Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Maybe the NPOV/N discussion has done some good....

SPECIFICO - I was reading over some of your suggestions at NPOV/N, and one thing in particular struck a chord when you said: My personal view, fyi, which I stated on the article talk page in discussing a certain NY Times article that I believe supports this view, is that Trump is indifferent to race. It's not a category he cares about. It made me think of a few articles I read that align with that same principal.

• See HuffPo wherein Trump Jr. says his Dad doesn't see color, he sees the economy, *It is pretty much corroborated by the Real Clear Politics article by Larry Elder titled Trump's Victory: Even Charlie 'Race Card' Rangel Doesn't Blame 'Whitelash, which focuses on the views of Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY). The article states: At the Harvard post-election symposium, top Clinton aides accused Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway of blatantly courting America's white racists. But Rangel argues that root cause is middle-class economic anxiety. The article also states: "But free from the pressures of getting reelected, Rangel told the truth. The charge that Trump is racist, sexist, homophobic and Islamophobic is bogus -- and the voters saw through it.
• And there's also the following article wherein Shelby Steele, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute, shares his views about how Trump sees race issues in the US: Steele sees President Donald Trump as indifferent to the cultural pressures of race privileges, by his insisting on the same laws applying to all Americans. “Well, it almost looks a little lightweight,” Steele says, “but it’s actually kind of profound. It’s where the whole country needs to move.”
• The following is interesting as well: CNN exit polls as it givies us a decent window into how voters responded to various topics based on race, gender, age, etc. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and I went on to say that's like a driver being indifferent to traffic signals. Not acceptable or legal, but it does explain wanton reckless behavior. There's been a substantial body of RS discussion of Trump that tries to provide a unified theory of his behavior as an expression of a narcissistic personality. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's just kind of inconsistent with holding high political office. But these same sources go on to say that Trump and those around him did not really expect him to win the election, and so everything would have worked out happy-hippo. You can forget the Daily Caller as a WP source, btw. SPECIFICO talk 17:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Why? Is The Daily Caller blacklisted, or is it because it's conservative? I had to laugh when at NPOV/N and then here you said "Not that there's anything wrong with that." 😂 ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

It's because it's not reliable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not how it works, VM. The best response to address misconceptions about citing RS was provided to me in response to my question by TenOfAllTrades at RS/N in 2015, and I've used it as a guide ever since. I'm happy to be able to share the relevant part with you as it relates to this discussion: ...a common misconception is that a source can be declared "reliable", and that declaration is a fixed, absolute judgement. Reliability depends both on the source itself and on how it is used. This board cannot provide a blanket approval that a source is reliable for all purposes. There's also WP:RSCONTEXT: The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. And then the most recent being what Masem explained at WP:NPOV/N which you can reference in this diff. The Daily Caller actually works perfectly for the purpose it was used. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

If we're on the subject of being "indifferent" or "ignorant" to race or racial issues, we could also include comments by Isaac Newton Farris Jr., who said, "I think President Trump is racially ignorant and racially uninformed. But I don't think he is a racist in the traditional sense." [1] ^Falling_Gravity 07:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Survey: inauguration address

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

---

Following some recent discussion, there is a suggestion to include the following text in the article:

During his inauguration address on January 20, 2017, Trump stated: "Through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other. When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice. […] Whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots."^{adding secondary sources 15:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)}

Sources

Could participating editors clarify whether they support or oppose including this quote in the article, with a brief rationale? — JFG ^talk 10:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Procedural note: In the hope of gaining time, I am not turning this question into a 30-day RfC. However, if a rough consensus does not emerge from local discussion, then we will probably need to start a formal RfC process to gather more input. — JFG ^talk 10:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: I went ahead and added a couple of secondary sources for good measure. JFG Please add secondary sources that quoted him and provided analysis such as CNN and Boston Globe to name a few. Some editors are confused by the single source cited in the above, thinking it's cited to the actual speech (primary, not that it should matter) instead of the secondary sources that pulled quotes and/or analyzed the speech.^{Atsme📞📧} 14:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Birtig, Atsme, PackMecEng, Markbassett, MelanieN, Volunteer Marek, Only in death, MrX, FallingGravity, MjolnirPants, MPants at work, SPECIFICO, and Gandydancer: Participants in the discussion so far are kindly invited to express their position here. Concisely please. — JFG ^talk 10:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia, Sir Joseph, C. W. Gilmore, Bueller 007, and Mandruss: also qualify as interested parties on various levels but probably have this article on their watchlist. ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Include – This quote is one of the rare direct "racial views" actually expressed by Donald Trump; this is the subject of our article, so this quote should be included irrespective of people's opinions about what he said. — JFG ^talk 10:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Include - Trump's words, high relevancy to the article, RS, his personally spoken view, aligns with policy in that it is in-text attribution, fail to see any valid policy-based reason to not include it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude dozens of sources, it turns out zzz (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC) per WP:PRIMARY, ie unless some RS noted it. No reason to include any cherry picked quote from long, rambling speech written by Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, that was noted for other reasons. zzz (talk) 11:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Signedzzz - added secondary sources. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

See below. zzz (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

zzz: Just an aside re "long, rambling speech": It was actually unusually short. "his brief 15-minute inaugural address was more concise than most swearing-in speeches throughout history".[2] --MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

We're not talking about his short inaugural address. Were talking about his long State of the Union message. Gandydancer (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Look at the section title. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude - primary source without secondary coverage/analysis; low usefulness to reader's understanding. Note that article already notes that Trump denies being racist. Neutrality^talk 12:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Exclude - We shouldn't use a primary source in that way. Editors shouldn't use original research to decide what part of the speech is important or relevant to the subject. We shouldn't try to distill Trump's views from a speech written by Bannon and Miller.- MrX 🖋 12:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

MrX, I added secondary sources, even though using a direct quote from a primary source is allowed. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The Boston Globe simply prints his speech without analysis. The CNN source is the opinion on Tim Stanley, but at least it offers some analysis, specifically: "Trump can be fairly accused of nationalism, but it's hard to find evidence in his public rhetoric of the kind of biological racism on display in Charlottesville. On the contrary, Trump appears to believe in a color-blind patriotism -- the view that all Americans are equal and bound together by loyalty to the flag."- MrX 🖋 19:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

MrX, you must be looking at a different Boston Globe than the one cited in the green box (footnote #3), the title of which is "An analysis of Donald Trump’s inaugural speech" dated January 20, 2017. To begin, that RS confirms that the speech was published in a RS, (and there are many), and it did provide an analysis for pretty much every section of the speech in the right-hand margin. Just wanted to make sure we're on the same page re: the sources. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, the format threw me off. Yes, there is an analysis for this quote:

"A new national pride will stir our souls, lift our sights, and heal our divisions.

It is time to remember that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget: that whether we are black or brown or hite, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots, we all enjoy the same glorious freedoms, and we all salute the same great American Flag."

Thank you Atsme for illuminating 💡 the fact that the quote in this proposal has been so manipulated so that it hardly represents the original at all. I have modified my !vote accordingly.- MrX 🖋 02:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

You must have turned on a 5 watt bulb, MrX because you didn't get full illumination. The CNN article sourced above states: He famously said: "whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots ... we all salute the same great American Flag." In the phrase JFG exampled above, you have to turn the wattage up a bit so you can see the following symbol […] which serves a purpose. It's rough draft editing, MrX, with markups. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• On the fence. On the one hand it is one of the few times he has directly addressed race - leaving aside who wrote the speech, we do not apply that to any head of state - and we routinely include comments by primary subjects. On the other as far as I can see no secondary source has picked up on it, which is surprising given his subsequent issues with the subject (The ABC source is just printing the full text). I am leaning towards yes in the spirit of fairness but its difficult absent comment to do much other than place it in somewhere absent context. Could use it as a framing quote at/near the top. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude - Agree with the rationales in the previous three excludes. Besides, flag-waving, jingoist rhetorical devices are commonly written into such speeches by the speech writers and do not provide a clear view into the mind of those reciting them. If any analysts had taken these words to be meaningful; we would have seen commentary. WP:WEIGHT O3000 (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Include - this page includes things like "shithole countries", which are not even statements about race. When Trump actually *does* talk about race, it is obviously something that should be included on his "racial views" page. Since other editors are either too biased or too lazy to actually look, here is a page where CNN claims that Trump "famously said" this quote: [3] Apparently "reliable sources" don't count if they don't say what you want them to say? Anyone arguing that "shithole countries" should stay because it is in RS should have no problem with this quote being included. Bueller 007 (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Include This is Trump making a statement about race. No matter how hollow it is, it's absolutely germane to this page.

@Only in death: See [4] for some third party analysis. It's pretty shallow, but it's there. The thing is; we're an encyclopedia. We're supposed to be thorough and detailed and cover all the angles. But since we don't hire experts to write, we have to rely on pre-existing sources. Unfortunately for us, those sources have different goals and methods. So they see a hollow, meaningless statement on race from Trump and ignore it because it's hollow and meaningless. But we can't be thorough if we ignore it. So the only thing we can do, is what it proposed above: present it without any analysis or narrower context than "Trump on race". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Pants, no. Actually we do ignore stuff that secondary sources ignore. That's how we know what's noteworthy encyclopedic content. When the whole RS world has more important things to discuss, we shouldn't make WP an anthology of the insignificant. SPECIFICO talk 14:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Would you do us both a huge favor and stop replying to me? Seriously. I'm sick of responding to you and your nonsensical arguments. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Your source says it's about "nostalgia for a country that has... fallen from greatness", not race. And that is obviously correct, when you see the full quote. zzz (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, when you combine that paragraph with the previous one, his point is about nostalgia. But are you asserting that "..whether we are black or brown or white..." is not a reference to race? Understand; the reason I support this inclusion is to show exactly how little Trump has had to say about about the value of diversity. The vast majority of the time when Trump refers to race, he's saying something either explicitly racist or something with racist undertones. What better way to present that neutrally to our reader than to document the thousands of words of explicitly or implicitly racist meaning, and then to allow that to contrast with the dozen or so words he's said about the subject that weren't racist? And, contrary to what SPEC says below; no-one is suggesting we engage in any OR. We're not offering any commentary on the speech, just the speech itself. It's not OR to cite something, even from a primary source. It's OR to come to a conclusion or to make a claim of fact or a value judgement that's not present in the source. None of which is suggested here, though the original version with the intro did do exactly that. Nor is it OR for us to use our judgement as to pick out what portion of the speech to quote, as it doesn't require anything but knowledge of English idioms to understand that the portion picked out refers to race. As I've said before, if WP is supposed to exactly parrot what the source say, then we can simply reduce every article to hyperlinks and quotes. Editorial judgement is absolutely a component of what we do here, else the WMF would have simply created a bot to do the work for us. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Passing off a statement about nostalgia for the days of slavery as an anti-racist statement is definitely not what we do here. zzz (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Pants, you're describing OR and a SYNTH presentation of editor-cherrypicked primary content to make an OR point. That's not a proper basis for inclusion. SPECIFICO talk 15:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Signedzzz Are you asserting that a reference to "black or brown or white" people is not a reference to race? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

You have already conceded that it's just an empty turn of phrase in a statement about nostalgia. That's the end of the story, as far as I'm concerned. zzz (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

So you are asserting that a comment about "black or brown or white" people is categorically not a comment about race. Is that correct? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude It's primary-sourced cherry-picked as noteworthy on the subject. That constitutes Original Research. In fact the statement does not mention race. It mentions "patriotism", not race. This meaningless extract has been rejected several times on this talk page. The exact same zombie proposal is put up over and over, not taking into account any of the policy-based objections that could have been used to create article text that better reflects the speech and RS discussion of it. Already, this poll has confirmed what we already knew -- there is no consensus to add this. That having been established, the poll should be withdrawn and no RfC should be opened. Well-sourced secondary references can support article text on the subject of race in the inaugural address, and this is not helping get us in that direction. SPECIFICO talk 13:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Suggestion to compromise Include it, but only with critique and analysis by a representative sampling of group that have historically been the subject of prejudice in the U.S.A. It is correct to include a statement by the President, but it is also correct to include the response to it from groups impacted, in my opinion for NPOV. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

CW, I understand your point, but let's not end up with another indecipherable, multi-dimensional thread here. I suggest that any discussion of possible alternatives be deferred until this poll is over. SPECIFICO talk 13:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Include is my vote, but with a caveat. I would rather have an encyclopedia with too much information, than not enough. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Include it's pretty clear that a statement that mentions race is a statement of race. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Include because the article should have some of Trump's views about race. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude - I question the way this quote was put together. From my work here it seems unusual. Reading his speech one finds that he said "At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America, and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other. When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice." and then later (after five applause breaks) says, "It’s time to remember that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget, that whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots." It seems to me that he is talking about patriotism, not race. Gandydancer (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

It is going to be included, so lets focus on keeping it balanced with views for communities where this U.S.A., culture has historical prejudices and their views of what Trump said. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Include This article is about his views. This was an on-the-record, widely reported comment by him. It was specifically about race ("black or brown or white"), deploring prejudice and calling for racial unity. Of course we should include it, all of it as proposed, suitably cited to secondary sources. And only it, not a bunch of commentators claiming he didn't really mean it. (Anyhow it was one of the very rare positive comments in that "American carnage" inaugural address of his; let him have it.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, you're stating your interpretation of his words. Various editors suggest different interpretations. Shouldn't we rely instead on RS that discuss the meaning of his words? Or are you suggesting that we include both the quote and secondary discussion of those words or the Address? SPECIFICO talk 16:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, when he says "Whether we are black or brown or white," it does not take interpretation to understand that he is talking about race. That is as directly as he could possibly have said "no matter what race we are", we are all patriots, we are all Americans. It's a call for racial inclusiveness, racial acceptance, non-discrimination, in the name of patriotism. I am suggesting that we include his clear words and not a bunch of secondary discussion about it or the Address. His comment is clear, it can stand alone. --MelanieN (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Melanie as always I do trust and respect your judgement, but in this case when you look at the full quote: "A new national pride will stir ourselves, lift our sights, and heal our divisions. It's time to remember that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget, that whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots. We all enjoy the same glorious freedoms. And we all salute the same great American flag.", I don't see how you can say that this quote is about racial prejudice. It seems to me to be a call for patriotism and not a statement about racial equality. Gandydancer (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

That's why we're not quoting that whole section, only the parts about race. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

As editors, we don't lift a snippet out of context and then promote it for what it might have said if it had not been said in context. We can't do that. SPECIFICO talk 18:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

You just can't help yourself, can you? Please stop replying to me. I'm not engaging you over this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• include, assuming that this article is trying to present readers with all relevant information related to Trump's views on race and not just those that seek to present his views in a negative light. Birtig (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Let me ask this a different way. If the meaning of this extract is clear, can you paraphrase it in one or two sentences? I would be surprised if the editors here could do that or at least could agree on the paraphrased meaning. From what you post above here, I disagree that he's saying all white brown and black skin people are patriots. That would contradict a lot of his other statements. He has various subsets of the colors that he repeatedly tells us are not patriots. But anyway, if you'll endulge me, can you paraphrase his comment (rather than interpreting it) in one or two short sentences? I think we all may find that a helpful way to further this discussion. If we editors don't agree as to what it means then none of us as editors should select it for the article. Just to be clear, if this were selected by the bulk of mainstream commentators that would be a different matter, imo. SPECIFICO talk 18:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't intend to paraphrase it, and you shouldn't either. His own words are straightforward enough and shouldn't be twisted by people trying to put in their own interpretations. He absolutely IS saying that Americans are Americans, patriots are patriots, regardless of the color of their skin. That's what he said, and we should include it. Without a rebuttal or an "interpretation". Sure, maybe he didn't mean it, maybe he has often contradicted that sentiment by his actions; many politicians don't match their rhetoric with their actions. Trump himself is notorious for contradicting himself. Let him say something noble for once and get credit for it. Almost the whole rest of this article stands in contradiction to these few sentences of his, let him have these. I am done discussing this. --MelanieN (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Consensus determines what will be included, SPECIFICO - and it won't be based on how you want Melanie to write it. JFG presented the statement this iVote is about, it's clearly stated in the green box above, and that's what will be used. ^{Clarifying - the quote box is draft form with mark-up so JFG will use the quote that is relevant to Trump's racial views. 04:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC) Atsme📞📧} 18:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Clarification @MelanieN: I was not asking you to write a paraphrase that we would use as article text. I meant to be testing whether there's a clear meaning that you can show us you're referring to and if so whether it's the same meaning that others see in this text. I meant it as a kind of ideological turing test, which is often a helpful device in discussions to out these content matters. Basically, the process of paraphrasing these words is one of the best ways to expose ambiguities, contradictions, or other problems that undermine its significance. SPECIFICO talk 19:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The more light the better, for differing views and differing perspectives, I say. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of why we shouldn't use primary sources for something like this. MelanieN says the quote is about racial unity; others say it's about race; others still say it's about patriotism. There have been volumes written about Trump's racial views. We shouldn't have to pick a quote from a speech and try to interpret what was said. Use a secondary source like we do for the rest of the article. It's not that hard. If we do end up adding this, you better believe we will add commentary about whether he meant it or not, as long is it satisfies WP:V and WP:DUEWEIGHT.- MrX 🖋 19:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN says the quote is about racial unity; others say it's about race; There is no dichotomy there. if it's about racial unity, it's about race.

We shouldn't have to pick a quote from a speech and try to interpret what was said. The only interpreting I see going on is editors implying that it's not about race. No-one is contesting that his point was about patriotism. But that doesn't mean he can't make a comment about race as part of making that point. It's perfectly clear to everyone -including those who are implicitly denying it, I contend without reservation- that his reference to "black or brown or white" people who "all bleed patriotism" was a statement about racial unity. And I don't deny that it was made for the purpose of a broader point about patriotism, which I will further contend was in turn was made for a broader point about his plans for his time in office, which in turn was made for the even broader purpose of making people like and respect him, which itself was done for the ultimate purpose of making himself feel good about himself. "Points" and "meanings" and "purposes" are not absolute, exclusionary things. They can be nested, paired, balanced, etc. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Editors can interpret whatever they want on talk pages, but editor interpretations don't belong in a articles. Like is says in WP:PSTS: "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."- MrX 🖋 19:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Your definition of "interpretation" here includes rote comprehension. And and plenty of secondary sources have been provided, giving their own interpretations. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

support that, primary sources lend themselves to cherry picking - if not even one secondary source can really be found (of the ones provided above, one is a opinion piece, the other does not mention specifically or in relation to race) on something well covered (inaugaration address) on someone so well covered, it fails WP:DUEWEIGHT Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: Re  if not even one secondary source can really be found: I don’t understand; are you implying that this wasn’t covered by secondary sources? Politico described it as “inclusive rhetoric”. NBC News called it “a call for unity under one American flag and national identity”. The Guardian says he “paid lip-service to those who have criticized him for emboldening racism and white supremacy on his journey to the White House, but only in the thinnest terms, expressing a call for diversity through the prism of nationalism”. Those are only a few selections - news reports, not op/eds - out of dozens. What is the problem? --MelanieN (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Was unable to find (only transcripts), and no-one else provided any sources. That is indeed a lot better, still unsure about weight. Galobtter (pingó mió)

The proposed text contains no interpretation. Our readers should draw their own interpretations as to the exact meaning. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Exclude per MrX Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC) striking per sources MelanieN gave above which I wasn't able to find, I think weak include as it is something he expressed.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: I don't think it really matters who wrote the speech, what matters is whether secondary sources cover it and what they say about it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The bulk of this article is based on journalistic opinions primarily based on the quotes by Trump detractors with limited (if any) verifiable facts. Of course we have different views - I see this article as conflating the POV of others with Trump's own views, not to mention all the non-racially related sections, and I'm not surprised the cherrypicked sources support that conflated view. It may also explain why some think the actual quote of Trump's own views seem UNDUE, despite this being an article about Trump's views. Jiminy Cricket! ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

These aren't "Trump's own views" on race. This is stuff he said in a speech, written by someone else.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Who writes Trump's speeches is not relevant - he is not compelled to read out any words that may be written by others; he is perfectly capable of ignoring a pre-written speech and delivering a speech ad lib as if feels it necessary; he may well have read the speech in advance and knew in advance what he would say if he stuck to the speech. Bottom line is that Trump choose to say those words, whoever may or may not have written them, so he made them his. Birtig (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not about who writes them but about the fact that this was a boiler plate political speech which may or may not reflect his views.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

VM, show me verifiable facts that he did not write that speech - not more of the same unsubstantiated rumors by "someone close to the president" or the like. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh please. You do know speech writers are thing, right? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

And @Atsme: those are not secondary sources you've found -- one is about Charlottesville that links to the full text of the inaugural address and the other is just the full text of the inaugural address with little bubbles next to it. If that's the best you can do, it's another nail in the coffin of a non-noteworthy snippet. SPECIFICO talk 20:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Status There's clearly no consensus to include this, so OP should either drop it our launch the threatened RfC if OP thinks the current poll is not representative of WP editors' opinions. SPECIFICO talk 20:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• sigh* SPECIFICO, MelanieN has explained it to you as have other editors. Continuing your IDIDNTHEARTHAT position is wearing us out. Surely you're able to recognize the purpose of a secondary source when they publish a primary document, quote from it and provide commentary. If you don't, then may I suggest that you spend some time reading WP:RS, and while you're at it, go take a look at Trump-Russia dossier allegations. What do you think they used to list the allegations? Hmmmm...could it be the actual dossier? Oh, no. Ooops. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

You may share personal remarks on my user talk page, if you wish, not here. SPECIFICO talk 21:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Acknowledged. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Atsme, give a thought as a middle ground that allows Trump to speak and the words of the groups long effected by prejudice to also be heard. This will, I feel, gain support from most, except the wikilawyers amongst us. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

One day may not be enough to determine consensus. Give it a few days and if further views are not added then we can go to the next step. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but Emir, if you'll look through the history of this TP, it usually only takes the approval of 2 or 3 editors to be considered "consensus". Anything that is not negative usually requires a 30-day RfC closed by an admin. Consensus is clear - the exclude arguments are simply not based in policy - they are all IDONTLIKEIT. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Include - One of the few things in the article that fits the title and purpose of the article. PackMecEng (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Include per JFG, Atsme and PackMecEng. DoubleCross (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Exclude (struck out to Neutral 2/25) - reluctantly User:JFG, this just seems WP:UNDUE plus has problems in cites or unjustified selection. It's a bit UNDUE as coverage of racism accusations has far, far outweighed anything Trump actually said or policies under his administration, and this particular line is not really apparent in Googling or appearing above other potential phrases of his. (Saw only 5 hits for 'we all bleed the blood of patriots'. That's got to be a mistake as it is in the address... but still...) The cites are problematic as the CNN cite is bad as an opinion piece and also is not distinctly speaking to racial views, it is more pointing to his patriotism or law and order and color-blind on racial views after Charlottesville); and the Boston Globe cite highlighted many passages but not this one so it is a bit off for us to elevate it. Looking at BBC, there is no coverage of this line other than in the whole address, but I do see the inaugural line "no room for prejudice" noted by [BBC] after Charlottesville. But again, mostly the searches I've tried are just winding up with far far more accusations and bits on 'shithole' or 'Pocohantas' than anything covering Trump policies or views. For example, coverage of a meeting with leaders of Historically Black Colleges focused on Kellyanne Conway having her feet on the sofa while taking a snapshot or campus backlash towards the leaders for going there, and mention of the Executive Order is not readily seen. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Markbassett, when I Googled his quote "we all bleed the same red blood of patriots" it brought up 1,690,000 results. They even have T-shirts with the quote. It is indeed notable - many secondary sources covered it as MelanieN pointed out above. I'll add Vox, The Atlantic, and EuroNews which listed his key quotes, and on and on. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Atsme - thanks for spotting my typo in googling, and the Euronews and Vox cites (not the Atlantic) are excellent support cites, removing my objections. It seems I am just getting odd results though because when I google "we all bleed the same red blood of patriots" I am seeing just 29,500 hits but at Yahoo I see 47,100,000 hits and at Bing I see 47,000,000 hits. Trying "When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice" I get 51,200; 36,200; and 4,060,000. I will strike out my Exclude due to the unreliable results so I am not able to tell if UNDUE and the Vox and Euronews cites are not problematic. From the BBC usage and highlights in some cites here that the second phrase is a bit more prominent and that both are better portrayed as a call for unity in patriotic nationalism, but do not object if either (or both) are used. I do see commentary that reviews this call for unity as being as "color-blind". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - To those saying that this proposal doesn't interpret Trump's remarks or that we should not twist his words, I would like to point out the difference between the proposal and what he actual said:

This Proposal

What Trump Actually Said

"Through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other. When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice. […] Whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots.

"At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America and, through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other. When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice. […] A new national pride will lift our sights and heal our divisions. It's time to remember that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget, that whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots.

This raises the following questions:

1. Why should we omit Trump's call to nationalism evident[5] in the the actual complete sentences uttered by Trump (and written by Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller)?
2. What is the justification for violating MOS:PMC?
3. How is this selective quoting not an interpretation prohibited by WP:PRIMARY?
4. Why does this proposal turn parts of sentences into complete sentences?
5. Can anyone quote any secondary source that includes this parsed version of Trump's speech?- MrX 🖋 12:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, putting aside for a second that the proposed quote is incorrect, I find the complete quote quite scary. O3000 (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm glad it's not just me.- MrX 🖋 13:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Trump wrote his own inaugural speech - the claim that Bannon & Miller wrote it is unsubstantiated gossip originating from an anonymous "White House official" - first red flag. It's pretty sad that MSM is reading a lot like The Daily Mail and The Sun ...second red flag, and what WP:NEWSORG says to avoid; i.e., Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors. CNN, WaPo, NYTimes with some pretty obvious disinformation in their annotations. Regardless, the push to keep Trump's own racial views out of this article lends credence to it being an attack page. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

You are comparing The NYTimes and WaPo to The Daily Mail? You are claiming you know who wrote the speech without any source for that claim? In any case, the full quote sounds more like a Prelude to War than anything related to Trump’s views on race. O3000 (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Hold your nose and read the Daily Mail & Sun articles; keep holding it while you read HuffPo, Newsweek, and Independent - compare for yourself. The NYTimes was far more subtle in its presentation saying "it highlighted the influence" of Bannon & Miller. WaPo was a bit more bold but not to the point of sensationalism, stating Bannon & Miller "had a hand in crafting Trump’s speech". Had the former and latter been cited we wouldn't be reading the exaggerated claims like what some have made about Trump not writing his own speech. I provided sources that support my position; specifically Trump quoted as saying unequivocaly that he wrote the speech. The sources that credit Bannon & Miller as authors are spreading gossip from an anonymous "White House official", who could be an intern for all we know. I consider it shoddy journalism per WP:BLPGOSSIP, Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. There's also a lot of circular reporting - it's usually an AP report that gets circulated, but WSJ gets the credit for starting the speech gossip. I think the Chicago Tribune nailed a big part of the problem with the negativity and POV issues. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

So, your source that supports your position is solely a self-serving claim made by Trump. And, you ridicule the reporting of the NYT and WaPo, both of which have enormous records of reliability and fact checking? And based on that, you claim that the NYT and WaPo are gossip-mongers comparable to The Daily Mail? And then you pull out of thin air something about this having a connection with the AP and/or WSJ and/or Chicago Trib? O3000 (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

03000 - what are your reading? I did NOT "ridicule" the reporting of NYT and WaPo, I provided the sources that support my statements, and I find your comments to be very combative. I will not partake. Good day. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

You stated that they reported disinformation. Your sources supported nothing of the sort. And, you are yet again casting aspersions. O3000 (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

MrX I noted the same problem in my decision to vote to exclude. Plus I noted that the quote not only uses portions of two sentences, they are quite some distance apart in the speech - five applause pauses. Gandydancer (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that's pretty obviously WP:SYNTH ("Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.")- MrX 🖋 19:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude - the first source given does not discuss the speech in the context of the subject of this article (racial views of Donald Trump). The second source given does but it's all about pointing out how the things in the speech don't jive with his other statements and actions. So just taking the quote on the basis of the second source is just cherry-picking and misrepresenting a source. You need to either find other secondary sources on the speech and how it fits in with this topic, or we keep the quote out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Pardon of Joe Arpaio

I was reverted by @Volunteer Marek: here, saying "not really about the topic, unde". The edit involved adding comments from the governor and house rep from Arizona, similar to having the comments from the both senators from Arizona mentioned. How are their comments on the pardon of Joe Arpaio not related to the pardoning of Arpaio or any less due than the senators we quote? PackMecEng (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Right: keep all reactions, or nuke them all. — JFG ^talk 15:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

It was rightly reverted. It adds nothing to the understanding of the subject of the article. Find some scholarly work, or even remarks from a governor, that repudiate that that Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio oversaw the worst pattern of racial profiling in U.S. history or that this White House supports racism and bigotry. - MrX 🖋 15:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Again it is no different than the opinions listed of the senators, the "constitutional scholars", or Paul Ryan. All of which speak nothing of race. PackMecEng (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

If other comments are unrelated to race, they should be removed also. - MrX 🖋 15:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I would be fine with that, there wouldn't be much left of the section then though. PackMecEng (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Central Park jogger case

I've read this a few times through and it appears to me that the subsection is far too detailed for this article, especially as a link to the main article is provided. All that is required is some brief details of the case, including the race of the 5, with the point that they were convicted before their convictions were vacated following DNA evidence confirming that someone else was responsible, but that Trump refused to accept this outcome and his refusal has been categorised as racist. We do not need all the detail to retry the case as the issue is Trump's behaviour and the fact is was viewed as racist. I will make some small edits to condense the subsection, small enough so that editors can revert if they think I have removed something pertinent to this article Birtig (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

It's one of the most well-covered incidents of Trump's reported racism out there, so I'm a little skeptical of claims that it's given too much weight. That being said, do a proposal edit (edit the section to your preferred state, then self-revert, or just write up the section the way it should be done in your sandbox) and link that edit here, and I might well be perfectly fine with it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, I have made a small edit, removing unnecessary detail that is not germane to the central issue - it is there to be reverted if my edit is objectionable. Birtig (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I looked at it, and I reverted. The bit that you removed makes a rather large change to the narrative of that section, and since it's verifiable, I'm not okay with removing it. It's quite important to establish the innocence of the CP5 whenever we cover them, as that's their central defining feature. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Your edit's no good -- it changes the meaning our readers will take away from the article. Please undo it and engage further here if you wish. This was actually a key and defining moment in Trump's public history. SPECIFICO talk 21:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Huh? What "meaning" are you wanting readers to take away from the article? That sounds really strange. We're not supposed to be influencing readers by what "we" want them to think. We provide statements of fact that are supported by cited sources. I don't get what you're saying. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance but, from what is reported in this article, the only thing linking Trump's comments about the 5 to his 'racial views' is the statement from Ken Burns who states that Trump's comments are racism. I certainly don't see anything in what Trump said that could be about race. Birtig (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I do think the section, at four paragraphs, is undue and overly detailed. I also think (have thought for quite a while) that there is too much detail about the case in the lede and it should be trimmed to a single sentence. I will take a shot at that. As for whether Trump's comments and opinion are racist in origin, that's not just Burns; I see that the Five used "racial discrimination" as one of the allegations in their successful lawsuit. --MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi MelanieN. The 5 did use ;racial discrimination' in their successful lawsuit, but they were not suing Trump so that is not relevant to this article which is trying to look for evidence of Trump's racial views. I just don't see that his comments in this case were racist - if someone can quote anything that Trump said about the five that was racist I will stand corrected. Birtig (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

That's just incorrect. If you will research the history of this case, the public discussion and comment and the media coverage of it, you'll see that it was clearly and indisputably about race. SPECIFICO talk 01:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, MelanieN - are you talking about the lawsuit against NY State? I haven't dug deep into this case, but what little I did read in the NYTimes, Trump was basically supporting the Police Chief who stuck to his beliefs. I posted that link somewhere and now I can't find it - but there's also this one. I don't think Trump was targeting them on race at all rather it was all the other evidence in the reports, including the confessions. A quick Google search just now brought up the following - which may or may not be useful for some of the history - NYTIMES 1989, and Find Law. I think the section should be removed based on the ambiguity and considering "racism" is still an opinion. We already have a stand alone article on the actual case for our readers. With regards to it demonstrating racism on Trump's part, it's pretty weak when one digs deep enough to see what actually influenced his mindset. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

If the RSes are citing it as an example of Trump's racism (and they are), then it doesn't matter whether or not we disagree with them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE & SYNTH - after checking some of the sources, it's even worse than I first thought. Scroll up to Hispanic judge wherein I've provided an evaluation of the sources that were chosen to support the narrative. Scroll up a bit more and look at the section Weight & Balance issues which reflects similar issues but I haven't closely evaluated weight in each of the cited sources. In a quick random evaluation of sources, I've seen a single occurance of the term, either racism, racist or race. The Somali refugees section for example: Boston Globe (City Hall demonstration mentioned chants and signs that read “I love my neighbors” and “No place for racism.”) and CS Monitor where there is no mention of it at all. That whole section should be removed because it has nothing to do with Trump's racial views and everything to do with immigration - the sources do not support the claim. It wouldn't surprise me if we saw more of the same. I'm concerned this article may be noncompliant with OR in addition to NPOV issues. SYNTH states: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. That is exactly what we're seeing in this article. Looking at each section in the article, Housing and hotel discrimination cases is the only topic that is actually about racism but even then, the cases date back to a time when Trump's father was making policy and running the company. (That was what I meant earlier when I said Trump's "inherited infamy". I likened inherited infamy to notability is not inherited per WP:N.) SYNTH was used to determine WEIGHT and make it fit the racism narrative, rather than properly determining weight in the individual cited sources, many of which have nothing to do with Trump's racial views, much less racism - that's where OR comes into play. ^{Atsme📞📧} 10:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, if the RSes are saying something, and your response is "WP:UNDUE & SYNTH" then you have no idea what either of those policies mean. None of the rest of your comment addresses anything I've said, so I'm ignoring it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Read the sources. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

You mean like this one? Or possibly this one? You want me to flood you with RSes explicitly attributing his views on the CP5 to racism? Because I surely can (and others have already posted more in this thread). So do us all a favor, and read the sources yourself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Hold the snark - we're collaborating in a discussion about the issues we're trying to resolve so we can fix the most glaring noncompliant issues in the article. I'm retired, so I have the time, and I'm happy to provide a review of the cited articles. I'll begin with the fact that the very first mention of race follows 3 paragraphs after the photograph which is well into the article, and it states: Why the continued belief in the guilt of the Central Park Five, despite all the evidence to the contrary? Race and racism surely play their role.^{General statement, no one person named.} So does the cognitive trap that psychologists call anchoring and what we call first impressions: Mr. Trump quickly jumped to conclusions about their guilt, as did many in New York City. The colon points to Trump under the potential of the cognitive trap called anchoring which implies that the boys' confession and the evidence at the scene are stuck in his head. Read the police reports and the other evidence that was at the scene. While it is not our place to judge primary material we should corroborate the information in the sources we cite. The article, which happens to be an OP-ED authored by the wife of the man who produced the documentary about this case (no COI there, right?), goes on to say "So we are left with Mr. Trump’s presumption that because they were black and brown teenagers from Harlem, they must have committed a crime." Nowhere in the article did Trump make a "presumption" of race or color. So I'm not sure where she came up with it being HIS presumption. What we're left with is a full page OP-ED about the crime itself, with 2 passing mentions of race and only 1 directed at Trump, while much more of the article is about Moore, and why Trump believes the kids were guilty, yet the weight in our WP article goes to Trump's racial views. Do you really consider that article an exceptional source for making such an exceptional claim against WP:PUBLICFIGURE in WikiVoice, much less with regards to weight? See WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and yes, the racist claim is UNDUE.

As for the Newsweek article which reads more like a made for television drama and appears to be an attack on white Republicans (no bias there, right?) goes on and on about sexual allegations and Roy Moore, and then toward the end of the article in the 1st paragraph below the image of Lincoln: Rather than calling Trump a one-man lynch mob for his racist treatment of the Central Park 5, pundits and supporters of the president say that the investigation into his campaign's involvement with Russia is a "lynch mob" or "witch hunt." What racist statement? That doesn't sound like ethical journalism to me - it reads like a biased pundit's opinion. Good editorial judgment is required. In the next paragraph, the author uses more "entertaining political banter" (my bold underline): Critics say it fits into a pattern of “racist rhetoric” that Trump himself has spread among his party. Trump's use of racist dog-whistle terms demonstrates the subtle racism can be infused into political rhetoric to paint a certain picture of an intended enemy. More of the same criticism from political opponents which again, fails WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and yes, it is UNDUE. MPants, I can go through each and every source the same way, and if we end-up with 5 that come as close to discrimination or bias as the hotel section, it will surprise me. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

So you're providing us with your own analysis of the sources in order to decide what we should write. Gotcha. Forgive me if I don't find your argument convincing, but any argument about what a source says that consists of more than a quote from the source with no commentary of your own is never going to be a good argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I've trimmed some of the details on the background to the case, apparently lifted straight from the lede of the main article. Here we don't need a laundry list of the charges they were convicted since we already know it was a rape trial. It also seems like DNA counter-evidence was downplayed during the trials, and only in 2002 was it determined to be exculpatory evidence. ^Falling_Gravity 07:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how this is relevant at all to the article. How is Trump thinking they are guilty related to their race? Ken Burns saying this was racist is not a good tie-in. Did Trump mention their race at all?Icewhiz (talk) 10:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't find any sources showing Trump saying anything relating to race regards this case. All I could find was ken Burns saying that Trump continuing to believe that the 5 were guilty was 'racist'. That's it. Nothing else. This whole subsection - all four paragraphs off it - is in this article because of this single, suggestion from a single individual that in his opinion Trump maintaining that the 5 were guilty was racist (though he provides neither reason nor evidence to support his opinion. To build all this on a solitary opinion, on such a high profile case when many will have aired opinions, smacks of the very definition of 'Undue'. Birtig (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

[6][7] Hundreds more if you look. Those who have not researched the topic should not be denying what happened. SPECIFICO talk 14:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Those sources do not support this, SPECIFICO. They do support that the case was racially charged (presumably due to the race of the defendants). Guardian has a quote of someone saying “I think he got angry when he saw what happened to that woman, and I think he reacted to it,” she said of the Central Park jogger case. “I think we were all horrified at what happened. I think everybody basically supported Donald. I don’t think he was trying to be racist – I think he was trying to be a proponent of law and order.” and For Salaam, however, the intent was explicit: “If we were white, would Donald Trump had written this in the paper?” - and that's about it. nymag just says it was charged without putting Trump in the mix. In any case - the current text and sources do not support inclusion. And most of the sources out there (if at all) are probably of people averse to Trump speculating various things about Trump's possible motivations.Icewhiz (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Have another look at that Guardian article, Icewhiz. It is pretty much all about Trump and race. zzz (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I re-read the whole thing. Much (say 50%) of it is about Trump and Race, while it is also about his firebrand tactics and rhetoric. I did miss another person connecting the jogging incident to race - but there are so many other angles to attack this incident (both from the Trumpian side, and from the anti-Trump side - e.g. insisting that exonerated men (with DNA evidence and a confession!) are guilty despite rather clear cut evidence) - that race doesn't seem to be the "main" thing, but rather a side argument. What is this article about? An attempt to speculate about Trump's views on race? Or an attempt to actually document his views? e.g. this in the Guardian - He quoted Trump as saying: “I’ve got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.” In a later interview with Playboy magazine, Trump labelled his former employee a “fucking loser” but added: “The stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true.” is directly about race.Icewhiz (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to spend any more time finding perfect references to satisfy every editor who wishes to deny that the public controversy surrounding this event and Trump's involvement in it were racially tinged. There are hundreds of archived sources and analyses available online and many more in books and non-electronic archives. This was the most racially divisive event in that city in 20+ years and it has been covered and described as such in the overwhelming majority of RS accounts. That doesn't mean that each report of details explicitly refers to race, so deniers (not meant personally, Icewhiz) will always be able to find non-racial presentation of facts and events, just as there are news reports of the US war in Afghanistan that don't mention Osama and Bush. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not denying this has been tied to Race by detractors of Trump (along with being tied to a whole bunch of other things - e.g. denying the rather clear cut exoneration!) - but you have so much good material directly about Trump and Race (e.g. - the Mexican-American judge for instance, or say the quote about black vs. Jewish accountants, or events after Unite the Right Rally) - why fill up the article with speculation by detractors of Trump?Icewhiz (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

This thread is about the Central Park Jogger Case - the stuff you quote is not about the Central Park Jogger case. Is there any evidence, anywhere, of Trump making any statement about race with regards to the Central park 5? Birtig (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

This feels to me like sealioning so I am not going to go beyond my already ample and generous responses to your insistent inquiries. SPECIFICO talk 16:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem, SPECIFICO. I conclude that Trump expressing outrage over this case, and continuing to believe that the 5 were not innocent, is viewed as sufficient to ascribe racist motives to his actions because "This was the most racially divisive event in that city in 20+ years". In my humble opinion this is a completely insufficient basis to include this section in this article, but if the consensus among editors is that this is sufficient to include it, I will move on. Birtig (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Independent sources have tied Trump's actions in this case to his views on race, in a multitude of articles. End of story.- MrX 🖋 17:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Notice the dates on the articles - do they date back to when the event occurred, or were they written in 2016 specifically for the election year? There you have it. *sigh* ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Whatever.- MrX 🖋 17:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

So, The Guardian is not RS when it’s near a US election? O3000 (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Refer to WP:NEWSORG - I'm not going to keep repeating myself. I think the best way to arrive at consensus in an effort to resolve the NPOV issues is simply to prepare specific surveys and let the wider community participate. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

"I'm not going to keep repeating myself." Thank you for that! - MrX 🖋 20:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, see Politico which provides Trump's views: "Donald Trump denied any racial discrimination, but said his managers tried to weed out certain kinds of tenants. “What we didn’t do was rent to welfare cases, white or black," Trump wrote in a 1987 book." The article goes on to explain how/where the suits originated, and keep in mind, there were people of color already living on the property and on other Trump properties. Historically, the Fair Housing Act wasn't signed into law until 1968, and the events in the context of this article were a short 4 to 5 years later. There was no admission of guilt by Trump in the settlement. To portray it any other way by citing op-eds, political sections (which are basically commentary with a splash of facts) and circular reporting with the belief that it automatically gives more weight to a particular POV is a logical fallacy. Read the PAGs I've already cited. There are quite a few more sources out there, and it's actually better to find the earlier dated articles (late 60s-early 70s) to cite in order to steer clear of RECENTISM and all the biased political pundits that inundate journalism today - doesn't matter what side of the isle you prefer. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with recentism. He signed two consent decrees. Applications from black applicants to Trump buildings were marked with the letter "C" for colored. O3000 (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Equalities monitoring in the 1970s? I'm impressed...(just joking.) Birtig (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Of course, we are all entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts, and RECENTISM as well as BIAS in the media is real and deserves careful consideration. WP isn't a news source - we're an encyclopedia. There were historically significant legal & societal changes that took place in the 60s-70s prior to and after the Fair Housing Act - yes it matters in an encyclopedic sense because our job as editors is to include encyclopedic information. We avoid SOAPBOX, RIGHTGREATWRONGS, propaganda, political opinions and we use editorial judgment regarding derogatory opinions that require in-text attribution per PAGs. We don't censor history, we summarize it to reflect that period of time; ideally we'll have books by historians and scholars to consult/cite, which is quite different from a journalist's perspective of what happened nearly a half-century ago for inclusion in an opinion piece or commentary in the political section during a presidential campaign. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I know. You have told us again and again for over a year that the NYTimes and WaPo are biased. And this has nothing whatsoever to do with SOAPBOX, RIGHTGREATWRONGS, propaganda. O3000 (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, you obviously weren't paying attention if that's what you came away with. *sigh* Let's just call a truce - you stop addressing me, and I'll stop addressing you. G'day! ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Atsme said, "We don't censor history, we summarize it to reflect that period of time." If that were to be the case somebody better get busy at the Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations article. I know a few things about this topic from both work experience and personal experience. Back in those days my girls or I would have been laughed out of town if we had reported sexual abuse charges against a local sheriff. I could get on a soapbox and go on and on about this. I am only grateful that as the years have passed we are now finally looking at issues such as sexual abuse, racial abuse, and housing discrimination more honestly. It should be obvious that we report on such issues using the knowledge that we have gained over the years. Gandydancer (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Umm... That's exactly what you said. RECENTISM as well as BIAS in the media is real and deserves careful consideration. Remember that? How can you allege bias in one comment and then turn around and claim someone didn't understand you when they say "We already know you think there's bias." ? Do you think nobody will read your earlier comment? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

No one here is was spreading "propaganda". And, many of us are tiring of your aspersions. O3000 (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Communism is the only way! Capitalism is the great evil! Our glorious leader will bring us into a new age of enlightenment! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

An interesting read BBC - supports my argument about getting the article right. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Who's arguing against getting it right? O3000 (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, have you been staying up late with you-know-who again? 🎃 SPECIFICO talk 13:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

BBC - supports my argument about getting the article right. Yeah, but the BBC is biased against WP. You can tell because it says negative things about WP. So we have to balance how we read it to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Ahhh...Grasshopper...^{Atsme📞📧} 16:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Central Park jogger case - fresh question

Hi all. The lead currently states "He was accused of racism for insisting in 1989, and maintaining as late as 2016, that a group of black and Latino teenagers were guilty of raping a white woman in the Central Park jogger case, although an imprisoned serial rapist had confessed in 2002 to raping the jogger alone, and DNA evidence confirmed his guilt."

There are clear sources that show that Trump was accused of racism for maintaining that the 5 were guilty 'as late as 2016'. However, is there any evidence that he was accused of racism for insisting that they were guilty in 1989? If not, this sentence should be amended to ""He was accused of racism for maintaining, as late as 2016, that a group of black and Latino teenagers were guilty of raping a white woman in the Central Park jogger case, although an imprisoned serial rapist had confessed in 2002 to raping the jogger alone, and DNA evidence confirmed his guilt." Birtig (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

You need to read up on all the references folks have cited and not ask others to research matters you feel are significant. The sources are at your fingertips! SPECIFICO talk 14:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Good advice. I checked all the references and could not see any that suggested Trump was accused of racism for insisting that the 5 were guilty in 1989, though the references do accuse him of racism in not accepting the convictions being vacated and continuing to insist on their guilt as recently as 2016. On the basis that the part of the sentence relating to 1989 is not supported by the references given, I will delete those few words. Birtig (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Before you delete anything, please dig deeper into the initial coverage. The entire incident was racially-charged and played as such by many New York figures and publications at the time. SPECIFICO talk 16:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hispanic judge

I self reverted here after talking to @Objective3000: and @Drmies: on O3000's talk page. There is dispute on if the information is due for inclusion. I was hoping to get some input on others views and I will see if I can find some more sources on the topic. PackMecEng (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to talk, PackMecEng. This response of POTUS is more or less ridiculous, but on this page we have had editors say it's better to put these things in the article and let readers decide. I would be more comfortable with secondary-source summary that evaluates the response, if any exists. SPECIFICO talk 02:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Some I found going along the lines of excuses by supporters: NYT, Forbes, Politico, and Washington Post. All going on the La Raza part and how it was the wrong La Raza.PackMecEng (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Given that we're at 100k already with the article, I don't know how much more we need to spend on this. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Eh readable prose is only 35kb, but we could trim some of the fluff in the section as well to get the response in. PackMecEng (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Ironically, the defense against accusations of bigotry appears to display bigotry itself. Although, I’m not sure how many readers will see that. It’s likely that readers on both sides of the issue will read the sentence and say "Yeah, that proves my point". Which means the sentence is of dubious value. O3000 (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I did like the differentiation you added pointing to the actual organisation La Raza Lawyers of California, verses La Raza perhaps that will help mitigate some of the confusion. We could also add a sentence after expressly pointing out they are different things. PackMecEng (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

All some readers care is that it sounds Hispanic. Probably feel the same way if the name was in Latin. But, I guess we can’t spoon feed the readers. O3000 (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Objective3000: How about to avoid confusion for the reader just give his quote on it and call it done. At Least his quote does not specifically mention the two organisations. PackMecEng (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

His quote includes a false statement about Curiel. This raises BLP concerns. O3000 (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Just for clarity the quote I mean is “He’s a member of a club or society very strongly pro-Mexican, which is all fine. But I say he’s got bias" Is it the very strongly pro-Mexican part or the bias part you mean for false statement? I'm not sure it meets WP:BLPREMOVE, but if we didn't include anything Trump said that was false we would have to exclude a lot of his quotes. What would be a good way to resolve this in your opinion? PackMecEng (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

O3000 has pointed out a problem that comes up any time an editor proposes using a primary sourcesubject's talking point (corrected 17:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)) to "balance" the critics of POTUS. We can't write article text that leads to alternative interpretations. Text needs to convey a single clear meaning. SPECIFICO talk 16:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

What primary sources are you referring to? PackMecEng (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

My mistake. Fixed. Thanks Pack. SPECIFICO talk 17:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think it's due. It was a post-hoc justification that was invented by Trump's supporters (not Trump himself), and which didn't address the fact that Trump made it quite clear that it was the judge's heritage -not his politics or professional affiliations- that he was complaining about. Even if it were an airtight case for a conflict of interest, that wouldn't change Trump's initial reasoning. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

There are some incidences of Trump himself making the defense. Reuters Trump said “He’s a member of a club or society very strongly pro-Mexican, which is all fine. But I say he’s got bias,” I agree it is not a good defense, but it is a defense he and his supporters made that did get decent coverage. PackMecEng (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Trump had repeated it, but it doesn't really change my three points. 1) Trump didn't invent that justification; others did. 2) It only came out in response to criticisms of Trump's initial remarks, and; 3) It doesn't actually explain or justify Trump's remarks, which were explicitly about the judge's ancestry. They would probably belong if we had an article about this particular event, but in this case, they're just more noise that doesn't help. I doubt any reasonable reader would assume that Trump's defenders didn't come up with some post-hoc justification that made his comments out not to be racial in nature, so showing them exactly which such justification doesn't aid the reader's understanding at all. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure which came first, him saying that or his supporters. But either way it was a defense he used even if others came up with it. The fact that his defense came after he was attacked is a little odd. Isn't that how all defenses of actions go? I agree it was a bad defense, and while I doubt it was what he had in mind while making those comments, it was again still the defense he used. It kind of goes to WP:PUBLICFIGURE since the section has no response, even if it would be a poor one, from the actual person involved. PackMecEng (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The fact that his defense came after he was attacked is a little odd. Isn't that how all defenses of actions go? He wasn't defending his actions, but his words. And the only time you have to contradict your own plainly stated meaning to defend what you said is when you're lying about your defense. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Change actions to words and the argument remains the same. No need to assign motive that he is lying, eh he might be, but that is not relevant to this situation. PackMecEng (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. I'm shocked this needs to be explained to you, as this is far from difficult to puzzle out. When someone says "Due to X's race, X cannot do Y," that is racist, no matter whether or not one later says "Well, it's actually due to X's membership in organization Z." Nothing can be said later that will change the words said earlier. Whether or not Trump is lying in repeating his explanation is not a matter requiring any judgement, unless one wants to judge between "he's lying" and "he suffers from some mental illness in which he misremembers what he said earlier, and in which he mishears anyone repeating his earlier words or any recording of his earlier words such that it matches his memory." The former is highly likely, the latter? Not so much. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand that none of that actually matters. Was it a lame excuse later to try and cover his tracks on racist remarks? Eh probably, but so what, that does not matter to us. Did he make a comment in response to the accusations and did that get RS coverage? Yup and that is all that matters. We can and should put that into context, but at the end of the day his comments are absolutely due for accusations made against him, regardless of what they were or if they were good. PackMecEng (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I've already address what you claim I don't seem to understand. Rather explicitly, too, which is what led you to argue that the justification might have been valid. At this point, your case seems to be entirely rhetorical. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Replied below. PackMecEng (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm in a bit of tailspin by at least two of the above comments:

1. O3000: "It’s likely that readers on both sides of the issue will read the sentence and say "Yeah, that proves my point". Which means the sentence is of dubious value." What "value" should the sentence have exactly?
2. SPECIFICO: We can't write article text that leads to alternative interpretations. Text needs to convey a single clear meaning. Please explain why the text needs to convey a single clear meaning, and by whose interpretation will it be judged?

Perhaps my confusion arises from the following statement in our NPOV policy: However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint. Another concern is that far too much weight is being given to trivial mention in sources regarding Trump's alleged racism, some of which is the result of circular reporting while most is simply a passing comment by biased journalists expressing their own opinions - I've broken that down a bit further below. Oh, and being Mexican is not a race anymore than being American, or Canadian. Live Science defines it: "Race is associated with biology, whereas ethnicity is associated with culture." You can be caucasian and still be Mexican. NOTE: the politics section of news publications include a mix of opinion based commentary and news - that's where editorial judgment comes into play. Following is the breakdown of the so-called RS cited in the section Hispanic judge - and by calling him "Hispanic" instead of American, what does that indicate? The section title should be his name, and it should be included in an article about Trump University, not here.

1. HuffPo "The Blog" has zero info about race, racist, racial or racism.
2. WaPo "Fact Checker" section has zero info about race, racist, racial or racism.
3. USA Today "Money" section has zero info about race, racist, racial or racism.
4. NYTimes "Politics" - Election 2016 - article has zero info about race, racist, racial or racism.
5. The Atlantic "Politics" - The word "racist" was used once in that article which equates into trivial mention of the author's opinion. [8] "Trump claimedthe judge could not fairly preside over the Trump University cases because of Curiel’s “Mexican heritage.” (Curiel is from Indiana; his parents are Mexican immigrants.) “I’m building a wall, it’s an inherent conflict of interest,” he added." The article is also cited to the WSJ article.
6. CNN Politics - article attempts to make it a racial issue which is the leniency political commentary enjoys. Opinions are not statements of fact. The weight of that article leans equally to Trump's responses to Trapper's allegations; i.e., Trump's concern that the Judge was biased toward HIM, not the other way around. Trump's defense: "Based on the rulings that I have received in the Trump University civil case, I feel justified in questioning whether I am receiving a fair trial," Trump said. He also referenced "the core issues of my campaign that focus on illegal immigration, jobs and unfair trade" in explaining his criticism.
7. Politifact circular reporting.

• Summary - the section is poorly sourced, one-sided and does not reflect Trump's views. In fact, his views were totally omitted. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Please explain why text needs to convey a single clear meaning That's what it says in the Book of Genesis when God created language. SPECIFICO talk 21:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

😂 ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

On the issue of the word racial, please see: Race (human categorization). O3000 (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

You're referring me to a WP article? ♡ it! Well, good article but it doesn't change the meaning of Mexican and it doesn't change what science dictates. I live in Texas and my family has all kinds of different racial mixes, some from Mexico, and they refer to themselves as tanned Americans. I'll pass along your suggestion to read the WP article so they'll know they are now a particular race because their grandparents were born in Mexico. In the interim, I'll stick with the scientific definition such as the one in PubMed: Races may exist in humans in a cultural sense, but biological concepts of race are needed to access their reality in a non-species-specific manner and to see if cultural categories correspond to biological categories within humans. It's a bit more encyclopedic than referring to folks by nationality and hanging a race label on them because of it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am referring you to a highly referenced article on how the word is used. As for science, please read what the American Anthropological Association says: AAA Statement on Race Race has a far wider meaning than a few simple classifications. O3000 (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• So at this point to summarize. We have an argument that it would make the article to large. That his defense mixing up La Raza with La Raza Lawyers of California might create confusion with readers. That his response to criticism is undue because he said a defense others have made and that it is not a good defense. Are there more arguments I have missed?

The size one is completely a non-issue, since size is not actually a problem for this article. The mix up could be cleared up either with a quote or a second sentence clarifying the difference between the orgs. The undue one might be closer. But I still feel that regardless of when, why, or how he said it. It was still a defense he spoke about and was well covered. A sentence covering his defense is due, and possibly a sentence after covering why that defense might be an issue. PackMecEng (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Nothing racist about criticizing the fact that a Mexican judge was the one selected to rule on a case of illegal immigration. It has been shown that Mexicans disproportionately support illegal immigration due to very strong ethno-nationalism among Mexicans. You might even say that their support for illegal immigration is Mexican supremacist since it is exclusively in their own self-interest and to the detriment of America, as well as completely ignoring American laws.

Show me the RSes lending credibility to this justification, and I'll concede the inclusion. So far, all I've seen is RSes undermining that justification. Until then, I stand by saying it's undue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Reuters, Breitbat, CBS, and USA Today all giving Trump's justification with some going on to mention why it might be an issue. Again I am not opposed to a sentence after mentioning the issues with his statement. But to completely leave it out is problematic. PackMecEng (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Breitbart as an RS? Surely you jest. There is no chance in hell we ever use Breitbart for a claim of fact on an issue like this. None of the rest rest even come close to lending credibility to the justifcation. Hell, the CBS source doesn't even mention it. Take some advice: Read sources before presenting them to support a claim, especially in controversial topics. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah Breitbart was just for fun . But yes CBS mentioned Trump's defense. Start of second paragraph. So what are you talking about? PackMecEng (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay fine, we'll play pedantic for this one. What does the source say about that excuse that lends it credibility? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Know what, there are about half a dozen RS here listing what he said, why, and what it is in relation to. If you do not like it, fine, but I think we have gone as far as we can go here. Thanks for your time. PackMecEng (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll take that to mean "nothing", then. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

Just a quick check on a proposal to add this to the end of the last paragraph of the section.

"Responding to criticism, Trump said "He’s a member of a club or society, very strongly pro-Mexican, which is all fine. But I say he’s got bias," referring to Curiel's membership in La Raza Lawyers of California, a Hispanic legal profession advocacy group which is unrelated to the National Council of La Raza."

I think that gives a good rundown of his overall response to the situation. I would be open to improvement suggestions though. PackMecEng (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

How does this address the equivocation wrt the Mexican/Hispanic American distinction? SPECIFICO talk 15:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Apologies but I am not sure I follow. What do you mean? PackMecEng (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi sorry for not being more clear. I think it's got to say Hispanic-American... because Trump's statement is apparently intended to make his supporters think it's a pro-Mexican group (whatever that might mean). SPECIFICO talk 16:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I would be fine with changing "a Hispanic legal profession" to "a Hispanic-American legal profession" if that is what you are looking for. PackMecEng (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm giving up on trying to keep the bloat out of this article for now, so consider me neutral on whether this is mentioned or not. But the text needs work. It should read:

Responding to criticism, Trump said "He’s a member of a club or society, very strongly pro-Mexican, which is all fine. But I say he’s got bias," referring to Curiel's membership in La Raza Lawyers of California, a Hispanic legal profession advocacy group,/which is unrelated to the National Council of La Raza.

There's a comment in there with just the copyedited text and no markup. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Taking a fresh look at the current article text, I don't see that mention of the La Raza Lawyers bit adds any substance to the narrative of this article. It might show the specific form of equivocation Trump uses, but that's something that might be covered more generally elsewhere in this or other articles. SPECIFICO talk 18:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Reasoning/edit summary for removal of long standing text makes no sense

Here. The edit summary is "was undue for the lead of the main article, definitely undue for here". I'm sorry but that's ass backwards. A sentence may be undue in a lede of an article and still be perfectly due in the main text. A sentence relevant to Trump's supporters views on race may be undue in an article about the neo-Nazi rally, but it may (it is) very well be due here. I'm challenging this removal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

We are referencing that article in the section so the beginning of our section should reflect the lead of the article we reference. Since that part was, by a decent sized RFC, decided it was undue. It most certainly is undue for a summary of the lead over here. PackMecEng (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Since this is about Trump, it obviously has far more relevance to this article than the one generally on the rally. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

However, I'm not sure that we need so much detail on the protests themselves, and thus still may be need to be removed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm unsure. This is more about his followers than him. Are any of the RSes actually linking the Trump supporters at the rally to Trump being racist? (I'm fine with either answer, I've just not seen it done yet.) I would prefer to see sources that don't like it to Trump's racism by way of the so-called "Trump effect", or the rise in racism among the general population since the election of Trump, but I suppose enough of those would do the trick. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• One problem with mentioning the presence of Trump/Pence signs is that the evidence is extremely weak. (Probably because the statement is simply false.) Now, if you want a compromise, mentioning MAGA hats would have strong evidence. But, I tend to agree with MPants that this is about his followers, not him. O3000 (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Is there not a danger of a circular argument here? people who oppose Trump accuse him of being racist/racist people are therefore attracted to support Trump/the people opposing Trump then point to that fact that racists support Trump as proof to justify their original claim that he is racist...Birtig (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Racists are certainly attracted to people with racist words, deeds, and policies. But, I think it’s quite a stretch to claim many racists will go so far to support someone simply because someone else says they’re a racist. Don’t see how it applies anyhow given what appear to be racist words, deeds, and policies. In any case, this is far too speculative to raise NPOV/BLP issues. O3000 (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I have some evidence to support O3000's assertions here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

NOT funny. MPants, I know your sense of humor is far out there, but that kind of humor simply doesn't fit here. Whatever happened to the beautiful words, the love and all that is good and unifying that was preached to the world and taught by the honorable Martin Luther King? This topic is far too sensitive for the kind of levity brought to us by David Chappelle, not that I have anything against Chappelle, but this is not the appropriate venue. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

LOL, I thought it was hilarious (and I bet that MLK would have as well). Gandydancer (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

😔 ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Your response to that joke only demonstrates that you need to step away and relax more than anyone else in this thread. If you think humor is inappropriate, then you're way too caught up in this to be objective. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I have to say the video is hilarious, as well as educational. But, it tends to prove MPants point. (Hope I got it right this time.) Chappelle’s point is about the utter ignorance of racism. This article is about Trump, not any ignorance present in many of his followers. Whether or not Trump is a racist is not colored by the ignorance of some percentage of his followers. It may be a clue. But, that’s all it is. Better to concentrate on Trump’s actual words, deeds and policies. O3000 (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for Palm Beach Club section

Several private clubs in Palm Beach operated with tight restrictions in a segregated world open only to the genteel and old elites until the late 1990s when Donald Trump purchased land in Mar-a-Lago, built his own club and estate, and changed the exclusionary culture of Palm Beach. Prior to his purchase, Trump said he would not join the private Bath and Tennis Club in Palm Beach because “they don’t take blacks and Jews.” Some said it was because he had not been invited to join, to which he responded, "They kiss my ass in Palm Beach. Those phonies! That club [the Bath and Tennis] called me and asked me if they could have my consent to use part of my beach to expand the space for their cabanas! I said, ‘Of course!’" Trump filed a $100,000 discrimination suit in U.S. District Court in Palm Beach, "alleging that the town was discriminating against Mar-a-Lago, in part because it is open to Jews and African-Americans." Palm Beach denied the allegations and called it a zoning matter. New York's Anti-Defamation League was concerned that Trump was using anti-Semitism charges for business gains. Trump's lawsuit was modified to "allege only that the town council has treated Mar-a-Lago unfairly, compared with other clubs in town." One of Trump’s frequent critics Allen Wyett wondered if Mar-a-Lago’s nondiscriminatory policy was a business strategy since, as he put it, “Palm Beach is about 40% Jewish and he was not going to attract the old guard anyway?” In his description of Trump, Wyett said, “He can be outrageous. He can be as gentle as a kid. He can be gracious. He can be as vindictive as anyone you’ve ever met. He’s everything wrapped into one package with a ribbon on it.”

The Washington Post reported that “Trump’s lawyer sent every member of the town council copies of two classic movies about discrimination: “A Gentleman’s Agreement,” about a journalist who pretends to be Jewish to expose anti-Semitism, and “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” about a white couple’s reaction to their daughter bringing home a black fiance.” Having won in the court of public opinion, Trump was able to get the Palm Beach City Council to remove most of the restrictions that prohibited his ability to grow his business and expand the landmark property. As owner of the property, he was better able to end the old practices of racial discrimination. The Washington Post quoted him as saying, “You have everybody there. You have people from the Middle East. You have Jewish people. I mean, you have Jewish people having dinner with people from the Middle East. You have Christians. You have old-line WASPs.”

Sources

Survey

Please respond with the customary "support" or "oppose" iVotes. I have provided a Discussion section below the survey where editors can express their thoughts. I have chosen local consensus first per WP:RfC: Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: After reading SPECIFICO's comment in the discussion section below, I modified the section - Birtig is the only iVote after modification, so I'm pinging them. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

NOTE#2:After reading the comment by Emir of Wikipedia, the material being proposed does not have to be the same exact wording. It can be trimmed. Let the Support iVotes indicate what parts of it should be included. Make suggestions in the Discussion section - we can always tweak it after the survey. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support - obvious, but more of an effort to kick-start the iVoting. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - we want all evidence related to Trump's views and not just the stuff that can paint him in a bad light... Birtig (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This bloated text is not remotely verified by the references and it's preposterously undue and full of a false editorial hallicinated narrative. It's so far from the references it's not even worth debunking in detail. Nobody should favor "support" without affirming that they've actually read all these words cited in support as references. SPECIFICO talk 20:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support As per note#2 I support some mention of this but I think the version currently proposed is probably undue or trivial. A trimmed version should be included in the article though. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Immense amount of text for a self-serving claim that he fought for civil rights in a situation that appears to have been an effort to force a reversal of a town zoning decision putting limitations on the conversion of a private estate in a residential area to a busy club. O3000 (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - um, WP:NOTESSAY. Regardless of content and sourcing, this is written in a non-encyclopedic manner.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Meh - I'm more or less neutral about including this content in some form, but I think this is at least twice as long as it needs to be. It does speak to Trump's public profile with regard to race, and it does include the possibility that it was business-driven. The Snopes article is illuminating.- MrX 🖋 12:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is insufficiently notable or interesting to be included. I would also suggest to shorten the section "Shithole countries". It includes too many opinions by US senators that add nothing to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Please limit discussion to this section to avoid cluttering up the Survey. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, what evidence have you that any of the old money clubs would have admitted the vulgar arriviste Trump to their circle. "Refused to join" doesn't mean he had any opportunity to join. I refuse to board the space shuttle. Maybe you do as well. Please cite source for your insinuation that there's some principled stance behind this. SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

If 'refused to join' is the bit you don't think appropriate, I'm sure the wording can be amended as it is not the key part of this - the key part is Trump comment against the existing clubs that “they don’t take blacks and Jews." Birtig (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

There's more on this story at: [9]. The claim that he was making some stance about desegregation is very shaky. It appears far more a publicity stunt with the goal of having restrictions removed that were put in place because he wanted to bring heavy traffic to a residential area. I don't think there is any evidence that the town had a problem with an open club or that he refused to join any clubs. This is likely one of innumerable self-serving claims. O3000 (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the Snopes link - it corroborates what I wrote in the proposed section about the late 90s, Trump modifying his lawsuit, and what his critic said. Love verifiability. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

It does no such thing, and you have provided no rationale for this claim. It brings to question the entire reasoning behind adding this to the article. O3000 (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Does, too. If you don't think so, then provide the proof. Eveything is cited to RS, and your IDONTLIKEIT commentary is not the least bit helpful. Stick with collegial and everything will be just fine. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Does too is not an argument. And, it’s up to you to give evidence for your claims. And, I made no IDONTLIKEIT comment. And there was nothing non-collegial about my comment. You need to stop this BATTLEGROUND behavior. By now, you really should have realized it doesn’t convince. O3000 (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: I took to heart the questions SPECIFICO raised, and made the necessary modifications. The only iVote before the change was by Birtig, to whom I've pinged and advised. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The defects of this bloated babble came through your tweak unscathed. Unverified, synth, OR, and BS. Did you read the references you cited? SPECIFICO talk 21:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: What is your proposal exactly? Adding to the article the whole two paragraphs as written at the top of this thread? — JFG ^talk 18:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

JFG, the proposal is to add the section - see header for this proposal: Proposal for Palm Beach Club section. This diff removed the section and put it in Defenses of Donald Trump, and then removed it entirely. In a discussion near the top of this TP, section title Removal of Palm Beach clubs, Emir of Wikipedia asked me if I had a proposal. I do now. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, your claim of OR in your iVote followed by your decision not to define it is puzzling. So that we're on the same page - WP:OR states: The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. Everything I've said written is verifiable in the sources. I understood why you were confused by the first writing but I clarified it using quotes and inline-text attribution right from the cited source. There is no way that can be OR. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, for starters: "world open only to the genteel and old elites until the late 1990s when Donald Trump purchased land in Mar-a-Lago, built his own club and estate, and changed the exclusionary culture of Palm Beach" SPECIFICO talk 22:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: I think that so much detail is probably undue or trivial but I am grateful for you proposing a wording. I am not going to oppose as I obviously think that this is worth including, but I don't feel comfortable supporting the current wording you have proposed. Perhaps we could make it more concise? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

You guys need to cut it out with these informal "surveys" and do proper RfCs instead.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree. That would be better for all concerned. There's a huge amount of wasted time on the politics articles from process failures, and formal RfC's would need clear succinct proposals, would ensure that everyone gets a chance to comment, and for both reasons would reduce the number of do-overs and unclear outcomes. It really would make better use of our talent pool here. SPECIFICO talk 23:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I prefer to look to Wikipedia PAGs for what we need to do. WP:RFC: "Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others." And you can talk until blue in the face, but consensus often doesn't become clear until you use the survey format. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Right. I think these surveys are only coming after it's clear there's no agreement. But I think at that point, the informal surveys really do not resolve the issue, whereas if the same effort were put into a well-formed RfC we would reach closure and be able to cover more ground with our efforts. SPECIFICO talk 00:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss, I must've overlooked the part that reads "And you can talk until blue in the face...yada yada" in our PAGs.😉 I'm just going by what the procedure suggests - trying to get local consensus first and if we can't reach an agreement, I'll follow Masem's suggestion and take it to VP. I'll know to do that first next time. Let's give the survey a chance to set, and give other editors a chance to provide input. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree that these surveys are useless. They constantly change, can be prematurely closed, and Atsme just piles insult after insult at anyone that doesn’t agree with her POV. We have well thought out procedures where this timesink kind of distraction won't work. Let us follow them. O3000 (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The proposed text suggests that Mar-a-Lago is not exclusionary. Trump has often mentioned that he allows blacks and Jews to become members. But, are there actually any black members? Keep in mind that many organizations that claim to be open, aren’t in practice. (Like a nightclub that refuses entry to a black couple because of the dress code when the club is filled with people wearing the same type of clothing.) Out of curiosity, I spent a couple hours looking for a black member and was unable to find one. (A few articles on membership: [10], [11], [12], [13].) Mar-a-lago does not have open membership. First, you must be sponsored by a current member. Then, the club must approve your membership. The criteria for acceptance is unknown. The claim that the club is not exclusionary fails scrutiny. 13:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)O3000 (talk)

It's a "private club". The 1% megawealthy pay big bucks for privacy vs what...let's say editors have to pay for anonymity on WP. Imagine the uproar if media or government demanded full disclosure of WP editors just to make sure WMF is "an equal opportunity employer" 🤣. The Bloomberg] article provideds a bit more info. CNBC verifies the club is pricey. We are not investigative reporters (OR), we summarize what the RS say. If we treated all of the Trump articles the way some editors want to treat the addition of this one section, we'd have far fewer articles starting with this one. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)    

Yes, this was OR. Which is allowed on TPs. No, anyone cannot be a member, as suggested by the title of the Bloomberg article to which you linked. Yes, we summarize what RS say – when it makes sense to include. If we included everything, articles would be 100 pages long, starting with this one. O3000 (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)