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit

Preserving here by providing this link. I reverted the recent changes as they appear to be editorialising: "mixed loyalties"; "fear"; etc. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Were these edits honestly not neutral?

1. "Later, his comments about a Mexican-American judge having mixed loyalties due to his ethnicity" instead of just "Later, his comments about a Mexican-American judge" For the first one, that's just explaining why he did it. He believed that as a Mexican-American, he may have mixed loyalties.

2. "President Trump ordered the U.S border indefinitely closed to Syrian migrants fleeing the civil war, due to fears some may be terrorists." instead of "President Trump ordered the U.S border indefinitely closed to Syrian refugees fleeing the civil war." For the second, I changed refugees to migrants, because it is more commonly used, and the Syrian war is almost over. I added that he believed some may have been terrorists, because that is what all wording regarding proponents of it, seem to say. I wouldn't be opposed to adding that some speculate it is because of their race, but I don't see how my edits weren't neutral. Alex of Canada (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Because you do not seem to understand that Wikipedia reflects what is in the sources, not what you think. Eg, the sources explicitly state refugees, not 'migrants'. And if you do not understand the difference or why it isnt in line with NPOV, I suggest you do not edit this article at all. If you continue to make edits that are deliberately misleading then the next stop will be AE due to the sanctions in place for US politics. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that reads like editorialising. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)