Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump

No support for this comment / Debate
(Section 1) Trump continued to state, as late as 2019,[12][13] that a group of black and Hispanic teenagers were guilty of the 1989 rape of a white woman in the Central Park jogger case, despite the five males having been officially exonerated in 2002

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

Harris citizenship denial is not strictly a conspiracy theory
I think Trump's statements on Kamala Harris' citizenship rights is misrepresented as a 'conspiracy theory'. I think it's more accurate to call it 'denial'. There's no claim that people are lying or covering up any facts related to her citizenship (unlike with the Birther conspiracy theory targeting Obama). The attack is based purely on a fabricated legal interpretation. This has some similarity to a conspiracy theory, but there is no suggestion of an actual conspiracy. AdamChrisR (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)