Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump/Archive 3

• This edit whitewashes what the source says. The source says "numerous studies" - indeed that is the point of the article - not "some studies" . In this case "tone it down" means "I'm gonna POV this".

• This, with a misleading summary "remove gossip", actually removes well sourced text. This is NOT "gossip", that's absurd.

• This is a clear cut case of SYNTH which juxtaposes two separate facts and tries to imply - via original research - that the first part of the claim is false. It also embellishes a bit on what is actually in the relevant source.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

"President has dime bars for breakfast" is gossip. "President makes sweeping racist statements while in the process of trying to enact anti-immigration laws" is certainly *not* gossip. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

According to the meaning of gossip when googled, "casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details which are not confirmed as true". Therefore the issue is not the importance or trivial nature of the information but whether the sources are identified and reliable or just unattributed hearsay. Birtig (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Read WP:YESPOV, particularly Avoid stating opinions as facts, and Prefer nonjudgmental language which states (my bold underline): A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. There is also Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views which is not being applied as it should. Opinions are not facts and allegations of racism are opinions. POV has been detected, not just but one but by several editors. Also refer to WP:NEWSORG. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

What exactly are you addressing? This appears to be just a random statement which has nothing to do with the issues raised above. Please watch WP:SOAPBOX.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree on all points. The first is a whitewash. The second has a questionable edit summary, although I'm not sure the article suffers for losing the material. The third does seem to run afoul of synth. It takes a cherry picked portion of the raw speech, and portions of two other sources and combines them in a way that suggests something new. There may be a source that makes such a conclusion, but those three ain't them.- MrX 🖋 02:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

As the author of the challenged edits, let me respond to VM's criticism:

• Regarding the first edit, the first cited source (The Nation) writes about ONE study, and the second source (Vox) mentions three studies -- that's "some" in my book, not "numerous". We could also say that these were cherry-picked studies from left-wing sources, but I'm not even bothering to look for counter-studies. My edit made the lead more neutral regardless. However, comparing the sources with our prose, I'm disturbed by a glaring misrepresentation: the Vox source says Trump’s rise was driven by racism and racial resentment, whereas our text says since Trump's ascendance in the Republican Party, racist attitudes and racial resentment have become more significant. That's an inversion of cause and consequence: the source says racism fueled Trump's rise while our text says Trump's rise increased racism. Very misleading!
• My second edit actually removed textbook gossip -- well-sourced gossip is still gossip, i.e. unverified hearsay, which has no place in our encyclopedia.
• In the third edit, the claim of SYNTH is unclear, and the article text could be modified to avoid any. Simply mention Trump's quote that is relevant to race: Whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots and omit any opinions about his speech, or list sources giving positive as well as negative opinions of it.

Looking forward to further discussion in order to uphold neutrality. — JFG ^talk 02:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Marek's opening comment and restorative edits are all that's needed to "uphold neutrality" -- no independent editor is objecting, so let's drop it now and move on per WP:OWN SPECIFICO talk 02:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• JFG, well, it may be "some" in YOUR book, but on Wikipedia we don't go by "JFG's book" we go by what reliable sources say. And these sources say "numerous", not "some". WP:OR. I agree on the inversion of the cause and effect though. How about we keep "numerous" and you can propose appropriate wording for taking care of the other issue?
• No, to call this gossip is absurd. "Well sourced gossip" is in fact pretty much an oxymoron.
• There's nothing unclear about it being SYNTH. To different claims/ideas are forged together to imply something which is not actually in any of the sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: 1. Did you forget about WP:BALANCE, WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD? The Vox source cites three studies linking Trump with racist feelings in the electorate, and calls them "numerous", we don't have to parrot their claims. Besides, the article text grossly misrepresents even Vox by inverting cause and consequence. This cannot stand, especially in the lede section which is supposed to summarize the gist of the article body. So if you want to keep this, please insert a proper representation of the source in the article body, add counter-studies, and finally write a balanced summary in the lede. 2. Gossip sourced to the New York Times is still gossip. 3. I proposed a way to avoid any appearance of SYNTH; what do you think? — JFG ^talk 04:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Um, no, it's just that WP:BALANCE would mean that you go and find sources which say there AREN'T "numerous" studies. And if a reliable source says "numerous", then yes indeed we have to "parrot their claim" - i.e. not misrepresent them as you're trying to do. I've already said that you can propose better wording in regard to the cause and effect so please stop red herringing this.

And no, please stop it with this "gossip" nonsense. Well sourced info is not "gossip". Indeed it is the opposite of gossip.

And your "proposal to avoid SYNTH" wasn't actually a proposal to avoid synth, it was a proposal to remove relevant text according to some WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. How does that work? How about instead of removing relevant text, we remove the SYNTH that you put in there? Problem solved. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

1. Fair enough that we'd have to find counter-studies for balance, and I can't be bothered to do such research right now. Whether three studies are "numerous" is a matter of personal opinion, and I agree to disagree; we could simply qualify the studies count more neutrally, by stating "Several studies have claimed…" rather than "Numerous studies…" or "Some studies…". On my other remark, glad to see you admit the misrepresentation, so how about switching to this text: Several studies and surveys have claimed that racist attitudes and racial resentment have fueled Trump's political ascendance, and have become more significant than economic factors in determining party allegiance of voters.

2. Looks like we don't have the same definition of gossip. Seems that this "well-sourced" hearsay is sourced to nobody in particular, and was denied by several participants. Contrary to the "shithole" incident which was confirmed, "forgotten" or not-really-denied by many named sources. So until somebody has the guts to say "I was here and I confirm Trump said that", it's just WP:GOSSIP, "scandal mongering" as our WP:NOT policy calls it, and we must remove it from the encyclopedia.

3. First of all, I wasn't the author of the original prose that had been removed, I just restored it without further editing, so don't accuse me of introducing SYNTH, a tactic I despise. The "we share the same blood" quote from the inauguration speech is eminently relevant to this article because it is one of the rare instances of actual direct expressions of "racial views of Donald Trump", so it deserves inclusion. We can either include it without comment, or with balanced comments from sources making positive and negative interpretations of his statement. Neither approach should involve any editorial synthesis. — JFG ^talk 04:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

1. You drop the "claimed" weaseling and that'd be acceptable.

2. Sorry, but this is simply NOT gossip. We have New York Times and Washington Post reporting on it. It caused a lot of controversy. You can't just make up arbitrary rules for what you think is "gossip" and then try to exclude text because you WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Anyway, this has been in the article a long time, and by removing this you violated the "consensus required to restore challenged edits" discretionary sanctions so please self-revert.

3. You may not have been the author but you put it back in (I didn't accuse you of "introducing" it, I said you "put it in there", which is correct - so how about YOU don't falsely accuse me of stuff, speaking of tactics). And you're still doing the SYNTH, just now on the talk instead of the article. Hell, you're essentially trying to hold the well sourced text hostage - "your choices are either to remove the well sourced text or let me do my SYNTH". No, these are not the only choices. The obvious choice is to remove the SYNTH. As was done before you reinserted it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

1. Okay, will replace "claimed" with "stated" and make the edit.

2. I didn't violate anything: I removed the paragraph, was challenged by you, came here to discuss. Textbook BRD. We happen to disagree whether this content meets the definition of gossip by WP policy (not "arbitrary rules"), fine, so be it. Will open the discussion to wider comments.

3. Look, it's not about me, you or another editor, let's stick to discussing the contents. The inauguration speech contains an explicit statement by Trump about race. Whether you like this statement or not, it exists, and is therefore relevant to an article called "Racial views of Donald Trump". Censoring it is POV. We don't need to add editorial comments around it, which the original text does. How about you suggest a wording that would not give any appearance of synth? — JFG ^talk 05:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:TE - This insistent denial reads as if the talk page is intended for bilateral negotiations to re-write basic WP policy. The fact is that Marek identified and documented the defects, including the textbook example of SYNTH with the paragraph that began "While..." and proceeded to concatenate two separate sources to lead our readers astray. Other editors affirm Marek's fixes, and it's time to drop it and move on to other issues. SPECIFICO talk 14:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

1. No, I disagree - it should be removed. This WaPo article states: "Obama’s race is largely responsible for the association between racial resentment and economic anxiety. And this racialized political environment undoubtedly aided Donald Trump’s rise to the top of the Republican Party." The 2nd WaPo article summarized the findings of survey analysts for Monkey Cage, WaPo and The Atlantic stating: "all of whom suggested that those voting for Trump felt what we would call white vulnerability, racial resentment, and mixed in with that, an anxiety about losing cultural status." The Vox article evaluates the Monkey Cage survey: "racial resentment is the biggest predictor of white vulnerability among white millennials." The Monkey Cage survey included responses from 503 African Americans, 510 whites, 505 Latinos and 258 Asian Americans. The questions asked to measure white vulnerability included: 1) whether whites were “economically losing ground through no fault of their own”; 2) whether discrimination against whites was “as big a problem as that against Blacks and other minorities”; and 3) if minorities overtaking whites as the majority of the U.S. population by 2050 would “strengthen or weaken the country.” The survey demonstrated discrimination against whites which ties in racial resentment and white vulnerability. The 12-15-2017 WaPo article linked racial resentment to "political attitudes" in a Slate article which states (my bold): "Tesler has been chronicling what he calls the “racialization” of issues in the Obama era—the extent to which public opinion on topics unrelated to race have taken on a racial castas Obama has staked out positions on them." None of what the survey demonstrated reflects in what our article states: Some studies and surveys have claimed that Trump's political ascendance has made racist attitudes and racial resentment more significant than economic factors in determining party allegiance of voters. Remove it, or state what the cited sources are actually saying.
2. Yes it is gossip, all opinion-based, not statements of fact.
3. We need a closer review of the contentious statements in this article to make sure the material accurately reflects what the cited sources say. ^{Atsme📞📧} 09:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, we've already addressed #1 - please read other people's comments.

No, it's not gossip, no not "opinion". It's reliably sourced. People, please stop making stuff up.

Sure - but in the meantime, we do not leave WP:SYNTH in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Who is "we" VM? Clarity is needed, not blanket statements reflecting only your objections...and please try to understand that MSM (most of which is circular reporting) does not get to make up their own facts. MSM even states that they are claims not facts, and they use in-text attribution to indicate who is making them. That is exactly what WP is supposed to be doing. I strongly suggest a refresher course in the first half of NPOV policy. No one is making anything up, and I can assure you that everything I've said is sourced to RS, some of which are the very sources from which the derogatory statements have been cherrypicked. Please read the most recent comments by other people who are arriving to this article and have challenged the neutrality of it. These outside views are important to achieving NPOV, and I am concerned over the OWN attitudes I've been subjected to here. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

"We" is Wikipedia editors active on this article, who else?

And yes clarity is needed - can you be clearer in your comments, because most of them are impossible to understand and other editors are forced to guess as to how they're at all relevant. Several people here have raised this problem with you before. In regard to my statements - they're perfectly clear. There's SYNTH. It needs to be removed. That's it.

As to "MSM", the sources are not making anything up. And no, it's not "circular reporting", whatever the hey that's suppose to be.

And these "other people who are arriving to this article" - are they the sketchy accounts with just a few edits who repeat standard talking disinformation talking points by any chance? Somehow I don't think that will help NPOV at all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, SYNTH, UNDUE, and POV content are usually sourced to RS, but that doesn't mean they conform to Wikipedia policy or guidelines. So basically everything you keep saying is irrelevant. This tread is wasting a lot of time, and the real issue has already been addressed -- at least 4 times now. SPECIFICO talk 17:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Referring to news articles in two of most highly-respected newspapers in the world as gossip is stunningly absurd. Such claims reflect on the competence of the editors that make them, and are only worthy of being summarily ignored.- MrX 🖋 18:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Do not confuse WIKT:gossip, which is a dictionary definition, with WP:GOSSIP, which is Wikipedia policy, by which all editors must abide. This entry qualifies as item 3 of the policy, "Scandal mongering". Yes, highly-respected newspapers can and do engage in gossip and scandal-mongering. Please note that only the New York Times story of 23 December 2017 actually makes the claims about a June 2017 meeting; the Washington Post only reminds readers of this earlier NY Times piece in January 2018, stating that the shithole incident "lends credence" to the NYT claims. To corroborate the statements made in our article, only the original NYT piece can be used, and barring any independent verification, this second-hand hearsay from unnamed persons does qualify as unsubstantiated gossip. — JFG ^talk 21:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Do not confuse policy shortcuts with actual policy, but do get your story straight because I'm feeling a little gaslit at the moment. The content in question does not fit into any of the five categories of using Wikipedia as a soapbox or for promotion. In fact it's so over-the-top to suggest that citing material in two blue chip news sources is gossip or promotion that I... I'm verklempt!- MrX 🖋 21:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Nothing personal, MrX. Just read the sources fully and understand my point. — JFG ^talk 22:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• The only problem with the inauguration speech section was the fact that it opens with While Trump was criticized for "running one of the most racially and ethnically divisive campaigns in American history", which has no semantic purpose if not to be contradicted by the rest. Plus, the use of quotes reads far more like scare quotes, so even that bit by itself implies a conclusion not stated in any source. So it's pretty blatant SYNTH per that, but simply removing that bit of text and capitalizing the next word would fix it. As for the rest, I agree with the OP: those are not good edits and should remain out. I'm okay with the "several studies have stated..." wording on the first.

Also -and I understand that this is tangential- there is no dichotomy between Trump's rise being fueled by racism and his ascension to the presidency fueling racism. Those are two separate causalities, there's no need for one to be false if the other is true. Think about being punched in the face. It can be a symptom of conflict escalation, and it can simultaneously result in even more conflict escalation. Alternatively, compare making love for the first time and romantic attachment. Or any of an enormous number of other situations.

And Vox is not necessarily wrong, either. It's pretty apparent to anyone versed in politics that the Obama presidency had an impact on racism in the US, including popularizing the perceived victimhood of whites; a phenomenon that could easily help explain Trump's win in the election. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@MPants at work: Thanks for your well-reasoned input. Surely racism among U.S. voters may have helped Trump's candidacy, and conversely Trump's rhetoric may have fueled further racism. The quoted Vox article made the first connection only and was therefore misrepresented. Following my discussion with VM, this issue has now been addressed in the prose.

About the section on the inauguration speech, I agree with you that the "While… history" part was unnecessary, although this comment was made by a cited source (The Atlantic),^[1] so doesn't qualify as WP:SYNTH. But to avoid any impression of synthesis, I've been arguing that we should simply cite Trump's speech heralding patriotism irrespective of race, unadorned by external commentary. I would propose the following text:

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."^[2]

Comments? — JFG ^talk 21:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but you can't use a primary source in that way. You can't decide what part of the speech is important or relevant to the subject. It's original research and it's forbidden by policy.- MrX 🖋 21:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, and I don't know where you're getting that interpretation of policy from. We certainly can pick out those parts of a primary source which are germane to the subject and selectively quote them, so long as they are WP:DUE, and we don't select them such as to change the meaning. I agree with JFG that this bit in his speech is due, and I don't think the selective quoting changes the meaning of those parts of his speech.

@JFG:Yes, it was culled from a source, but both that particular use of quotes and the context of it's inclusion presented very strongly implied conclusions that were not in that source. Indeed, that source's overall conclusion was that the inauguration speech was dark and deeply disturbing, doing all but calling it the death knell of democracy. I think that's far too much opinion to be useful here, so I think your proposal works much better. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Huh, you disagree but then you agree? Please clarify, because your second paragraph seems to support my point. WP:PRIMARY is clear: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." WP:SYNTH states "Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." Selecting a partial quote from a speech to pose an editor's counterargument that Trump is not racist is exactly what this policy is meant to prevent.- MrX 🖋 21:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

You're conflating the subjects of the two paragraphs. The second was not directed at you, but at JFG (hence why I started it by pinging JFG), in response to the comment they made directed at me. I am discussing two different aspects of this issue in the two different paragraphs, so no, they're not at all contradictory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

We can't cherry pick Trump's speech. Period.- MrX 🖋 23:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

MrX, this entire article is cherrypicked to fit a particular POV which is why so many editors have challenged it. To now say inclusion of Trump's own views on racism is not allowed because it is "cherrypicked" is a bit of a stretch. A statement that is used for its relevancy is not cherrypicked. There is no PAG that supports what you're saying. That's what we do - we use editorial judgment to determine what is relevant/encyclopedic for inclusion in an article and for you to say a relevant statement in a US president's inaugural speech is cherrypicking is well...absurd. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Nope on all fronts. You don't get to dissect a speech and put the gizzard smack dab in the middle of the article where the heart belongs. This is one of the reasons why primary sources should be avoided, in favor of secondary sources of which there is no short supply. Of course you know that, because of your renowned reverence for the PAGs.- MrX 🖋 00:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry - the dissecting was done by EuroNews which published "Key quotes from Donald Trump's inauguration speech" and did some extraction from Donald Trump’s first speech as US president. We certainly can use parts of what they published as a secondary source that fits into the context of this narrative. You might want to take a look at List of Trump–Russia dossier allegations and Trump–Russia_dossier#Allegations, which was published in its entirety in an unreliable source (BuzzFeed), and then with the use of SYNTH a separate list and a section in the main article were created using cherrypicked allegations that fit a particular POV narrative. What was proposed here is not SYNTH, it is editorial judgment that cites a RS and a relevant statement in the speech demonstrating Trump's views on race...and you are now trying to convince editors that doing so is noncompliant with policy? I suggest you cite the policy that supports your position because I say it does not. Trump's views belong in an article about Trump's views. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

MrX: you are not the arbiter of WP policy, and it's very clear that the three other people discussing this particular question all disagree with you. Further, I would bet good money that, were you to bring this to` a more public forum, the community input there would be the same that you're getting here. We quote excerpts from speeches, passages and publications constantly. Almost every single quote on this site is "picked" from a larger work. You have absolutely no policy ground to stand on, here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not the arbiter, nor are you—consensus is. Your understanding of the applicable policies seems flawed. With three editors opposing this cherry-pick, I don't see it going into the article anytime soon.- MrX 🖋 03:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Now you're just becoming obnoxious: There's only you and SPECIFICO opposing it and SPECIFICO's argument boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, while there's fourthree editors (myself, Volunteer Marek, JFG and Atsme) supporting it, and you have yet to quote or even name a policy that prevents us from quoting the speech, most likely because you damn well know there is no such fucking policy. I really don't understand what your problem is here, but you have no policy leg to stand on. You don't get to dictate what policy is to the rest of us with your "we're not doing this. Period" bullshit so just knock it off and either engage like a grown-up or go fuck off and edit something else, kay? Thnks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Pants, it's not constructive and it's not WP:CIVIL to accuse a colleague of putting personal preference above policy and article improvement. You know better than that. If my objection was unclear to you, a simple request for clarification would have enabled you to make a constructive criticism of my view. My initial comment got moved way down by folks interspersing indented comments. It was "That text is utterly vacuous and communicates nothing at all about anything at all." -- it's an amateur speechwriter's tangle of words that sound like they come from memorable speeches but don't refer to anything. There's some kind of metaphor about "our hearts" and "the color of our skin" and other things that sound like they might work in a memorable speech, but they're not used to convey any meaning. Nobody can parse what's intended by this remark. And that is why we don't have RS pointing it out as a noteworthy part of the speech or a noteworthy statement by Pres. Trump. It's cherrypicked nonsense. There was plenty of commentary about the address that can be used to characterize and illustrate what it was about and what POTUS had to say. SPECIFICO talk 14:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Pants, it's not constructive and it's not WP:CIVIL to accuse a colleague of putting personal preference above policy and article improvement. First off, I haven't done that. Second, you do it on an almost daily basis. Physician, heal thyself. Third, almost everyone else involved in AmPol editing does it with some regularity. Get over it, cupcake.

If my objection was unclear to you... It was quite clear. You said that Trump's comments were vacuous and meaningless, which is a value judgement and has no place here except as an example of an argument editors are advised to avoid using. Furthermore, if you want to make a WP:WEIGHT-centered argument based on a value judgement of those comments, it will become apparent that their vacuous meaninglessness is a reason for inclusion, not exclusion. If we exclude them, then it's up to the reader's imagination what the "other side" of this issue is. If we include them, then we make it clear that on one side, you have a large and diverse assortment of reliable sources saying "this is the most objectively racist president in modern US history" and on the other side you have said president doing the political equivalent of saying "I know you are, but what am I?" It helps characterize the nature of the issue, by demonstrating quite clearly that one side has far more logical and rhetorical substance.

You then claimed that Trump was talking about "open heart surgery or whatever" which is both entirely untrue and overwhelmingly bizarre. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

To set the record straight, Volunteer Marek does not support this , so my original statement that three editors oppose this cherry-pick was correct.- MrX 🖋 17:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I already struck that part of my comment, so we're sitting at 3 v 3. Well, the inclusion side has pointed out that these are comments Trump made about race; highly germane to the subject. I'm still waiting for a policy-based reason from the exclusion side, though I suspect that one won't be forthcoming. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

But you did not up the count from two to three opposing it only you and SPECIFICO... needs to be revised. SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

MPants, it's not personal opinion to note that the cherrypicked snippet from the Inaugural Address is meaningless. "Open heart" is on its face some sort of metaphor, but it's not clear what is meant by it. Then the snippet is full of abstract undefined terms, e.g. Patriotism (does this mean persons who support assault rifle ownership? People who oppose abortion rights? People who oppose the "travel ban"? People who favor a path to citizenship for Dreamers?) So if those words are to have any meaning at all to our readers, they would be included in respect of some secondary independent RS interpretation or comment on them. An encyclopedia article is not a stack of Tarot cards. Meaning should be clear. That cherrypicked bit is not conveying any "racial view" of Trump to an English-speaking reader. That's not a political point of view, it's not a personal preference as to what "I like" and it's not anything else that is deprecated in the link you use to dismiss my rejection of this text. SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

"Open heart" is on its face some sort of metaphor, but it's not clear what is meant by it. I'm glad to see you've finally realized that, although I have to admit it's still a little disconcerting to see an English speaker fail to understand an idiom many of us learned sometime around kindergarten. Perhaps this will help.

Then the snippet is full of abstract undefined terms, e.g. Patriotism (does this mean persons who support assault rifle ownership? People who oppose abortion rights? People who oppose the "travel ban"? People who favor a path to citizenship for Dreamers?) Umm, wow. Another disconcerting moment. Again, perhaps this will help. I can recommend some remedial reading courses if you think you'd find them useful.

So if those words are to have any meaning at all to our readers, they would be included in respect of some secondary independent RS interpretation or comment on them. I accept that you're having difficulty parsing the meaning of many of these words and phrases, but to project that same difficulty onto others is untoward. I think our readers will understand phrases like "open your heart" and words like "patriotism" without too much help.

An encyclopedia article is not a stack of Tarot cards. Meaning should be clear. In case you're not getting this: I don't see anyone else in this thread or anywhere else expressing the view that the comments quoted, or indeed the inaugural speech as a whole was difficult to understand. I think perhaps you may be confusing the typical insincerity of political speech with some sort of semantic vacuousness, but I assure you that the speech is -while undoubtedly as insincere as any political speech- perfectly intelligible.

That cherrypicked bit is not conveying any "racial view" of Trump to an English-speaking reader. On the contrary, it quite clearly conveys to me the view that Trump does not view himself as racist. It also conveys the fact that Trump's response to the overwhelming number of critics pointing out his own racism is to give a single throwaway line in his inauguration speech.

But let us assume for the moment that I am unnaturally gifted with the ability to read the obvious meaning of plain text and to consider the context when judging someone's meaning. Does that, then, mean that you have a reliable source stating that the views Trump described (that "patriotism can eliminate prejudice", mind, not "I'm not racist") is not his actual view? One sufficient to pass BLP muster? Because while we both may believe without reservation that Trump frequently lies about his own views of race, we cannot base our content decisions on our own original research. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

MPants at work...thank you for explaining in a manner that somehow kept eluding me. It proves once again that collaboration, voluntary or otherwise, is always the best option. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. What did I explain? (I've done a shocking amount of explaining in this thread so far, please forgive me if I can't nail down what part you're referring to.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments? That text is utterly vacuous and communicates nothing at all about anything at all. Let's move on. SPECIFICO talk 21:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

It communicates a racial view by Donald Trump, which is supposed to be the article's core subject, right? — JFG ^talk 22:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

No it's something about open heart surgery or whatever, but he's not a doctor and if we all bleed patriot-blood then what's the point of his message and to be perfectly blunt, this is so far from conveying any encyclopedic content that this thread is a pure waste of our scarce editor resources and cannot possibly produce anything of value tou our readers. Please spare us any OR as to your interpretation of the crypto-metaphor nonsense in the snippet and move on. SPECIFICO talk 22:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Open-heart surgery? Pity I can't have some of what you're smoking…^[FBDB] Seriously, if you feel that your time is wasted by discussing article contents with your fellow Wikipedians, then you are totally free to leave this thread and be more productive elsewhere. — JFG ^talk 22:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

💔 😷 - dint feel a thing. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support - JFG you can use this source which is not a primary, and gives a world perspective...even better. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting the edit, but this Euronews source is no better: it just selectively prints excerpts from the full speech, and adds no commentary or "world perspective" that we can use. — JFG ^talk 22:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

As long as the source does the selecting, it is acceptable. I went through a similar argument last year. WP editors cannot choose "key statements" to use from a primary source but a secondary RS certainly can, and that is what makes the phrase and this source acceptable for us to use. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Adding - take a look at Trump–Russia_dossier#Reactions to specific allegations - more proof that as long as the primary was published by secondary sources, we can use a summary of key points RS used. The dossier probably includes blatant SYNTH to gather the commentary...I haven't checked it. No deadline. Ironic how the article is about Trump's views but we can't use his views? Ha! ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey Atsme, my nephew's beagle is white black and brown. When she has open heart surgery, will she bleed patriots blood too? Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 22:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO...I know you mean well, but mocking Trump's inaugural speech and comparing it to your nephew's beagle is quite a stretch, it puts your big toe right on the line. You know I appreciate the occasional "fun quip" and oh lorty I love an injection of levity when editing "volatile" articles...but this isn't one of those times. 🤗 Seriously, if we're going to stay with the title, Racial views of Donald Trump, then we need to include his racial views and less of what others claim are his racial views...or rename the article. Can't have it both ways. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)  

🐶 He bleeds the *best* blood. SPECIFICO talk 23:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

To give you the solemn reply you deserve, I see no mention of "race" in that green quote box. If POTUS makes 100 public statements and an average of 6 tweeters a day, which ones are noteworthy for encyclopedic exposition here? Not one a few editors pick out that, like, doesn't even mean anything. SPECIFICO talk 23:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Prejudice - it actually covers the sections of this article better because Muslim is not a race, immigration policy is not a race, the pardon of Joe Arpaio is not a race, and on and on. Major holes in your argument - will not withstand the test of time. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I think you hopped on the wrong tram, my dear. What section were you looking to post this?

You forgot what this was about? See #3 click on the diff, or scroll up to the start of this thread - a subsection in History.

I'm really sorry. I couldn't figure out what your comment had to do with any of the above and I thought you might have been chiming in on a different topic. never mind. SPECIFICO talk 23:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The quote from the speech is cherrypicked and not established noteworthy by the bulk of mainstream RS. Under the circumstances, to follow up on your statement that it communicates POTUS "racial view" -- could you please paraphrase that view to a) verify your claim, and b) lay the basis for a discussion as to whether that's related to his racial views. Bear in mind that "patriot" is not a "race". Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO - re: "patriot" is not a "race". Exactly! So happy that you get it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Gzz this is starting to look like bees. But for the most part I agree with the edits.

1 - Some is more accurate and the inversion needs to be fixed

2 - Does seem like unverifiable junk.

3 - As written is an issue, but can easily be fix with a period without dropping the whole section. PackMecEng (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

1. "Some" is not the word used by the sources. "Numerous" is.

2. Nonsense - the way to verify it is right there - click on the inline citation.

3. Let's see a proposal. In the meantime we don't keep SYNTH in the article just because some people like it.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

1-4 studies is not numerous.

2-Poppycock, two unknown people said something happen that has not been verified by anyone that was there.

3-Could just drop the first part and let the second stand on it's own. PackMecEng (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

"1-4 studies is not numerous." - your opinion/original research. Sources disagree since they actually use the term "numerous" (the "1-4" - which one is it "1" or "4"? - highlighted in the article are just representative)

That's not what "verifiability" means on Wikipedia. Or in real world actual. But feel free to keep making up rules that do not reflect actual Wikipedia policy.

No, it all goes.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

So how many people disagreeing with you would it take to end this? I mean dang look at this wall of the same stuff over and over. PackMecEng (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Here are my thoughts.

1 - RS aren't required to avoid peacock phrases to bolster their point, so "some" is an acceptable substitute for "numerous" for use in Wikipedia.

2 - I don't have a strong opinion whether this is included or excluded. Another option is merging this into another section (the one that talks about Haiti).

3 - Remove per MOS:OPED. It's like writing, "While Hillary Clinton was criticized for ignoring Trump voters, she actually reached out to them in a campaign speech." Even if you could source both clauses, this should be removed. ^Falling_Gravity 18:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

1. "Numerous" isn't a peacock phrase.

2. (...)

3. Yep.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

This article doesn't quite fit the description of WP:ATTACKPAGE, and probably would not be a successful candidate for AfD because it actually can be fixed. Per NPOV, Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. With regards to how others view Trump's racial views (which is actually the context of this article), Roll Call, published some interesting results from The Economist/YouGov polling, which further substantiates the partisan divide regarding claims of racism. The results of the poll after Trump's alleged "shithole" comment showed 44% of respondents said he was racist, 16% were unsure, and 40% said he is not. An MSM poll showed 48% said Trump's comment was racist which is not the majority as it relates to mainstream. As editors, it is our job to use editorial judgment in what should or shouldn't be included in the article but that judgment is influenced by our PAGs, and the biggest influence is NPOV, V and BLP policy, followed by NEWSORG. Inclusion of opposing views is required, use of in-text attribution is required in certain circumstances, and per WP:EXCEPTIONAL "exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources" with a red flag waving over ...claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. Polling demonstrates the contradiction in claims of Trump's racism, and there's also the COI issue with the sources used as explained in footnote 8 of the same V policy. Politico nailed it in this article, and NYTimes journalist Daniel Okrent nailed it in his Op-Ed. Those are issues WP editors cannot ignore.  

It has been a struggle to get consensus to simply add the most obvious policy compliant additions per NPOV policy and an even harder struggle to get noncompliant material removed. Following is a list of concerns:

1. One-sided coverage as clearly evidenced by the lede which is noncompliant with NPOV
2. Lack of responses by Trump, official spokespersons, and other supporters as published in RS.
3. Reads more like a POV social justice essay with judgments from the court of public opinion rather than an encyclopedic entry with verifiable statements of fact.
4. Inclusion of material that is unrelated to race and incorrectly presented with a racial cast.
5. Multiple sources asserted for either a wire service article, such as AP, or primary source articles published by other news orgs such as NYTimes, WaPo, or WSJ, etc. "Such sources are essentially a single source" per WP:NEWSORG.

I remain optimistic that we can work through these issues in a productive, collegial manner and avoid (like the plague) what we've seen happen with other highly controversial topics. I am open to suggestions as to how best to proceed. I think we should start with the first subsection in the History section, work our way down, and then fix the lede. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

If you have a specific problem with a specific section where you have not already failed to gain consensus for your positions, then you are welcome to present it. I see no need for an overhaul of the entire article. O3000 (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

My problem with this article is that several pieces of information that have been added in the Defenses of Donald Trump section have been deleted. The result is an article that is 95% against Trump and in no way could be described as objective. For the record, Trump is accused of being anti-immigrant (rather than merely anti illegal immigrant), yet the claim that the fact he married an immigrant shows he is not anti-immigrant has been deleted; Trump set up his club in Florida to be an inclusive club at a time when all other clubs in the area discriminated, but the reference to this fact has been deleted; Trump donates Wall Street Office space to the PUSH Coalition which in particular focused on helping minorities, but that too gets deleted. A bit of a pattern here don't you think? Birtig (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

These arguments are all invalid and have been refuted, some of them repeatedly. So you can rest easy and move on to finding good, well-sourced article content. SPECIFICO talk 17:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Your claim that the arguments are "all invalid and have been refuted" is overly generalized, if not false in its entirety. If your purpose here is not to discuss solutions to the issues other editors wish to discuss, please allow the discussions to continue without further interruption. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

If your purpose here is not to discuss solutions to the issues other editors wish to discuss.... Please stop casting aspersions. O3000 (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

A bit of a pattern here don't you think? Yes there is a pattern in your examples. I’m not going to respond to each of these as they have each been discussed at length. I will say that they all remind me of Roy Moore’s wife saying he couldn’t be anti-Semitic because one of his lawyers is a Jew. (Turns out he was a Christian, but that’s not relevant.) This type of argument is covered at: . O3000 (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The same applies to you O3000, if you are not here to discuss the issues, and prefer instead to attack editors, you need to move on. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Please stop casting aspersions. O3000 (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

So rather than reporting the arguments that have been used in Trump's defense you decide that they are not valid arguments and should not be included? That's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work - at least I thought it was about what the sources say and not whether editors agree with the arguments. Birtig (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I said nothing of the sort. I said that each of these has already been discussed at length, and I had nothing to do with any decision on these. I was responding to your statement about a pattern, which appears to insinuate editor bias. O3000 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Another section calling the entire article non-policy compliant? This is disruptive and disrespectful of all of the experienced editors who helped write the article, and who each have a reputation for understanding and adhering to our policies and guidelines. Please either make specific, well-referenced edit proposals, or stop creating these walls of meandering text. This is nothing more than a WP:REHASH. Please stop!- MrX 🖋 18:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed. Make specific, SMALL, well-referenced edit proposals. Generally accusations are unhelpful. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Someone uninvolved should hat this. Not only is it a rehash; it is a laundry list of bad faith accusations based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. O3000 (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I have taken this issue to NPOV/N. I also consulted Masem who agrees the article is not compliant. Those who do not wish to participate in these discussions are kindly asked to stop disrupting them by attacking other editors. I will not partake in the PAs. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Hopefully editors actually try to address these problems, rather than just complaining whenever anybody raises POV concerns. I don't even like Trump, but that doesn't mean we should edit-war in our own POV to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. ^Falling_Gravity 20:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I dread setting foot in this discussion and am unlikely to stay around long, but about whether he is anti-immigrant versus anti-illegal immigrant, it seems to me to be significant that his current stated position is that there should be significantly fewer immigrants overall, beyond just fewer illegal immigrants. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Trump's wish to have fewer immigrants is not, in itself racist (which is what this article is supposed to be about). It would only be racist if he were to place restrictions on the right to immigrate based on race - but the reality is he wants a merit based points system similar to many other countries, and the number of immigrants linked to the needs of the economy. Birtig (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

A change to merit-based implies a lack of merit prior to the change. And he certainly has supported restrictions based on religion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Restrictions based on religion would only be racist if they were designed to either benefit or disadvantage Jews as that is the only religion that is also a race. Otherwise, religious discrimination is religious discrimination - not racial discrimination. Birtig (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

...Jews as that is the only religion that is also a race... I don't think you'll find much support for that one. SPECIFICO talk 23:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

To be fair going to a immigration plan that mirrors Canada's for the most part is not exactly racist. PackMecEng (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, at least there is some acknowledgment of noncompliance with NPOV at NPOV/N. Masem said: "If I had sole authority here, I'd delete and salt this page in a second; I think it is far too premature and the like and can't be anywhere close to the type of neutrality WP strives for until many years after Trump's out of office." Read the remainder of his comments which basically summarizes standing consensus to keep the article, words of caution to avoid implying implicit bias, and to try to work collaboratively to fix the NPOV issues. Perhaps we should make a concerted effort to focus on one paragraph at a time, and fix the most glaring issues first, beginning with the lede, and slowly work our way down? I've also thought about preparing a survey for each paragraph and taking it to Village Pump for a wider view. Thoughts? ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

While I respect Masem's views, they have no more weight than the views of any other experienced editor. It would be inappropriate to export this content dispute to the Village Pump. It would be very helpful if involved editors would respect consensus and stop WP:REHASHING resolved matters.- MrX 🖋 18:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Atsme, there was no validation whatsoever and no suggestions of any improvement to this article. I note that Masem forthrightly explained what I believe is his dissent from WP's current NPOV rubric, at least insofar as it applies to this article. You write that we shouldwork collaboratively to fix the NPOV issues but not a single such issue was identified by you or Masem at that noticeboard. So, nothing to fix here. SPECIFICO talk 18:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Some examples of what I and others think are NPOV, namely the lack of direct quotes by Trump on his own actual "racial views" are routinely shot down by you and MrX. There have been several proposals to include Trump's stated views, which you can still see above. I do not understand why the article called "Racial views of Donald Trump" would not contain any of his actual stated views. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The last attempt to insert a "direct quote" turned out a) To be scraped away from a secondary source that discussed it without even revealing that the secondary source existed, and b) Was carved out to pretty much say something that was very different than a straight quotation of POTUS' words said. But direct quotes have been used here "I am the least..." where secondary RS have discussed them. Do you have any additional instances of direct quotes cited by secondary RS as showing or explaining POTUS' racial views? If so, let's consider whether there's potential article content in them. SPECIFICO talk 20:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

If you want to see a line item list of the issues, revisit the section I created above titled Weight & Balance issues. I won't repeat them because then I get accused of repeating myself...of repeating myself...of repeating myself. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi all. The article currently contains the following in the first subsection:

"The Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino was fined $200,000 in 1991 by the New Jersey Casino Control Commission for removing black and female employees from craps tables in order to accommodate high roller Robert LiButti, a mob figure and alleged John Gotti associate, who was said to fly into fits of racist rage when he was on losing streaks.[34] There is no indication that Trump was questioned in that investigation, he was not held personally liable, and he denies even knowing what LiButti looked like.[34] In 1992 Trump Plaza lost its appeal of the decision.[35]"

Considering that Trump was not even questioned in the investigation and was not held personally liable, does anyone seriously think this is strong enough evidence of Trump's 'racial views' to be included in this article? Birtig (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a stretch. As direct involvement by Trump does not appear to be there. PackMecEng (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from the cited sources, this has nothing to do with Trump's words or actions in relation to racism. It should be removed.- MrX 🖋 17:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

There's actually a lot more to this story. But, I still don't think it belongs. O3000 (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a clear case of inherited infamy. I'm long enough in the tooth to know that... ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Not if you heard the story the way I heard it. But, that's not RS, so I removed it. (And, I'm long enough in the tooth to have played blackjack in Atlantic City the day it opened.) O3000 (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

You win! Here at the ranch, we have a process called floating teeth - come by and we'll give you a free float. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)