Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump/Archive 7

"Widely" and similar adverbs
"a history of speech and actions that have widely been viewed as racially charged or racist. Journalists, friends, and former employees have accused him of fueling racism in the United States.[1][2][3][4]. Check those sources; none of them use the word widely or anything like it. We can't simply pull up a string of citations and ipso facto say there has been wide discussion. We don't need adverbs that are based on our own interpretation of what is wide or not. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Deleting widely would maintain the facts without the unsourced opinion. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In general, I'm sympathetic to what you say. Of course we could find RS that say "widely" but I agree that WP editors should not be compiling lists or drawing such conclusions. This has been widely :) discussed on the talk page however, and at worst I think it deserves a citation needed tag.  Let's see what others think.  SPECIFICO talk 13:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If one reads a few dozen feature articles on the subject, it becomes pretty clear that "widely" is an appropriate adverb. WP:BLUE applies. Common sense suggests that this would only be a problem if some sources state otherwise. In other words, if sources say "a history of speech and actions that have "narrowly" (or "infrequently", "occasionally", "rarely") been viewed as racially charged or racist", then there would be cause for concern. I don't believe that's the case. - MrX 🖋 00:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Questioning recent entry
I just saw this under "Effects on children" and I have moved it here for discussion:

'''Effects on the Republican Party '''

The 2016 Presidential Election accelerated the “whitening” of the Republican party, and this makes one consider the political implications of this shift with the ever increasing racial, ethnic, and religious diversity of America. More moderate GOP nominees during the 2016 cycle like Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) or former Ohio governor John Kasich would have allowed the GOP to capture more young,diverse voters (especially against such an unpopular nominee like Hillary Clinton) Furthermore, evidence suggests that first time voters tend to identify more with the party that they voted for in their first election, and making inroads among traditionally non-GOP groups could have been extremely important in creating long-term success for the GOP as the country becomes less white. Generally speaking, the GOP consistently wins less than ten percent of the African American vote and less than thirty percent of the Asian and Latino vote. As of 2016, white voters made up 89% of the GOP’s voter base. Also, the GOP is losing support among groups that have been traditionally Republican for quite some time: college educated whites and suburban women. As America is projected to become a majority-minority country around 2050, this dynamic will be crucially important to the long term survival of the GOP.

In a response to Trump, the few minority Republicans have vamped up their efforts to try and diversify the party. Representative Will Hurd (R-TX) and Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) in particular are pursuing efforts outside of Congress to make the GOP look more like America. As the only two GOP African American members of Congress, they represent a truly small voice within the Republican party. In addition to racial and ethnic diversity, gender diversity has also been scrutinized within the GOP caucus. There are more Congressmen named Jim than women with the Repulbican caucus (13), and a recent 2019 NC Congressional primary showcased a gender split within the GOP. A pediatrician named Joan Perry was running to replace the late Walter Jones’s seat (R-NC-3), and while she had the support of all House GOP women (which has dropped from the 30s over the last several elections), the Freedom Caucus (a caucus of strongly conservative Republicans) endorsed her opponent, and she eventually lost by almost twenty percentage points.

Perhaps there is a place for it in the article but I have my doubts... I tried to check some of it out but I'm unable to access ABC and a couple of the sources also seemed unavailable. What do other editors think about this addition? Gandydancer (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It does not have the level of sourcing that would be required for such sweeping statements, and it reads more like one week's cable news commentary. We're having a hard enough time laying out the facts and events here. I would not suggest attempting this sort of evaluation at this time.  SPECIFICO talk 17:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

"I am a nationalist" section
There are two new entries, "The Snake" story and "I am a nationalist". I believe that the snake is appropriate and adds to the article but I feel the the nationalist does not rise to a level of importance that we would expect in this article. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

This article documents instances in which Trump has said and done things that have generated news headlines widely due to perceptions of racism. Please do a Google search to see how widely this story was covered in the media, and how extensively observers viewed his comments as racist. For example, the New York Times reported that "When used domestically, it is a word often tainted with the whiff of extremism, not least because a variant of it, white nationalist, describes racist leaders and groups." Across the media Spectrum, from Fox News to Huff Post, this was treated as a major news event...I think that is the criteria used to determine worthiness for inclusion in this article. The media viewed his comments as important, so should we. --Taquim 20:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taquim (talk • contribs)
 * You are starting to win me over {. This is from WashPo:"Rep. Gregory W. Meeks (D-N.Y.) advised Trump not to use the word, which he descibed as “very dangerous language” that “reminds me of the kind of words that came from people like Hitler.”  If I remember correctly the new section  is presently all quotes - could you rewrite it so that there is more non-quoted stuff?  Gandydancer (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point; I have modified the section. Please advice if you have further recommendations. Taquim (talk • contribs) </small —Preceding undated comment added 03:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

"Thousands of Moonies" section beyond scope of article?
This section does not fit in an article about Trump's racial views. I see that the leader of the church at the time called it racist hype, but it seems like a stretch to include in this article based on that comment. Other than that quote, is there evidence that the incident was racially motivated, was in fact racist hype, or otherwise reflects the racial views of Donald Trump? I'm removing it for now, feel free to revert and discuss if there is disagreement. Paisarepa (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well for me...I never did like it and wanted to remove it a long time ago... Gandydancer (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to revert, but I think it is clear that Trump wouldn't have warned of unleashing thousands of evangelicals. As is typical for him, he was appealing to people's fear of the other to get his way. In this case the other was people of a different race and non mainstream religion. The NY Times did mention the racist connection in this article--Taquim 02:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taquim (talk • contribs)
 * I agree with you, but that he wouldn't have made the same threat about evangelicals says something about religion rather than race (and honestly probably has more to do with how his audience perceives Moonies vs evangelicals than with his own views). Maybe there is more of a connection between Moonies and some racial group(s) than I'm aware. I am interested to know why the NYT included it in the article. Paisarepa (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Evangelicals tend to be white, and Moonies Asian, but this entry does provide more tenuous evidence of Trump's racism than other sections in the article.Taquim 03:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taquim (talk • contribs)

Stephen Miller
Please share thoughts on adding a section on Trump's refusal to criticize or fire Stephen Miller. Following the recent release of Miller's emails to Breitbart, Miller's white nationalist beliefs are undeniable. Many groups and individuals have called on Trump to fire him, yet trump has not said a word on this, indicating his comfort with having a white nationalist as one of his closest advisers. Does this not meet the criteria for inclusion in this article? Taquim 04:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taquim (talk • contribs)


 * Another option would be a section on the White Nationalists in the Trump administration (Bannon, etc...) rather than a specific focus on Miller.Taquim 03:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taquim (talk • contribs)

Census citizenship question
The Trump administration's decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census has been viewed by many observers as having racist undertones... thoughts on adding this as a new section? Taquim 05:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taquim (talk • contribs)

"Least racist person in the world"
We should exclude that form the lead, at least, and probably outright, per WP:MANDY. Guy (help!) 09:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not a policy, it's an essay you wrote yourself. I'd say Trump's self-description is noteworthy enough to be included, even if the rest of the article proves it false. Robofish (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It is undue and just makes him look foolish to quantify such a matter without data. SPECIFICO talk 16:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Shithole comment
Insufficient explanation given for presenting hearsay as a fact. “Shithole” is a comment Trump denied making and there is no recorded or written evidence that this comment was definitively made. The proper encyclopedic way to present this would be to characterize that he “allegedly” made this comment but later denied it. Presenting this line as a fact is misleading and would be disallowed in a courtroom in a second without this alleged disclaimer. Additionally, only 3 small countries are cited as part of international condemning these comments. If you would like to include these countries specifically (Botswana, Haiti, etc.) and say they condemned the comments that’s fine, but the broad wording of “internationally condemned” is a generalization and not encyclopedic. If these changes are not made, the article appears to be extremely political and biased in nature and not an objective presentation of facts. Bsubprime7 (talk)Bsubprime7    —Preceding undated comment added 17:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't a court of law and this isn't an accusation of a crime MOS:ALLEGED. We follow the reliable sources. And no, those 3 countries aren't the ones condemning. The sources say condemnation was international. Again, we use sources. O3000 (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

You don’t have any responses from nations in the top ten in population, yet you are using a broad generalized statement “internationally condemned” implying that a small subset of nations speaks for the entire international community. Here are the world stats, since I realize you use sources. https://www.internetworldstats.com/stats8.htm Find responses from nations in the top ten if you wish to use broad wordingBsubprime7 (talk)Bsubprime7
 * That's almost exactly what I wrote on my talk page. please read and understand our basic content policies before editing articles about controversial subjects. - MrX 🖋 18:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Also this SPA's other edit, pretending it's not clear which 4 individuals were referenced, needs to be restored to previous established text.  SPECIFICO talk 18:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I’m not sure what SPA is, but to be clear there are sources who deny that specific comment was made. You cannot selectively cherry-pick what sources you believe and don’t believe, that’s for a reader to judge. This is in sync with the rules you mentioned above. Also no individuals were mentioned by name, the wording “widely inferred” means it was pretty obvious but not a 100% verified fact. That is the appropriate encyclopedic way to present it. Presenting it as a fact does a disservice to the reader, it’s not your job to interpret it for them just present the facts and allow them to take in the information. Bsubprime7 (talk)Bsubprime7 —Preceding undated comment added 21:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't cherry-pick sources. We evaluate sources. Otherwise we would have to give the same credence to scholars as we do to Woody Woodpecker cartoons. And nothing is 100% verified. There is a welcome notice on your talk page. Please read it along with the links. O3000 (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean there are times where the cartoon could be used as a source! PackMecEng (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Aah, but it's becoming difficult to understand which is the cartoon O3000 (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair point my friend, fair point! PackMecEng (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I understand that but in terms of the shithole comment there were sources who said the comment wasn’t made. Only representing the sources who said it was made, while ignoring other first hand sources who said it wasn’t seems to be pushing a POV and not neutral. And these sources were from US senators not cartoons. Bsubprime7 (talk)Bsubprime7 —Preceding undated comment added 23:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Strongly encourage at least a mention that Trump denied making the comment to help add at least at some pretense of non-bias. If the denial is added I would be okay with removing the qualifier “allegedly” representing that although he made a denial, sources have indicated the comment was made. Bsubprime7 (talk)Bsubprime7 —Preceding undated comment added 18:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If we did that, we would need to add how RS describe his denial, as a lie. Is that what you want? -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

If you show a source that says they were lying then yes I would be fine with that. If you have 8 people in a meeting, and some say something was said and the others say it wasn’t, you’d be remiss to at least not mention both and then you allow readers to evaluate who is telling the truthBsubprime7 (talk)Bsubprime7 —Preceding undated comment added 03:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

"racist speech" in lead
What is your concern about the sources I gave for cleaning up the weaseldom of the first sentence? AP is a news article. Brookings is a scholarly institution with NOTNEWS perspective and analysis. There are many other such sources that have been published since the weasel wording was inserted. I think the update was appropriate.  SPECIFICO talk 18:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The source you gave is a blog, as I noted in my edit summary. PackMecEng (talk)
 * Also just to add the text in question was added because that is what is used in the main Trump article. I think a deviation from that would be inappropriate. PackMecEng (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'll change that as well. Are you familiar with the Brookings Institution? Are you familiar with the cv of that author ? We're not talking MSNBC "contributor" blogs here. Don't confuse analysis, which is solid NOTNEWS perspective we use all the time on every WP page, with "opinion" that is personal to the writer of the source.  There are many available sources. I thought those two were clear enough.   SPECIFICO talk 18:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Great, now you are up to two blog sources... In regards to the first blog, the writer seems to be an expert in taxes, not racism. PackMecEng (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This entire article is a fine example of breathtaking spin and slant, and the inclusion of blog-type sources is testament to this. A similar cherry-picking of criticism against any prominent politician would likely result in narratives of striking sectarianism. Political bias on Wikipedia results, at times, in turning the existence of criticism itself into a validation of such perspectives, mostly by virtue of targeted selection and subtle embellishment (generally by way of presenting datasets as the prevailing or accepted sentiment, despite extreme controversy or opposition). Not nearly as bad as something like Metapedia, for example, but in articles that concern heavily charged political figures like this one, the nod to the left is unquestionably present. Resurgence133 (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Pardon, but is there a suggestion in there somewhere. O3000 (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Best I can tell, we have an account with 30 edits suggesting that an accredited academic author at the Brookings Institution is a blogger, ditto a respected RS Jesuit publication.  SPECIFICO talk 19:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And which doubts the African origin of humanity. Jonathunder (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Contractions and Possessives
As this page is rightfully provided protection, it is necessary to beseech the appropriate administrators to alter a quotation attributed to Donald Trump. The full relevant quotation, with my emphasis on comments that are evidently possessive, follows: “When Mexico sends {its} people, they are not sending {their} best: {they} are not sending you, {they} are not sending you. {They} are sending people that have lots of problems, and {they} are bringing those problems with us. {They} are bringing drugs, {they} are bringing crime, {their} rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we are getting. And it only makes common sense, it only makes common sense. {They} are sending us not the right people, it’s coming from more than Mexico, it’s coming from all over South and Latin America, and it’s coming, probably, probably, from the Middle East.”

It is quite evident that Donald Trump, in this instance, is employing the possessive ‘their’ as opposed to the contracted ‘they are’ in reference to rapists (and even in the situation that it is ‘they are’, it is apparent such is not inclusive of Mexicans as a totality. The entirety of the excerpt relates to Mexico, and later alternate regions, sending unto the United States “not their best”, and so if follows that the evidence to substantiate such a claim would be the categorization of people being sent: those who ‘bring drugs, crime, and rape’, not a comment (as often construed) as to the people of Mexico.

Thank you. Sanctæ (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources in the article seem to disagree with you. If you have sources to support your interpretation, you can provide links so we can look at them. - MrX 🖋 01:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Salutations.

The speech’s excerpt referred to is contained within footnote eighteen; this same article (Sky News) contains further examples of Donald Trump referring to subcategories of immigrants as ‘rapists’ or otherwise affiliated with a negative quality which are not presented as statements of comprehensive category (that is, ‘X (Mexicans) is Y’) but sub-categorical. Furthermore, the commentary provided was primarily relating to sentence composition, which the alternate sources do not attend to, rendering comparison infeasible.

Thank you. Sanctæ (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not really following you. The Sky News source says
 * That's also exactly what this article says. In your original post, you asked for a quote to be altered. We don't do that. Quotes must be faithfully reproduced. - MrX 🖋 12:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's also exactly what this article says. In your original post, you asked for a quote to be altered. We don't do that. Quotes must be faithfully reproduced. - MrX 🖋 12:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

add to "Impact"?
Add to Racial views of Donald Trump: Trump’s rhetoric has been used by students and school staff members to harass children more than 300 times since the start of 2016, according to a review of 28,000 news stories. At least three-quarters of the attacks were directed at kids who are Hispanic, African Americans, or Muslim-Americans. Students have also been victimized because they support the president — more than 45 times during the same period. X1\ (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/local/school-bullying-trump-words
 * Yes, I think this should be included. It's been covered by a few major news sources, for example
 * - MrX 🖋 13:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, . You want to do it, since its your wording?  X1\ (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's actually a quote of the Seattle Times article. I think something paraphrasing it would probably be a good start, perhaps with some stats, but I don't have any wording in mind at the moment. - MrX 🖋 00:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Poor phrasing on my part. X1\ (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , is that just the Wapo article via SeattleTimes.com? X1\ (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, now that you mention it, it does look like syndicated content. I'm not sure about the other sources I found when I searched a few days ago. - MrX 🖋 00:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it needs to be a bit more descriptive than the poetical version seeped. Another sentence about use by kids among themselves or some other detail from the article?  SPECIFICO talk 01:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it needs to be a bit more descriptive than the poetical version seeped. Another sentence about use by kids among themselves or some other detail from the article? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

This is such a bias evaluation and needs modify
The main problem with this article is it is totally a bias without indicating the complete bias of the reference. Writing a article on Trump relying on sources from CNN, Washington Post, New York Times to make a fair racist assessment of Trump is just wrong. Theses sources of have be proven to have malfeasance toward Trump. In one instance you have CNN backing up their view with something written from the Washington Post. This whole article appears to be written by the DNC and not up to Wikipedia standards. JusticeVeritas (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * CNN, Washington Post, and NY Times are reliable sources. Just because you don't like them doesn't change that. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the fact that the Washington Post endorsed Hilary Clinton for president on 13th October 2016 may prove the newspaper is biased but it is still regarded as a reliable source by the Wikipedia community despite this bias. Birtig (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The endorsement in no way "proves" or even suggests bias. Editorials are opinions of the editorial staff. O3000 (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You make my point for me - the endorsement of Hilary Clinton by the Washington Post revealed the political opinions of the editorial staff, in particular who they wanted to win the election and wanted to help win sufficiently for them to make their support public. You may think that this does not suggest bias. Fine. Next time the umpire at the Superbowl or referee at the FA Cup Final announces the team they hope wins the contest, I assume you will be re-assuring supporters of the non-favoured team that a referee can support one side without this in any way suggesting bias. Birtig (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The editorial staff writes editorials. They do not umpire the news sections, or any other sections. The fact that they endorsed Clinton did not stop them from writing negative articles about her. O3000 (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Birtig, as O3000 explained, your understanding of this is simply incorrect. You are just going to have to accept that. You won't find consensus for your view among Wikipedia editors. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>, no problem as I'm not looking for consensus - just making my opinion on this matter known. It may be the consensus on Wikipedia that CNN and the Washington Post are reliable sources but I am simply making the point that many people - myself included - believe them to be biased news outlets that often present news stories in a way that is influenced by their own political viewpoint. Unfortunately there are now - in my opinion - very few news outlets that do not exhibit bias to some degree and all we can do on Wikipedia is use those which are regarded as least biased and try to avoid those that are more biased. (For your information I would draw your attention to . Regards)   Birtig (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what we do. As for WaPo, they faced heavy criticism for going out on a limb to run stories on Watergate before other papers. Bob Woodward was the guy that held garage meetups with “Deep Throat” ultimately leading to the downfall of the president. Woodward was a Republican. WaPo and the NYTimes have broken major stories embarrassing the Clintons. The editorial staffs state their political opinions, although the NYT has endorsed several Republicans). The news desk wants to publish all the news, no matter their political druthers or those of the editorial staff. That’s why they are considered reliable sources.


 * Incidentally, Media Bias/Factcheck is considered unreliable by Wikipedia. See O3000 (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * :) Birtig (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Trump has spoken explicitly of his racial views, he is a living person. Must add section.
Donald Trump is a living person and has made statements about his racial views. These are omitted. For example on August 12, 2017 he gave an impassioned speech where he outlined his racial views. This includes the so-called "first Charlottesville statement" whcih has been egregiously shortened to remove any statement of racial beliefs from Donald Trump. The part where he states his beliefs (from [| politifact]): "Above all else, we must remember this truth, no matter our color, creed, religion or political party, we are all Americans first. We love our country. We love our God. We love our flag. We're proud of our country. We're proud of who we are. So, we want to get the situation straightened out in Charlottesville, and we want to study it. And we want to see what we're doing wrong as a country where things like this can happen. My administration is restoring the sacred bonds of loyalty between this nation and its citizens, but our citizens must also restore the bonds of trust and loyalty between one another. We must love each other, respect each other and cherish our history and our future together. So important. We have to respect each other. Ideally we have to love each other." 2603:9001:101:147:64DD:C0CC:D1FD:14AD (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree entire article is inverted. It is not a summary of Donald trumps statements about race and racism. The only place to put such things is a paragraph titled ‘’defenses of Donald Trump’’. The whole article is a third party analysis of partial statements by Trump. 172.58.171.240 (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, this article is based on third party analysis if Trump's racial views. Trump's comments in the politifact source are not a statement about his racial beliefs. They are his attempt at damage control after the blowback from his "many sides" comment. - MrX 🖋 19:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * you are mistaken the text in the politifact is not a commentary on his “ many sides” statement, ‘’it is the full text’’ of his “many sides” statement and spells out the racial views of Donald trump. 2001:5B0:2172:CD88:ECB9:CB44:68F8:13B (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not. - MrX 🖋 23:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you kind of are. While I can appreciate you having inside knowledge of what Trump thinks, that does not really qualify as a source for here. We can only really go by what he says. That is what he said his views are. PackMecEng (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There you are again! I hope you don't think your snarky comment has any value to this discussion, or to me personally. - MrX 🖋 22:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Huh? This was a week ago, what are you on about? Or was this not a reply to me? PackMecEng (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

"I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally"
Earlier today I added a line to the Charlottesville paragraph in the lede noting that Trump said that white nationalists should be "condemned totally". This is highly relevant to the comments he made. It was reverted on the basis that an editor thought it was part of a strategy - "He will say something suggestive — in this case, suggestive that the violence in Charlottesville wasn’t really such a clear-cut result of resurgent racism — and then he will later say something else to give himself plausible deniability. But the plausibility here is basically nil."

While it may be the case that Trump was praising them and condemning them as part of some strategy, and it may well be that he is in fact a white nationalist, but it is a fact, a relevant fact, that he said white nationalists should be condemned totally.

In my edit it was noted that people viewed it as racist despite his condemnation, but removing any mention of the condemnation is not NPOV. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * My main concern is that this was added to the lead. As is often the fact, surface information becomes quite complicated when one looks at it more closely.  In this case a few right-leaning news reports see Trump as without blame while all of the major press  called his reactions to be racist, without question.  The information you want in the lead is already in the body of the article: "Trump later said: "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally". Gandydancer (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact he totally condemned white nationalists is very important. I don't think it's fair or neutral to just leave that some people thought it was racist in the lead, then mention the condemnation later in the article.  It's giving undue prominence to an interpretation of what he said over and above what he actually said.


 * We don't have to say Trump was being honest when he said it, and it's still noted that people don't believe him, but I do think that in order to maintain neutrality it has to be mentioned at least as prominently as his opponents' interpretations of it. The purpose of this page isn't "Donald Trump is a racist, here's why". Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This does not belong in the lead and no, his attempt to walk back his previous statement is not very important. This has been discussed extensively on this talk page. Your argument is not based in Wikipedia policy and is not something that we haven't heard many times before. - MrX 🖋 11:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What he said the comment meant is at least as relevant and important as what his opponents think he meant. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that this would be too lengthy for the lead when fully in context and it is explained in the body. Also, adding it back in, as you did against consensus, appears to be gaming 24-hr BRD cycle. O3000 (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What consensus? I wasn't gaming the rule, I was respecting it.  Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the rule is to gain consensus before re-adding – not wait out the clock and edit war. Also, when you re-added, there was a consensus required warning. Clearly there isn't consensus for this text. O3000 (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't see any consensus required warning. I raised the issue here to see if there was any reasonable argument against it, if there was any reasonable argument that what he said his words meant is so much less relevant than what his opponents say about him that his opponents' words should be in the lead while his are relegated to some less prominent section.  There wasn't, so I re-added it.


 * If length is a concern then what he said he meant should surely take priority over what his opponents say. He's the only one who really knows after all. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

″The purpose of this page isn't "Donald Trump is a racist, here's why".″ This article has serious NPOV problems and should be tagged as such until editors can come to a consensus. There's no consensus for the existing text. Rambo Apocalypse has it right here in my view. I find it highly suspicious when wikipedia editors presume to be able to divine the true intentions of President Trump. When the conclusion is always the same (calling him racist) and in direct contradiction to his statement, that seems like a poor interpretation of "good faith". The political bias is evident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.50.52.10 (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I concur that Trump's own words about the controversy should be given equal weight to his critics' interpretation of his various speeches with selective quotes. His "total condemnation" of white nationalists after the Charlottesville incident is just as lead-worthy as his "good people on both sides" statement. — JFG talk 01:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Defenses of Donald Trump Expansion
Section looks extremely out of place mainly because it’s so short compared to other sections. In an article dedicated to such a controversial topic, it is important to devote at least a vaguely proportional amount of info for a defense, otherwise the article reads more like a roast of Donald Trump on Comedy Central than a neutral article of his perceived views on race. There have been more defenses than just his “I’m the least racist person in the world.” People of color like Ben Carson have spoke out in his defense, as well as Avita King, the niece of a civil rights icon. I’m fine with including some opinions from RS that these are isolated incidents and his mere support of a few powerful people of color does not mitigate the overall racial concerns people have, but a mention is noteworthy. Bsubprime7 (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Bsubprime7
 * Contrary narratives are found throughout the article. But remember, NPOV means that all views are weighted relative to their incidence. Maybe there just are not as many "defenses" as there are concerns. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there are perhaps not as many defenses as concerns but there are certainly more defenses than appear in the defense section. I don’t see a single mention of Ben Carson or Avita King anywhere in the article. If there are contrary narratives that speak to possible defenses elsewhere in the article (I have seen few) these should be consolidated into the defense section to expand it. The section is so ridiculously small, it hurts the articles neutrality. Bsubprime7 (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Bsubprime7


 * Could you offer some sources that we could work with? Gandydancer (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/453482-ben-carson-trump-is-not-a-racist-and-his-comments-were-not-racist

https://www.newsweek.com/mlk-niece-defends-trump-racism-accusations-absolutely-fake-1451717

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/17/alveda-king-donald-trump-is-compassionate-brillian/

https://newsone.com/3732475/trump-not-racist-black-girlfriend-kara-young/ Bsubprime7 (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Bsubprime7
 * WP does not use Washington Times or News One. The others are quite weak. You would need to find independent reliable source references that we can use to include more content. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

You’re going to have to give me some examples of some independent reliable sources, because now you’re dealing in subjectivity in what you consider to be “weak.” without citing any WP rules. Not to mention you are dealing with factual statements said by real people, so any source can print quotes, people are on record as saying with the same level of journalistic integrity. Bsubprime7 (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Bsubprime7
 * I'm sorry, but I can't do your research for you. You could ask for help at one of the links on this page.

I was not asking for you to do research for me but merely to name examples of what you believe to be independent reliable sources, as editors attempt to arrive at consensus. Bsubprime7 (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Bsubprime7
 * A good place to look would be WP:RSP and WP:RSN. PackMecEng (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The Hill is listed as a reliable source per WP:RS. Additionally here are 2 additional publications from Fox News which is also listed as an independent reliable source.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/ben-carson-trump-not-racist

https://www.foxnews.com/media/alveda-king-beto-orourke-trump-not-racist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsubprime7 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Carson and King are conflicted -- they are not independent. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

You have statements from conflicted individuals like the former RNC chairman. There is no reason to exclude what prominent people of color have said other than to selectively do it to promote a POV. Which you seem to be trying to do at this point, because there is no logical explanation to exclude these people when you are including the statements of a former party chairman, which is pretty much the definition of “not independent” as you used above. 01:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Bsubprime7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsubprime7 (talk • contribs)

Strange how NYT, WaPo etc are not considered conflicted. Honestly, Wikipedia can't be taken seriously on mildly controversial topics, much less something as politically charged as this. There are several reasons to keep Andrew Jackson on the 20 USD note, but somehow it is appropriate to attribute it to racism? Sure, Trump may be a controversial figure, but this is article has gone overboard to the point of hyperbole. Better to focus on the genuinely troublesome issues and offer a fair balance in his defense. Wikipedia has produced a rambling article of accusations leveled by partisan sources. This only trivializes any issues in Trump's past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.50.52.10 (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The NYT and WaPo are not conflicted or partisan. If you have a problem with those sources, take it to WP:RSN. And, I hope you don't consider racism as not troublesome. O3000 (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can affirm that I find racism troublesome. Hope that helps you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.50.52.10 (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

NYT and WASH POST are not partisan sources, however I agree that the statements from Avita King, a blood relative of the pioneer of racial equality is worthy of a mention in his defense section. She seems less conflicted than the inclusion of a quote from the former RNC chairman who has openly expressed hostility to Trump in the past. I am relatively new on wiki, but I believe I motion to include should be explored to build more fairness and balance to this articleAmorals (talk)Amorals
 * The judgement that Ms. King's family connection makes her statement noteworthy is "original research". Mainstream coverage of the subject has not considered King's statement to be essential to the subject. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I believe a mainstream media source, Fox news which according to wiki rules is a reliable source, covered Avita King. The link seems to have been provided to you above. If this is "original research" multiple editors wouldn't have brought this point up, where do you think they're getting the info from? Widely available in the media. Amorals (talk)Amorals. —Preceding undated comment added 22:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

If this is the logic at play, could it not just as easily be inverted? The suggestion that Fox News' coverage of Avita King is _inadmissible_ appears to be original research. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.50.52.10 (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no logical reason to exclude the Avita King piece other than to selectively suppress the info to project a POV, which is doing a disservice to wikipedia. I motion for other editors to move towards a consensus to make this addition.Amorals (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)Amorals
 * Fox is not generally RS. In straightforward reporting, where it does present factual narratives, there will always be a better source readily available. Please read WP:NPOV, which is a core policy of Wikipedia. This King bit is WP:UNDUE. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Fox is listed as a RS on the Wiki policy page so that statement you made is simply untrue. Suppressing the opinion of a person of color on an article like this is what's Undue. And to be clear other sources have covered this topic so it is not WP: Undue. Additionally, as I said before I motioned for "other" editors who have not weighed in yet. You Specifico have made yourself very clear that you will attempt to frame any WP rule in the book as an argument to exclude Avita King. Other comments indicate animus towards the person who is the very subject of the article, and thus we would like to hear from other editors. Amorals (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)Amorals

Without repeating my earlier comment, I'll agree that this article lacks a neutral point of view. The response to my earlier comment seemed to imply that I was somehow racist because of this view. The bias is evident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.50.52.10 (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The opinions of Avita King and Ben Carson are germane to this article's subject matter, and they are just as valid as the opinions of Al Sharpton and Ilhan Omar. I second the motion to include them for balance. — JFG talk 01:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Unfair Claims, ex. "Chinese Virus"
The article critcizes Trump's use of the word "Chinese Virus" to describe COVID-19 and includes comments from the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund on Twitter that Trump "... doesn't care that Asians and Asian Americans are subjected to hate violence because of this racist description of #coronavirus.". The article fails to acknowledge that Trump spoke on this exact topic in a White House press conference, documented in this Reuter's article. In the conference, Trump said: "It seems that there could be a little bit of nasty language toward the Asian-Americans in our country and I don’t like that at all ... so I just wanted to make that point, because they’re blaming China, and they are making statements to great American citizens that happened to be of Asian heritage, and I’m not gonna let that happen."

The failure to portray a complete picture shown above is merely one example of the many misleading, one-sided statements that this Wikipedia article makes. It is very unfair to the reader. This article is far from neutral, and even goes so far as to falsely portray Trump and his opinions. This article either needs a lot of work or should be taken down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.132.84.226 (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Trump's clarification has been restored. — JFG talk 01:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2020
this is not right. racist views? non-facts 2600:1700:2411:8A50:E43D:85E4:2B1A:9524 (talk) 03:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

any reason that the article should not contain information that I added from an already used reference?
In the first paragraph I added that some of Trump's black friends had defended him against claims that he was racist - I used the same source that had already been used in the same paragraph to mention that some former friends had accused him of racism. My edit was reverted. Why is it that the contents of a source are being cherry picked so that only the parts that are critical of Trump are used but that the bits that give a different view are not used? Birtig (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't use the pejoritive "cherry-picked" to load your question with a presumtion of wrongdoing. If the initial claims of racist speech were in 100% of the sources and the bit about some of his friends are Black was in 1 source, then using that one source for the part that is DUE WEIGHT would not make the "friends" bit due weight just because of the common source. I think that gets at the heart of your concern. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding, though not to the specific point I made - I was focusing on the claim that former friends stated he was racist which is included in the first of the four sources. That same source quoted black friends who said he wasn't. Yet only the former part is used and the other part is rejected. Birtig (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Because many sources say his friends call him racist but few sources say "Black friends" say the opposite. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * He does have a point on that one Specifico. If we are going to use a NYT article as a source for the accusation of racism, more than once, all material within the article it is fair game as far as it goes. Its not lead-material, but that particular article does give plenty of wordage to the defense by his black friends (and yes, I know the some of my friends are black thing is ridiculous). You could happily not use that article anywhere and it wouldnt affect the consensus on his racist remarks or actions at all. DUE and UNDUE are not entirely a numbers game. It cant be realistically argued the quoted views of black people in that article who are friends with him, and work with him, and are notable in their own right, do not constitute a significant (albeit minority) viewpoint. A wrong viewpoint, but still significant in that context. In an ideal word you would have a section where it discusses the various editorials and media response, and include a brief sentence there. The key word in DUE is 'juxtaposition'. The authors of that piece include the black friends because it directly juxtaposes the racist claims. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I refuted that on logical grounds. Further, the context and content that are valid for a newspaper are not the same as the ones we use to write an encyclopedia. It may be news that Trump mustered some Black people to say this or that. I have not seen that widely regarded as signficant in the context of portraying Trump's racial views on the subject at hand. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No they wouldnt be valid for an encyclopedia, but 90% of Wikipedia isnt written like an encyclopedia ;) If we are going to cite newspapers in the way that we currently do, specifically using parts of an article as sources for specific claims, we dont get to disregard the other bits of the article that disagree, and have been deliberately placed there by the authors in order to show that disagreement. While that is not exactly cherry picking, its not ethical either. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine, we could use one of thousands of other references on the racist statement and obviate the concern about how they write the news article. This page is pretty widely followed, so I'm sure others will help figure it out. At any rate, it's quite UNDUE for the lead. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So, if not in the lead, would you be happy for the information to be included in the 'Defenses of Donald Trump' section? Birtig (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see including their defense of Trump in the lead as undue weight at all. It's mentioned in the source, and the proposed content makes up less than a full sentence. The real undue weight is the failure of the lead section of the article to adequately represent claims that Trump is not a racist. Restoring this small piece of content will not fix this problem, but it will make it better. I propose that it be restored to the lead and that more detail be added in the body of the article. Display name 99 (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really. The mainstream coverage of this "some of my best friends are Black" defense has not been favorable to Trump. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 12:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a complete mischaracterisation of the situation - the article does not claim that Trump had suggested anything remotely like 'some of my friends are black' rather the author had chosen to point out that some of Trump's black friends had spoken out in his defense. Considering the article is seem as a strong enough source to support other claims in the lead of this article, I find it astonishing that you should not think it appropriate to also include these claims anywhere in the article. Birtig (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between "it's astonishing" and you feeling astonished. I've already addressed the issue you keep repeating. We don't go by the single source. The weight of RS reports on this do not take a few Black persons' comments as any sort of counterclaim to Trump's remark. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What remark? The content has not been added as a counterclam to accusations over racism regarding any particular mark, but against accusations of racism in general. Anyhow, there are three editors who have spoken in favor of readding this to the article and only one who has opposed. That is enough for consensus. I am restoring the information. Display name 99 (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * While I have been following this discussion I have not joined in because I felt that SPECIFICO had it well-covered. I agree with the comment, "The weight of RS reports on this do not take a few Black persons' comments as any sort of counterclaim to Trump's remark."  Gandydancer (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, what remark? Display name 99 (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The specific point I am focusing on is in reference to what friends think regarding whether Trump is racist - the article suggests that friends think he is racist (based on one source) and does not state that other friends, who happen to be black, disagree (based on the same source). Unless there is overwhelming evidence that most friends think he is racist, then surely balance is required on this specific aspect? Birtig (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Since an editor put it in the lead, (falsely) claiming consensus, I thought a good first step would be simply to conform the lead sentence to the cited source, which cites a small number of people with dark skin, who are employed by Trump, vouching for him. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You complain about other editors adding information without consensus and you have now done the same. Except you appear to have inadvertently missed out using the key word 'friend' which is in the original source. Allow me to correct your addition. Birtig (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Trump's Executive Order Combating Anti-Semitism
Just noticing that there is no mention anywhere in the article that Trump signed an Executive Order combating anti-Semitism in December 2019. Surely this action should be included in an article that seeks to interpret his racial views based on his words and actions? Would there be any objections to me adding this information?Birtig (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This would require adding the large amount of criticism generated by this order. O3000 (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that would be like him signing a proclamation celebrating Flag Day or, maybe a better parallel, national Eat Healthy Day. That order was widely greeted with scorn in the context of his other words and deeds. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The main article is Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism, and it an underdeveloped stub or start article. Dimadick (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So am I to conclude that anything said or done by Trump that gives a different picture of his racial views than the one presented in this article will not be included, precisely because they contract that picture? Birtig (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You know perfectly well that we rely on the weight of mainstream RS. Please don't clutter this page with straw persons.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Correct. Even if Trump directly condemns white supremacists people will ignore that, but promote the fact his critics didn't believe him in the lead.  There are major POV issues on this page, I've tried to discuss them on here but the POV tag was removed multiple times.  The article as it stands is a hit piece, anything which contradicts the narrative is verboten.  I'd appreciate your input in the POV discussion above. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with the position that WP takes on quite a few subjects but when group consensus is not on my side I have no choice but to accept that and admit that I'm not the boss of Wikipedia and work on other articles where I can make improvements.  Gandydancer (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The truth, facts, are the boss of Wikipedia. The most important thing people can do on Wikipedia is fight for the truth where it's not being told.
 * In this article opinions are being promoted over facts because there's a consensus that negative opinions about Trump are more important than facts. That's something that's worth fighting. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not a battleground.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Then stop battling against a NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.50.52.10 (talk) 05:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Topic is a Dumpster Fire
Neutrality on this article and perhaps this topic is seemingly impossible in this with every direction having a different rigid unbending opinion and everyone being so emotionally and politically charged on every aspect of the event. It is not merely here, news, commentators, experts, institutions and other sources all having slants and spins that make more for roller-coasters than workable public dialogue or fact-reporting and civility has become seemingly impossible for reasons I can not fathom. When did everyone become so allergic to the concept of treating other people with basic decency? Have we all become so childish and spoiled that we can not even bear the light burden of treating one another like fellow human beings?

Is there any kind of a tag for something where consensus and objectivity are impossible due to current tensions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.47.11.146 (talk) 05:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Even if there were, some editors would argue against it being applied to this article and would block it on 'no consensus' grounds. Birtig (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, heck even <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>, tried to close this discussion (which I undid) with a "The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it." message, when the discussion didn't even last a day. Jeez. <b style="color: #FF0000;"> Sergeant Davin</b>(talk) 19:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Do any of you have a constructive suggestion? Or, are you just going to make personal attacks? O3000 (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Topic is a Dumpster Fire
Neutrality on this article and perhaps this topic is seemingly impossible in this with every direction having a different rigid unbending opinion and everyone being so emotionally and politically charged on every aspect of the event. It is not merely here, news, commentators, experts, institutions and other sources all having slants and spins that make more for roller-coasters than workable public dialogue or fact-reporting and civility has become seemingly impossible for reasons I can not fathom. When did everyone become so allergic to the concept of treating other people with basic decency? Have we all become so childish and spoiled that we can not even bear the light burden of treating one another like fellow human beings?

Is there any kind of a tag for something where consensus and objectivity are impossible due to current tensions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.47.11.146 (talk) 05:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Even if there were, some editors would argue against it being applied to this article and would block it on 'no consensus' grounds. Birtig (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, heck even <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>, tried to close this discussion (which I undid) with a "The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it." message, when the discussion didn't even last a day. Jeez. <b style="color: #FF0000;"> Sergeant Davin</b>(talk) 19:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Do any of you have a constructive suggestion? Or, are you just going to make personal attacks? O3000 (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not think this is an issue that can be ignored, it is undermining the very purpose of the article on the wiki. It ought to be an unbiased source of information. If it can not be that we must at least tell people who are going to be using this as a potential source of information. If not, remove the article until it can be so.

I would like to move for neutrality to be checked as it seems an objective consensus can not be reached and if this goes unchallenged, it sets a very dangerous precedent for the wiki as a whole and undermines the entire project. 71.47.11.146 (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You have not provided any suggested changes or any indication that there is a problem. This is not useful. O3000 (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

To 71.47.11.146 - Given that this section, that you created, reads as a very vague editorial with no specifics, I agree with O3000 in that your editorial is not useful. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I assume this should be non-controversial
I notice that someone must have edited the sentence at some point to twist the meaning - have returned to accurately reflect what all three cited sources state. Stating "without admitting wrongdoing" is what all three sources state: the version had become "without having to admit wrongdoing" which has implications beyond that which are supported by the sources. Birtig (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC about POV issues
A number of editors have repeatedly removed Donald Trump's directly stated views on racism on the basis that the statements are not credible, or that any racist would say they are not racist or condemn racism. Others have argued that Trump's directly stated views are highly relevant to a page on Donald Trump's views, and should be featured at least as prominently as his critics' views.

A related issue concerns NPOV, while several of us have argued there are serious POV issues on the page, when the tag is added it is simply removed.

I'm not overly familiar with Wikipedia's rules and policies, so I apologise if this too lengthy or is otherwise inappropriate, but I think this discussion needs some external input. Attempting to build consensus with the regular editors of this page has got absolutely nowhere. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Abort This statement is not neutral (as is required for an RfC) and it misstates the objections of numerous editors who have pointed out that the current text accurately reflects the weight of mainstream presentation of the issue. The article text does not come from editors' views. It comes from what Reliable Sources have written. Finally, you have not presented a clear choice on which to poll RfC respondants. Please withdraw this RfC. It is malformed. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree this is a malformed RFC. Please withdraw this RFC. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I will not withdraw. It's a request for comments, not an opinion poll. If anyone feels I've given an unfair take on the situation they are very welcome to give their own. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Abort This is not stated as an RfC. It is stated as an opinion. O3000 (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Withdraw this RfC and replace with another one. I think you misunderstand the point of RfC's - they're to resolve a specific dispute, not just to get a general discussion going (see WP:RFCBRIEF), so in that sense they sort of are an opinion poll. If I understand this dispute correctly, a reasonable question might be "In discussing events such as the 2019 El Paso shooting, should this article describe Trump's views before those of his critics?". Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I did read the RfC page before I posted this. I know ideally they're to deal with single issues, but the POV issues appear throughout the page and are very similar in nature.  Defences of Trump are dismissed because we would expect him to defend himself, while his opponents' views are shown prominently.  My feeling was that if we discussed the various issues there would be too much crossover. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - Include some Trump response seems appropriate - for NPOV, all significant views should be shown in due proportion to the weight of their coverage so his responses would seem relevant, as would disputes from his supporters. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * For instance Ben Carson. Politico writes He [Ben Carson] continued: "When he bought Mar-a-Lago, he was the one who fought for Jews and blacks to be included in the clubs that were trying to exclude them. You know, people say he's a racist, he is not a racist." Bus stop (talk) 05:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't so much that that Trump's views are excluded from the article totally, at least in my experience, as that they're featured much less prominently than what Trump's opponents think of him. The consensus appears to be that Trump's repeated condemnation of racism shouldn't be in the lead, even though the article is about his views, and that his opponents' views should be.  Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:NPOV. The premise of your concern is false. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Rambo Apocalypse - Good point ! Perhaps the title should be changed to something more like 'Racial Allegations against Donald Trump' ?  The article really doesn't have much about what Donald Trump's racial views are, but has a fair collection of speculative allegations in claims that something he did is racist.  For example, the 'Pretty Korean Lady' section has an extract from NBC relating two unnamed sources about a meeting with an unnamed intelligence analyst expert on hostages and Trump supposedly asking why the pretty Korean lady isn't negotiating with North Korea.  From which NBC voices an impression that the article quotes a sentence of.   And then the Vox review of the NBC piece gets a quote of "Vox suggested..." giving another way to take offense.   There's nothing shown of Trump responding to those suspicions.  Also - oddly neither piece seemed to imagine any possibility that her hostage expertise and national heritage could actually be useful for the hostage negotiations with North Korea which were happening at that same time which succeeded.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

George Wallace denied being racist If the inclusion of Trump's perfunctory denials of racism will result in an increased perception of neutrality, I don't see the problem. Taquim 17:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taquim (talk • contribs)
 * Abort. This is the exact opposite of what an RfC is supposed to be. This is starting to become disruptive. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed the RfC tag because as other editors have pointed out above, this is just a discussion without clear implications for the time being. Feel free to continue discussing and/or draft another RfC. signed,Rosguill talk 00:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Trump's condemnation of racism
Yesterday I made an edit to the page noting that Trump has condemned racism on multiple occasions, including citations from reputable sources, alongside the note that Trump has denied that he is racist. His condemnation of racism surely belongs at the very top of the article as much as his denial of being racist.

I also reordered the comments on an El Paso shooting to give Trump's views first rather than Beto O'Rourke's views of Trump's views.

Someone edited this, noting the word "whitewashing". Please explain the meaning of this, otherwise I intend to restore the changes.

Hopefully we can get through this without any more false accusations or sockpuppetry or attempts to get people blocked. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 09:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, 'whitewashing' involves removing or covering over something, so not sure how adding relevant information could be classed as 'whitewashing'. Birtig (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the editor was describing what he was doing. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, indeed. It is a surprising thing about an article that claims to be about Trump's "racial views" that the one thing that it appears to be difficult to add are instances when he has explicitly stated his racial views, even when these instances have been reported by reliable sources. Birtig (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see a consensus here. I will revert RA's edit.  Gandydancer (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? There is a unanimous consensus among all who have commented.  What's more, I posted on the talkpage of the person who initially reverted inviting them to come here and discuss it, they have not done so.  Please revert your edit.  19:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rambo Apocalypse (talk • contribs)
 * LOL, you are aware that only two editors have commented, right? Gandydancer (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, and? It's a public page, if anyone disagrees they can say so. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Most white supremacists claim they aren't racist. Indeed, most of them claim minorities are the racists. Pretty meaningless. O3000 (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This article is about his views. The fact he has condemned racism multiple times, as reported by multiple sources, is relevant.  You don't have to believe him, the article isn't saying that it's definitely true that he believes it, but legitimate summing up of Donald Trump's racial views would include the fact he has condemned racism several times.  Why exactly don't you want it mentioned?


 * What's the justification for putting his opponents views on his views of the El Paso massacre ahead of his own? Or does nobody have to justify that, just revert as "Whitewashing" and that's the end of it?  Don't edit it or we'll get you banned.  Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't see anyone here threatening to ban you, and have no interest in a discussion that throws stuff like that out. O3000 (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You were arguing that I was a sockpuppet in an effort to get me banned only on Tuesday. You who has told me I should assume good faith.
 * However, this isn't about me, this is about the racial views of Donald Trump. You, or anyone else, is welcome to tell me why Donald Trump's explicit condemnation of racism and white supremacism, as reported by impeccable sources, should be excluded from the lead of the article about his racial views.  Nobody has put forward any reason to exclude it.  Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Rambo, tone down the hyperbole. As long as someone abides by the site policies, and consensus, they’re free to edit here. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no hyperbole. I make a good faith edit to the page, someone reverts it with the word "whitewashing", I post on the talk page asking them to explain it, I bring it to their attention on their own personal talk page, I am met with nothing but agreement here, I edit it back in, and then some other editor simply reverts it again.  If both people who speak about it agreeing that it should be restored (100% of people) isn't sufficient for consensus then what am  I supposed to do?  How am I supposed to get consensus when people don't reply and don't present arguments?  Additionally two prominent editors here supported false accusations against me to try to get me banned, so any words about being freed to edit here and abiding by site policies or assuming good faith ring very hollow.  Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your only block was for clear violation of 1RR. And, I made no accusations. Further, I don't see why you think more people are required to respond on a holiday weekend. WP:FOC O3000 (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I never claimed you made the false accusation, I said you supported it, because you did, but as you say, we should focus on the issue. Why do you want to exclude Trump's overt condemnation of racism from the lead of an article about his views? Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Because outside of David Duke, no one really readily or enthusiastically admits that they're a racist? Trump's denials are boilerplate deflection that adds little to the article. And for the record, yes, I reverted your change as "whitewashing". No I did not come back to this page after your message because I quite simply forgot. Saw the talk page ping on my phone, marked it as read, and then didn't think of it the next time I hit the PC. Zaathras (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about denying he is a racist, his denial is already there in the lead. I'm talking about his condemnation of racism.  Do racists condemn racism?  How is him condemning racism not highly relevant to the article? Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course racists condemn racism. Constantly. Because they believe some races are inferior and therefore saying they are inferior is not racist as stating the "truth" cannot be racist. And because they think those minorities are racists for having the gall to claim they are equal. O3000 (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't believe you're genuinely arguing that racists believe racism is saying that races are equal. That's the exact opposite of what the word means.  If you pretend your opponents mean the exact opposite of what they say whenever it's convenient you can convince yourself of anything.  You can't insist it's included on Wikipedia though. 02:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rambo Apocalypse (talk • contribs)
 * Carefully reread what I wrote. O3000 (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Trump condemning racism because of the "storm of criticism" he received for seemingly embracing racism is not a significant point worthy of inclusion in the lead. In your May 21 and May 24 edits you claimed that Trump "repeatedly condemned racism and white supremacism". That's an outright fabrication. If you repeat it, I expect that you face a topic ban. In the cited Washington Post article, they wrote: "He then repeated “on many sides,” apparently emphasizing that the counterprotesters (which included many who were peaceful and some who weren’t) needed to be condemned, as well." The BBC wrote: "Mr Trump was criticised for not specifically denouncing extremists in his initial comments on the violence." It would be accurate to say that Trump rarely condemns racism, but that doesn't belong in the lead either. I strongly recommend that you listen to what experienced editors have been telling you, rather than continuing to try to jam non-WP:NPOV material into the article. - MrX 🖋 14:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * —you say "Trump's denials are boilerplate deflection that adds little to the article." Let the reader decide. In my opinion this would be anything but "boilerplate". But my opinion is not what matters. This article should not be one-sided. We should not only be including indications of racism and antisemitism. We should also be including indications of countervailing sentiments. Why? Because ultimately the reader should form their own opinion on the matter that is ostensibly under examination in this article. Bus stop (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Bus stop, please review WP:NPOV. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO—if there is a specific point at WP:NPOV you would like to bring to my attention then please do so. Bus stop (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Per your recent post, I would not want to impose my selection of the NPOV page content on you, so I suggest you review the entire page. We should all do that from time to time. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a fact that he condemned racism, speculation about his motives is irrelevant. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If Trump's directly stated racial views, his condemnation of white supremacy, the fact that he married an immigrant, the fact that his son-in law is Jewish and that he is a grandfather to Jewish kids... are not allowed in this article, perhaps the page title should be changed to reflect what is really going on in this article. Birtig (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Birtig, comments such as the above are your personal opinions but do not reflect the narratives in the bulk of mainstream Reliable Sources and cannot be used to determine article content. Please don't continue to use the talk page for off-topic opinions. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's correct. We follow sources, not editor's analyses and conclusions. - MrX 🖋 14:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I've yet to a see a good reason why Trump's explicit condemnation of racism can't be in the lead. Most of the responses here seem to focus on his denial of being a racist, on the basis that he would say that if he were a racist or not. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Plenty of good reasons have been given. You simply don't seem to accept them. - MrX 🖋 14:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality tag
My edit adding a neutrality tag to the article was reverted by, who argued that the tag should not exist unless specific policy issues were raised. I am doing so now. The article fails WP:Balance. Content that can in any way be pereceived as favorable to Trump is consistently removed by editors who disregard what is supposed to be the unbiased nature of Wikipedia in order to promote their own cultural and political values. The fact that black people who have known Trump have said that he is not a racist and the fact that Trump has repeatedly denied accusations of racism were both removed from the lead. About 95% of the article consists of material critical to Trump. The only defenses of him come in a miniscule two-paragraph section. The fact that I even need to explain how biased this article is is simply absurd. Display name 99 (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The article is not necessarily critical of Trump; many Trump followers would read the various accounts of his words and actions regarding race and agree with everything he has said and done. If you see a problem with a specific section in the article then please present it for discussion. If you want to indicate in the lead that Ben Carson and Trump himself deny accusations of racism I personally don't see a problem with that. Taquim 04:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taquim (talk • contribs)


 * I'm glad that you personally don't see a problem with it, but some editors do. That is why a statement in the lead saying that Trump denied accusations of racism was removed, along a statement that black people who have worked for him have said that he is not racist. The problem isn't that quotes and actions by Trump are included in the article. They certainly should be. The issue is that the anti-Trump responses are invariably given absolute attention while views in defense of Trump are routinely ignored. Practically the only section of the article with anything favorable to say about him is the two paragraph section I mentioned earlier. The rest is filled with attacks on him. Display name 99 (talk) 04:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The section that needs to be expanded is the Defences of Donald Trump subsection but most additions there seem to be deleted as well. Birtig (talk) 08:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. The section is so miniscule that it is virtually a joke and seems to only there to provide the obligatory semlence of neutrality. I think I'll try making some additions and see what happens. Display name 99 (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This page is horribly biased.  If the logic that anything Trump says denying racism or any statements opposing racism are unimportant because it's politically advantageous to him to deny racism this is nothing more than a hit-piece.  An article on any person which followed such logic would be.  It should either be rewritten with far more prominence given to Trump's stated views, and less given to his opponents', or deleted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rambo Apocalypse (talk • contribs) 19:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

hall we also cite some of the numerous RS that point out Trump's mustering anodyne "defenses" from a handful of the earth's billions of darker-skinned people is not a good look for Trump? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how, especially if these are people who worked for him or who have known him for a long time. Display name 99 (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why would you consider people who worked for him or who have known him for a long time good sources? People that have worked for me or are friends would support me too. Besides, he grossly attacks anyone who dares criticize him. Lately, he's been repeatedly suggesting a person who criticized him is an adulterer and murderer with no evidence. O3000 (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that they have known or worked with him a long time does not automatically mean that they will like him. If a non-white person who knew Trump for a long time and had a close relationship with him said that he is not racist, that is noteworthy. I don't know what your statement that he "grossly attacks" people who criticize him has to do with anything. It doesn't seem like the point of this discussion at all. Display name 99 (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Who are these longtime supporters? I don't see you caliming "friends" so let's just find some longtime close relationships. Not Ms. Omorosa, who is all over the media criticizing him. Not Dr. Ben Carson, whom he met for the first time on a presidential debate stage in 2015. Who can you name and cite? Then we can have a concrete discussion. I just noticed Birtig added a reference to NBC News Montana that says only one in 10 Black voters approve of Trump. It's rather bizarre to cite that in an attempt to tip the balance of the article text the opposite way. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not attempting to tip the balance "the opposite way". Just to a more neutral way. I assume you do not regard my edit as being in bad faith in that it was attempting to make the article unbalance? Birtig (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This article is about his views according to his words and actions. Actions speak louder than words. What his friends and employees might say is questionable, considering his words and actions towards ex-friends and ex-employees. We can include them. But, they do not have equal weight with what he has done and said over decades. WP:FALSEBALANCE. O3000 (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue is not getting "equal weight"...it is getting "some weight". I have watched this article for a while now and whenever anything is added that does not 100% fit the 'Trump is a racist..period' viewpoint, it is either deleted immediately or just chipped away at over time so that the end result is the same: the article we have before us at present. I have no doubt that Trump has said things that are racist and has acted in ways that appear racist but I strongly feel that it is appropriate that other views are allowed to be reflected and other evidence included. Birtig (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

- here's some advice. Make a specific change. If reverted, and you feel strongly about it, start an RFC (please word it properly). Not happy with local consensus? Go for community consensus, and respect that decision.  starship .paint  (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Remove the tag -- it's not applicable. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * This represents exactly what is wrong with the article. Until editors stop doing this whenever someone tries to add a little bit of balance to the article, the tag needs to remain. Display name 99 (talk) 01:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I wholeheartedly disagree. Who the hell writes phrases like "black woman and Baltimore resident"? The sentences sourced to the Washington Examiner(!) are pretty bad. No offense to whoever wrote it, but it reads as a desperate attempt to defend Trump against accusations of racism by accusing Bernie Sanders(!) of racism.
 * Also, I agree that the POV tag should not be placed on the article. There is no shortage of editors giving their attention to this page. Maintenance tags are not consolation prizes for editors (and SPAs and sock) who have consistently failed to gain consensus for the idea that the article does not conform to WP:NPOV. - MrX 🖋 01:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Just saw this tag back. For reasons stated above, I will remove it. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with "black woman and Baltimore resident?" In an article about Trump's racial views, the fact that a prominent black woman believes that something that Trump said about the place where she lives which was perceived by some people to be racist was actually justified is significant. There's nothing wrong with sourcing to the Washington Examiner, and I find it irritating that newspapers like the Examiner that are high-quality material but happen to have slightly conservative leanings are deemed unreliable while newspapers with high-quality material that have liberal leanings such as the Washington Post and New York Times are widely used. As the writer of the text, I did not intend to accuse anybody of racism. All that I am attempting to do was to represent the viewpoints of different sides with fairness and equilibrium, the way that Wikipedia is supposed to. Display name 99 (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * - I suggest you compile the most important content that has been reverted, find the best sources for them (refer to green highlights at WP:RSP, and start an RFC.  starship .paint  (talk) 03:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:BRD indicates that when a change is added and then reverted, consensus for that change should be obtained before re-adding it. In this case, the change is the addition of an NPOV tag, which was reverted, thus the consensus must now be reached to re-add it. Re-adding it while consensus is still being evaluated is against BRD and a precursor to an edit war. Now that being said, a quick scan of the current talk page (across all sections, since this has been discussed before) shows roughly eight people against the addition of the tag, and three in favour. Consensus is not a head count, but it can be indicative of general sentiment. I also consider that the policy reasons given for why positive material should not be given equal weight are sound. Wikipedia's policy is to reflect the aggregate balance across reliable secondary sources; if that happens to be 90% negative and 10% positive, then the article's balance should strive to approximate that balance as well. Considering all of this, my position is to keep the NPOV tag out of the article. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  04:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)]]
 * I dont know if you have noticed, but the tag was originally removed without prior discussion or consensus, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump&diff=957552529&oldid=957536030&diffmode=source . It was there for years until some random person removed it on 19 May, saying "no discussion", while discussions are obviously still going on. Keep the Tag in or find a good reason to warrant the removal SmooveMike (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2020 Blocked sock –  NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  01:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't know what you're talking about, and how could you, you are a brand new editor? This tag was recently added by sockpuppets and suspicious sleeper accounts that recently became active, and whom I assume are good people. More editors have advanced policy based reasoning for omitting the tag. Consensus is not a head count. - MrX 🖋 11:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Template:POV saysThe purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article I'm sure this article doesn't need to attract more editors of varying viewpoints, there are plenty watching it. Using it to "warn"readers is the only reason to add it and should not be done. Instead work to make it neutral.Smeat75 (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , leaving the tag up serves the purpose of continuing to attract editors and invite them to participate in conversations on the talk page. On the contrary, the same article that you linked to says that the template may be removed when there is consensus that the issue has been resolved, it is not clear what the issue is, or discussion is dormant. None of these things is true. Therefore, you ought to restore the tag. Display name 99 (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I neither removed it nor put it on and I will not do either, I am just saying that in my opinion the only point of that tag on this article is to "warn" readers "somebody thinks this article is crap" which is not how they are supposed to be used.Smeat75 (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The 'good reason to warrant removal' has been given - policy supports removal. No adequately justified reason to add it has been provided. Simply saying "it's not balanced" is subjective and insufficient reasoning, evidence needs to be provided that the balance of positive/negative claims in the article fails to reflect the same balance in reliable secondary sources. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  01:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I see now that SmooveMike is blocked for sockpuppetry, but for anyone else reading: the edit SmooveMike cited claiming the tag had been there for years is incorrect. The cited edit removed a tag that was added . I scanned edits back to 19 December 2019, and aside from two immediately reverted additions of the tag on May 4 and 5, and the addition on May 11 that was reverted on May 19, the tag has not appeared at all in at least the last six months. It's clear that the status quo is the absence of the tag and adding it requires consensus, not the other way around. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  01:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

white supremacy mentioned in the lead?
If white supremacy is to be discussed in the opening paragraph, it is appropriate that Trump's repeated condemnations of white supremacy should also be mentioned. Birtig (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you propose some cited examples of what you feel is needed? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe a sentence like, "Trump himself has publicly condemned white supremacy in addresses from the White House., " Birtig (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Those sources seem to be saying he failed to condemn white supremacy and then read prepared text with B-movie speechwriter jargon in it. I think what would be most informative and supportive of what I presume is your assessment of the due weight, would be if you could find some of his off-the-cuff remarks in televised interviews that present his own words. I presume such remarks exist, and if they've been widely reported and treated as credible and significant they might be the basis for some article text. I don't think we can use canned speechwriten remarks that are immediately disparaged by the weight of secondary sources, or at least not to show what I understand you feel needs to be shown. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk
 * Why did you ask me to "propose some cited examples" when you were always going to reject those examples for reasons other than the reliability of the sources? I assumed good faith in your request. Birtig (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought you were aware of all the past discussion that has deprecated those references as documents of a disingenuous strategist cleaning up his transcript. If you were not aware, please review the archives on this matter. If you were aware, then it's not going to bring a different result on iteration n+1. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We have discussed this before. He only condemned white supremacy after the tremendous blowback he received for not condemning them and for referring to them as fine people. Could we please stop having the same discussion over and over expecting different outcomes?- MrX 🖋 21:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Trump did not refer to white supremacists as 'fine people' - Please read the full transcript (below) where in the very paragraph before he uses the phrase 'fine people' he stated "and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally"
 * "Trump: "Okay, good. Are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue?
 * "So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.
 * "Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group." Birtig (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to start a blog to explore the nuanced meanings in Trump's comments, have fun. But at Wikipedia we use reliable sources. - MrX 🖋 11:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well....some of them Birtig (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I added your proposed sentence in. Its necessary to mention. You cant just put in half of the story SmooveMike (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If someone takes it out saying it "wasnt discussed", then the original addition will be deleted too, as that one wasnt discussed either. cheers SmooveMike (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Of course it will be removed - this is the nature of the problem with this article. The sources are highly reliable but that would appear to not be not enough as it was Trump who made the statements Birtig (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah i have a feeling it will be. In that case though, the original addition has to be removed too, as you cant just put in half of the story SmooveMike (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

"MAGA loves the Black people"
How come this iconic quote is not in the article? Good chance to use Trump's words on his own behalf. , perhaps you'd craft some text? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 12:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk - don't know what you're referring to. But if you won't accept Trump condemning white supremacy when it is reported by reliable sources, I doubt you will accept anything he says unless it fits your paradigm. Birtig (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait... we're allowed/required to drink heavily while editing?! Nobody told me. 🍺🍸🍷 🤣 - MrX 🖋 13:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Here ya go.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * above.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk. I hadn't read those articles, but now that I have it is clear that his statement that his base loves black people has no bearing on his own racial views and therefore is of no relevance for this article. Birtig (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

An editor has now added this nonsense in the 'Defences of Donald Trump' section - I removed and another editor has added again. It doesn't say anything about Trump's racial views so it clearly isn't relevant in this subsection. I assume no one will object if I move it elsewhere in the article? I don't see it in any way relevant anywhere but if people think it relevant, it should at least be placed somewhere appropriate. Birtig (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you move it you will be violating 1RR. Suggest you stand down.
 * MAGA is Trump's movement and he is its leader and voice. Your argument is unlikely to achieve consensus here. If it does, that will be noted with a smile. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

"The Blacks" Taquim 18:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taquim (talk • contribs)
 * The fact he says 'they love black people' rather than 'we love black people' in the extended quote strongly suggests he's not including himself in that label. I agree with Birtig that this statement isn't directly relevant to Trump's racial views. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  23:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh OK, so his MEGA supporters love the black people but he does not love the black people -- is that what you are saying? Gandydancer (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm saying I don't consider the statement to relate to Trump's racial views, which is the topic of this article. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  01:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * On reflection, I'm still not sure I understand where you're coming from. You seem to be asking me if I think "MAGA loves black people" is a true statement, but I'm only concerned with whether or not the statement is about Trump's racial views. It's not our job to determine if a statement is truthful, only if it's relevant (and well sourced). I'm not convinced it is relevant to Trump's racial views because his phrasing implies he's talking about his supporters, not himself. I hope that answers your question. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  02:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Had Trump said "I love Black people" it could be relevant to this article. Birtig (talk) 08:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To Birtig & NULL  - I disagree with you two & I'll explain why. I think what Trump said most certainly belongs in this WP article titled, "Racial views of Donald Trump. It's important to not accidentally misquote Trump. Trump's exact quote: "MAGA loves the black people.</I>"  So in his mind, Trump sees "MAGA" and Trump sees "<i> the  black people" but Trump does not see them as being one and the same (which is a racial view). During the same presser that Trump said that, and still talking about "MAGA," Trump was asked whether "MAGA" would show up at the White House, as requested by Trump in his Tweet, Trump answered, "I have no idea if that's true or not but they love our country."  So again, in Trump's mind, MAGA loves " the black people" and MAGA loves "our country." With that last quote of Trump added, Trump's use of ‘ the ’ seems to be a racial qualifier which denotes the distance between black people and love of America - at least in Trump's mind - which is a racial view. BetsyRMadison (talk) 10:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Very well thought-out and well expressed also. Gandydancer (talk) 12:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We can't include it on that basis without secondary sources, it's original research: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Analysis, evaluation, interpretation and synthesis must be in a secondary source to be included. Even if it did meet the OR burden (and I maintain it doesn't), a 'straightforward description of facts' (as required) that supports the premise that Trump believes in racial division certainly doesn't belong in the 'defenses' section where it currently resides, which is supposed to contain detail that opposes that premise. I don't mind its inclusion if it's mentioned in secondary sources and moved to another section, but it can't stay the way it is, where it is. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  12:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please review Wikipedia documentation on primary sources and secondary reliable sourcing. A primary source would be if the citation were, to a video of Trump's statement. The statement was widely reported in news media, which are secondary sources. You can read dozens of them for context and interpretation as to Trump's relationship to MAGA and whether he was stating his view, etc. There is no Original Research here and most importantly, coverage of Trump's statements answer the various critics of this article who say that it represents only "other peoples opinions" about Trump's racial views. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I had initially seen the source for that provided as a Youtube video, which would have been primary. I didn't notice it linked to Fox instead, my apologies. That doesn't change anything though, the source does not include analysis that links Trump's statement to his views on racial division, nor does it offer any defense of Trump's views. Please review the quote I provided above, paraphrased from OR policy: analysis must be present in secondary sources to be included. This source does not include analysis of Trump's statement that would justify its relevance to Trump's racial views. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  13:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To clarify, if the statement is intended to stand alone as a defense of Trump's racial views, then it fails to do that based on what I said initially about his use of the word 'they'. If it's intended to be a secondary defense of Trump's racial views, then a secondary source that provides a defensive interpretation needs to be provided. The Fox one doesn't satisfy that. If neither of those are the case, then it doesn't belong in the defenses section. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  13:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Forget "defense" -- it is a statement of his view. The "defenses of Trump" header is bizarre to begin with. Why do his views need defending? This article is to describe the views. It is not an indictment. He doesn't need defense. His views are his views. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The suggestion that Trump's views are somehow different than the MAGA views is not reasonable. Trump "invented" MAGA.  It's not like "Republican party" where one could correctly say the group is a "they" to Trump.  Trump is MAGA.  Gandydancer (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not a statement of his view though, it's a statement of MAGA supporters' view. The fact he 'invented' MAGA doesn't mean he and they are forever in lockstep; if Elon Musk said "They love rockets. SpaceX loves rockets", we can't infer from that that Musk loves rockets (even if it may be true). If Trump said 'we' or 'I', this wouldn't be an issue, but he said 'they'. That's a clear grammatical delineation between MAGA supporters and himself that can't be ignored. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  21:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * This conversation seems odd to me. If "MAGA loves the Black people" means anything, it’s probably an indication of his problem with race akin to his statement: "I've always had a great relationship with the blacks.” Some find such statements cringe-worthy. I suggest dropping the whole subject. O3000 (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Content removed from defense of Trump section
, can you please explain why you removed https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump&diff=960529931&oldid=960430666 this] content, which as far as I can tell is in accordance with the source? Display name 99 (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The text misrepresented the source, which is about Trump's attempt to cobble support from minorities despite his history of the opposite. Moreover, it's a weak source and the story and accompanying narratives are not cited to widely-published mainstream sources. I find the "defenses of Trump" section title inappropriate. This article is a presentation of mainstream reporting and analysis of his views. Why do they need "defense"? Why would such defense be found in an encyclopedia? It almost reads like the pleading of a condemned person. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk, I am open to the idea that the subsection could be worded in a better way but the reason it currently exists is due to the way the article is constructed: the article outlines example after example where evidence is led that suggest that Trump is racist, or anti-Semitic or pro-white supremacy, in the same way a prosecution would outline its case, and therefore evidence that would give a different interpretation should also be laid out. If you do not think this other evidence should be included in this article, perhaps the title of the article should be changed to 'Evidence that suggests Trump is a racist' and be done with it. Birtig (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds like the Zebra article should have a section entitled "Zebras without stripes". We follow the sources. I have not seen anyone propose credible mainstream sources that deny Trump's appeals to racist and xenophobic themes. If you find any credible mainstream sources that describe him differently, just show them and I see no reason to think the editors here would reject them. You also have RSN and NPOVN to pursue consensus, should you locate any such sources. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There are sources containing defenses of Trump in the "Defenses of Trump" section. I've linked to many other sources detailing his defense of his comments about Baltimore, some of which fully or partially take his side, but some editors don't seem to care. Display name 99 (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * , yes, the article is about Trump's attempts to gain additional support from minority communities, and the text that you removed from the article says that Trump and his allies have pointed towards his funding of historically black colleges and support for criminal justice reform in order to get more non-whites on his side and to argue that his administration is helping them. So where exactly is the contradiction? Here are other mainstream news articles from the AP, the Guardian, the NYT, NBC, and CNN about Trump signing such legislation and using it as a way to signal his support for racial minorities:     The CNN article is particularly notable. It quotes Trump as saying: "African-Americans built this nation through generations of blood, sweat and tears. You are entitled to a government that puts your needs, your interests and your families first." I feel that this quote should be included in the article. Display name 99 (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You are saying that we should accept Trump's assertion that he did this or that funding/support as a true and significant fact. If it is true that he has a record of whatever, you would need to find independent reliable secondary sources, not accounts of him making this or that self-serving assertion. He also has told us that the US economy is the strongest ever, that he is the greatest this or that since whenever, and whatnot. We need evaluation or confirmation by independent secondary RS for such

claims. It's not hard to find such sources for valid article content. His own boasts are documented, yes, but if those are used in the article, it would likely end up being in the context of RS documentation that such claims are false. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The articles clearly establish that Trump funded historically black colleges and signed the First Step Act, which released thousands of convicted felons, many of them non-white. I will take your silence in response to my question about where the contradiction lied between the article text and the source as an acknowledgement that there isn't one. Display name 99 (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In the USA, the president does not fund anything. The US Congress funds and enacts other legislation. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't get snarky on the talk page. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Trump signed a bill which would grant funding to such colleges. You know that fully well. You're the one getting snarky. Display name 99 (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To Display name 99 - We the People funded black colleges, not Trump. In fact, I will go a step further and say Trump needs to release his tax returns (like he promised he'd do 4 years ago but never did) before I will concede that Trump spent even one red-cent to fund any colleges. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I was obviously referring to a bill that Trump signed into law. Stop BSing me. Display name 99 (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The president signs all bills into law. Most of them had nothing to do with him, did not begin with him, and do not reflect his policies or priorities. Most of them are passed with "veto-proof" majorities in the Congress. You do not seem to be aware of how the US Government is structured and how it operates. There's nothing to discuss here. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , these universities, like many other things, cannot be funded if the President vetoes a bill unless Congress overrides it with a two-thirds majority. Congress votes on what to fund, and the President approves or disapproves it. So when an institution is funded, it is not inaccurate to say that it was funded by the President along with Congress, unless funding was passed over his veto. You challenged me to find sources verifying that Trump signed criminal justice reform into law and approved funding more historically black colleges. I have done so. Therefore, the content that you removed should be restored. Display name 99 (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Look, sometimes you are simply mistaken. Appropriations are routinely passed with a "veto-proof" majority and the black colleges funding is a tiny sum within the budget of the US. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Sometimes you are mistaken as well. This argument over semantics distracts us from the central issue. You have been unable to explain how the article text is inconsistent with the source. You asked me to produce additional sources supporting the fact that Trump approved funding for black colleges. I did so. What is wrong with the information being restored? Display name 99 (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * TO Display name 99 - SPECIFICO is correct, you are very mistaken. Via the US Constitution: Congress mandates and forces Trump to fund the things that the House authorizes through Congressional legislation and it doesn't matter if Trump approves or disapproves. Trump did not fund any colleges. We the People are funding the colleges, not Trump. As far as we know, Trump has not put one red-cent toward any college. So, no matter if you look at it legislatively or by who's actually paying the tab, Trump did not fund any colleges. In my view, you did not provide any sources supporting your claims. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is what the U.S. Constitution actually says: "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." Literally the only difference between appropriations bills and all other bills is that they must start in the House. That's it. They originate there, and once the Senate approves them, they are sent to the President to be signed or vetoed. Display name 99 (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

This is all silly. These bills and unemployment rates helped all races. This has zero to do with the title of this article and makes no sense as a “defense” of anything. O3000 (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Funding of black colleges is supposed to help blacks. Low black and Hispanic unemployment helps blacks and Hispanics. That's simple. Even if you disagreed, it is a noteworthy defense of Trump which has received coverage in reliable sources and therefore merits inclusion. Your opinions about the strength of certain arguments don't determine what should go into or stay out of our articles. Display name 99 (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * But, what does this have to do with this article since it is related to all races? He did not specifically fund black colleges or target black unemployment. He didn't even construct the act. And, my opinions are no more or less than yours. O3000 (talk) 00:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * People accuse Trump of being a racist and a white nationalist. Trump says that that is absurd and points to low unemployment among blacks and Hispanics as well as the funding of black colleges in order to argue that his administration is helping racial minorities and that he therefore can't be racist. You can think what you like about this, but it's a noteworthy defense. Display name 99 (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There was more fried chicken consumed in the US in 2019 than in any previous year. Is Trump a leader of the chicken murder movement? Drop the stick 99.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * therefore can't be racist I can't believe you actually said that. O3000 (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Is that not Trump's argument? Display name 99 (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Frankly, it's the kind of thing a racist says. O3000 (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , again, it isn't about what you think. This is Trump's defense, it has received noteworthy coverage, and therefore should be included in the article. The refrence to low unemployment numbers should stay, and the part about the funding of black colleges should be restored. Display name 99 (talk) 12:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I still have no idea what unemployment numbers have to do with his racial views. As for funding to minority schools, it passed the House by a vote of 319-96 and the Senate by voice vote. He had no choice but to sign it. O3000 (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I think there's clear consensus against using these cherrypicked and self-serving "defenses" contrary to the weight of RS presentations. Not really worth further discussion at this time. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Reading this very long exchange it is clear that hell will freeze over before Display name 99 concedes.  Consensus asks that s/he step aside rather than force other editors to spend anymore time on this issue.  Gandydancer (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

, you still don't get it, and this is the problem with this article and others. People chose to decide what belongs in the article and what doesn't based on their own personal opinions about the validity of arguments rather than the necessity of being impartial and basing our articles on what sources say. I agree that further discussion is pointless as long as this does not change. Display name 99 (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For the third time, it is my editorial opinion, which is what everything is here. Yes, we use RS. We do not use everything in RS. O3000 (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * It seems like you're arguing that we should use things in reliable sources that conform to your opinions and not those that don't. Wikipedia is not supposed to operate like that. Display name 99 (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's now the fourth time that you have made this ludicrous statement. I'm done. WP:CIV WP:STICK O3000 (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Widely
The word "widely" has been removed from the longstanding phrasing in the first sentence. It should be restored unless a new consensus emerges to omit it. It's an accurate summary of the cited sources. The removal of this word is particularly ironic, not only in that it was performed by a brand new account, but also because of the fact that the U.S. is burning from the inside while Trump continues to tweet racially charged and racist comments. - MrX 🖋 11:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi MrX, I agree that "widely" should remain in the article. I disagree with you point, however, that Trump's stating the obvious point that 'when looting starts, shooting starts' is in itself a racist comment...it is racially charged because of its historical significance but not a racist comment in itself. Unless you are suggesting that his comment that rioters who were burning, destroying and looting were 'thugs'...I assume that is not what you are suggesting is a racist comment. (By the way, it was me who added the subsection about 'when the looting starts the shooting starts' as it was clearly racial charged.) Birtig (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. - MrX 🖋 14:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

In support of "widely": "More voters think Donald Trump is a racist than thought George Wallace was in 1968." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taquim (talk • contribs) 02:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagree - the article does not directly cover “widely” for the context of the first line, so it appears to be an OR embellishment. It also seems factually untrue - the meaning of “generally” or “commonly” is incorrect.  The view is expressed by a significant number, but is most noted as a disputed and partisan view, sometimes seen as a calculated partisan message or framing.  That July 2019 poll notes 51% agreeing to ‘racist’ and 45% ‘not racist’, so hardly a dominance of “general” or “common”.  Use of ‘widely’ in only one direction would be failing to convey the prevalence of positions per NPOV.   At the least, it seems an excessive emphasis.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * p.s. The usage was previously objected to, see Archive7.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

We need to be very careful to be neutral. I personally hate Trump as much as any other human being, but browsing through this talk page is reminiscent of browsing through a talk page on Conservapedia. If Trump has said something explicitly racist, or implicitly racist that has been described as racist by reliable news sources, then by all means keep it there. Just don't let your personal political views blind you. --121.99.126.230 (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Violent cities SYNTH
this edit of yours adds SYNTH to the article text. Please remove it. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this needs to be discussed by other editors. My view is that Trump made a claim. I have merely provided a claim based on a reliable source that deals with the exact same issue. This is exactly the same as was done when " According to Politico, Trump recognized that there were a large number of wealthy residents in Palm Beach who were unable to join the other private clubs because most of them did not admit Black or Jewish applicants. " was added after a sentence that I had added in the Defenses of Donald Trump section. Birtig (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:SYNTH. Do you disagree you inserted SYNTH? Or are you saying that it was necessary to do so? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I disagree that I inserted SYNTH. The paragraph to which I added had a quote of a tweet from Donald Trump that stated "There are places in America that are among the most dangerous in the world." I added evidence that directly supports that claim: an article titled "The world's most dangerous cities" which presented information on the 50 most dangerous cities and includes the sentence "While the majority of cities are in developing or semi-developed countries, four cities were in the United States: Detroit, Baltimore, St Louis and New Orleans." Regards Birtig (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * That is SYNTH. Did you actually read WP:SYNTH? Let's see whether anyone agrees with your denial. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's classic SYNTH. We do not combine two sources to support a conclusion. O3000 (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, Trump made a claim in a tweet and I have provided a source that directly proves his claim true. That is not Synth. Birtig (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't make your own conclusions, you're supposed to synthesize the conclusion reached by reliable secondary sources. Virtually everyone knows that a couple of US cities, including Baltimore and Detroit, are among the most violent in the world, with a murder rate comparable with Latin American cities. Alcaios (talk) 10:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is synthesis as I noted in my edit summary when I reverted the edit. I was not even aware of this discussion until two minutes ago. - MrX 🖋 10:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)