Talk:Munroe Bergdorf race row incident

Slanted Writing and Apologia for Bergdorf's Comments Apparent Here
This article is plainly biased. In the first paragraph the reader is told that some people thought M. Bergdorf's comments vis Whites were racist. The article declines to take a side on this issue. The last sentence of the first paragraph very cavalierly states that the response to the comments was racist and transphobic. This assessment is repeated later on in the article with citations.

If we cannot know whether M. Bergdorf's comments were racist then how can we know the response was racist? A very disappointing and slanted tone is evident here and not up to the standards of this project. MusselParty (talk) 06:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The article follows the example set in the WP:Reliable sources. Those sources state that much of the online abuse Bergdorf received was racist and transphobic in nature (looking at the comments that she has received, is anyone really going to dispute that?). Conversely, in most cases those reliable sources do not equivocally state that Bergdorf's statements themselves are racist; rather they note that they have been regarded as racist by some but not by all. As you must be aware, Wikipedia follows the example of the Reliable Sources. Part of the problem is that Bergdorf and many of those who support her utilise a definition of "racism" deriving from forms of critical race theory which is far more restricted than the longstanding, common use definition of "racism" in British society. For the latter, "racism" is basically synonymous with racial prejudice, bigotry, or discrimination, regardless of who expresses it or who it is directed at. For the former, it refers to entrenched social systems of privilege that (in Western contexts at least) benefit white people over people of colour. The fact that you have different sides of the argument operating under very different conceptions of what "racism" is renders this a complicated situation. Bergdorf's comments are probably "racist" under the commonly understood meaning of the term, but are not "racist" under the critical race theory definition of the term which she herself uses. Conversely, the racially abusive comments that she has since received are "racist" under both definitions of the word. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're saying that as long as the authors of newspapers and online publications follow the doctrine of critical race theory in their writings, critical race theory is the only acceptable interpretation of events for Wikipedia. MusselParty (talk) 09:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Combine page with Munroe Bergdorf
A page on a comment seems excessive. Suggest moving content to Munroe Bergdorf and deleting page. Jontel (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This was the original article, with the "Munroe Bergdorf" article created after. There is a case for the two articles to be merged, but given that this is a GA it would be a shame if any of this is material was then junked in the process. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that this news story doesn't seem to justify an article of this length, and would support deleting it or merging it into Munroe Bergdorf. Robofish (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)