Talk:Donald Trump

Highlighted open discussions

None.

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
[[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .

01. Use the official White House portrait as the infobox image. (Dec 2016, Jan 2017, Oct 2017, March 2020) (temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait, enforced when an official public-domain portrait was released on 31 October 2017)

02. Show birthplace as "Queens, New York City, U.S." in the infobox. (Nov 2016, Oct 2018, Feb 2021) "New York City" de-linked. (September 2020)

03. Omit reference to county-level election statistics. (Dec 2016)

04. Superseded by #15

Lead phrasing of Trump "gaining a majority of the U.S. Electoral College" and "receiving a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide", without quoting numbers. (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

05. Use Trump's annual net worth evaluation and matching ranking, from the Forbes list of billionaires, not from monthly or "live" estimates. (Oct 2016) In the lead section, just write: Forbes estimates his net worth to be [$x.x] billion. (July 2018, July 2018) Removed from the lead per #47.

06. Do not include allegations of sexual misconduct in the lead section. (June 2016, Feb 2018)

07. Superseded by #35

Include "Many of his public statements were controversial or false." in the lead. (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

08. Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (Dec 2016)

09. Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2017) Include a link to an archive of Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2021)

10. Canceled

Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (Jan 2017, Nov 2016) Canceled: Barron's BLP has existed since June 2019. (June 2024)

11. Superseded by #17

The lead sentence is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States." (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (RM Jan 2017, RM June 2019)

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no comments for 14 days. Manual archival is allowed for (1) closed discussions, 24 hours after the closure, provided the closure has not been challenged, and (2) "answered" edit requests, 24 hours after the "answer", provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the "answer". (Jan 2017) (amended with respect to manual archiving, to better reflect common practice at this article) (Nov 2019)

14. Omit mention of Trump's alleged bathmophobia/fear of slopes. (Feb 2017)

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

Supersedes #4. There is no consensus to change the formulation of the paragraph which summarizes election results in the lead (starting with "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text (Diff 8 Jan 2017) has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense (Diff 11 Feb 2018). No new changes should be applied without debate. (RfC Feb 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017, Feb 2017) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

17. Superseded by #50

Supersedes #11. The lead paragraph is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." The hatnote is simply {{Other uses}}. (April 2017, RfC April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, July 2017, Dec 2018) Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018. Lower-case "p" in "president" per Dec 2018 and MOS:JOBTITLES RfC Oct 2017. Wikilinks modified per April 2020. Wikilink modified again per July 2020. "45th" de-linked. (Jan 2021)

18. Superseded by #63

The "Alma mater" infobox entry shows "Wharton School (BS Econ.)", does not mention Fordham University. (April 2017, April 2017, Aug 2020, Dec 2020)

19. Obsolete

Following deletion of Trump's official White House portrait for copyright reasons on 2 June 2017, infobox image was replaced by File:Donald Trump Pentagon 2017.jpg. (June 2017 for replacement, June 2017, declined REFUND on 11 June 2017) (replaced by White House official public-domain portrait according to #1 since 31 Oct 2017)

20. Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. (June 2017, May 2018) (Note: In February 2021, when he was no longer president, the verb tense was changed from "have sparked" to "sparked", without objection.)

21. Superseded by #39

Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him. (July 2017, Aug 2017) (superseded by #36 on 18 June 2019, then by #39 since 20 Aug 2019)

22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. (RfC Aug 2017)

23. Superseded by #52

The lead includes the following sentence: Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision. (Aug 2017, Nov 2017, Dec 2017, Jan 2018, Jan 2018) Wording updated (July 2018) and again (Sep 2018).

24. Superseded by #30

Do not include allegations of racism in the lead. (Feb 2018) (superseded by #30 since 16 Aug 2018)

25. Do not add web archives to cited sources which are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)

26. Do not include opinions by Michael Hayden and Michael Morell that Trump is a "useful fool […] manipulated by Moscow" or an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation". (RfC April 2018)

27. State that Trump falsely claimed that Hillary Clinton started the Barack Obama birther rumors. (April 2018, June 2018)

28. Include, in the Wealth section, a sentence on Jonathan Greenberg's allegation that Trump deceived him in order to get on the Forbes 400 list. (June 2018, June 2018)

29. Include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the article. (June 2018)

30. Supersedes #24. The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist." (RfC Sep 2018, Oct 2018, RfC May 2019)

31. Do not mention Trump's office space donation to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/Push Coalition in 1999. (Nov 2018)

32. Omit from the lead the fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. (RfC July 2018, Nov 2018)

33. Do not mention "birtherism" in the lead section. (RfC Nov 2018)

34. Refer to Ivana Zelníčková as a Czech model, with a link to Czechs (people), not Czechoslovakia (country). (Jan 2019)

35. Superseded by #49

Supersedes #7. Include in the lead: Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. (RfC Feb 2019)

36. Superseded by #39

Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals who have not examined him. (June 2019) (paragraph removed per RfC Aug 2019 yielding consensus #39)

37. Resolved: Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (June 2019)

38. Do not state in the lead that Trump is the wealthiest U.S. president ever. (RfC June 2019)

39. Supersedes #21 and #36. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. (RfC Aug 2019, July 2021)

40. Include, when discussing Trump's exercise or the lack thereof: He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise. (RfC Aug 2019)

41. Omit book authorship (or lack thereof) from the lead section. (RfC Nov 2019)

42. House and Senate outcomes of the impeachment process are separated by a full stop. For example: He was impeached by the House on December 18, 2019, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was acquitted of both charges by the Senate on February 5, 2020. (Feb 2020)

43. The rules for edits to the lead are no different from those for edits below the lead. For edits that do not conflict with existing consensus: Prior consensus is NOT required. BOLD edits are allowed, subject to normal BRD process. The mere fact that an edit has not been discussed is not a valid reason to revert it. (March 2020)

44. The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim and some degree of clarification that they haven't produced clear results. (RfC May 2020)

45. Superseded by #48

There is no consensus to mention the COVID-19 pandemic in the lead section. (RfC May 2020, July 2020) (Superseded by RfC Aug 2020)

46. Use the caption "Official portrait, 2017" for the infobox image. (Aug 2020, Jan 2021)

47. Do not mention Trump's net worth or Forbes ranking (or equivalents from other publications) in the lead, nor in the infobox. (Sep 2020)

48. Supersedes #45. Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic should be mentioned in the lead section. There is no consensus on specific wording, but the status quo is Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. (Oct 2020, RfC Aug 2020)

49. Supersedes #35. Include in lead: Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. (Dec 2020)

50. Supersedes #17. The lead sentence is: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. (March 2021), amended (July 2021), inclusion of politician (RfC September 2021)

51. Include in the lead that many of Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as misogynistic. (Aug 2021 and Sep 2021)

52. Supersedes #23. The lead should contain a summary of Trump's actions on immigration, including the Muslim travel ban (cf. item 23), the wall, and the family separation policy. (September 2021)

53. The lead should mention that Trump promotes conspiracy theories. (October 2021)

54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (October 2021)

55. Regarding Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, do not wiki-link "Trump's comments" in this manner. (RfC December 2021)

56. Retain the content that Trump never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan but add context. Current wording can be altered or contextualized; no consensus was achieved on alternate wordings. (RfC November 2021) Trump's expressions of doubt regarding the Russian Bounties Program should be included in some capacity, though there there is no consensus on a specific way to characterize these expressed doubts. (RfC March 2022)

57. Do not mention in the lead Gallup polling that states Trump's the only president to never reach 50% approval rating. (RfC January 2022)

58. Use inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations. (RfC May 2022, discussion on what to cite May 2022)

59. Do not label or categorize Trump as a far-right politician. (RfC August 2022)

60. Insert the links described in the RfC January 2023.

61. When a thread is started with a general assertion that the article is biased for or against Trump (i.e., without a specific, policy-based suggestion for a change to the article), it is to be handled as follows:

1. Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias.
2. Close the thread using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, referring to this consensus item.
3. Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
4. Manually archive the thread.

This does not apply to posts that are clearly in bad faith, which are to be removed on sight. (May 2023)

62. The article's description of the five people who died during and subsequent to the January 6 Capitol attack should avoid a) mentioning the causes of death and b) an explicit mention of the Capitol Police Officer who died. (RfC July 2023)

63. Supersedes #18. The alma mater field of the infobox reads: "University of Pennsylvania (BS)". (September 2023)

64. Omit the {{Very long}} tag. (January 2024)

65. Mention the Abraham Accords in the article; no consensus was achieved on specific wordings. (RfC February 2024)

66. Omit {{infobox criminal}}. (RfC June 2024)

67. The "Health habits" section includes: "Trump says he has never drunk alcohol, smoked cigarettes, or used drugs. He sleeps about four or five hours a night." (February 2021)

Wording for sentence in lead on racial stance

Per the close of this RfC, I added "Many of his comments and actions have been perceived as racially charged." to the lead; I expect the wording of this to get discussed/modified a lot, so I'm preemptively starting this discussion; my own preference is actually for something like "Many of his comments have been criticized as racist, which he has denied." as I proposed 6 months back. That IMO is better because it is clearer and avoids the vague/euphemistic "racially charged". Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

As the initiator of the RfC, I support the current wording proposed in the RfC ("Many of his comments and actions have been perceived as racially charged.") I would also support "Many of his comments and actions have been racially charged." per several arguments in the RfC. I'm still not convinced that we should use the term "racist", but I'm open to persuasion. If we do add "criticized as racist" I don't think that we should add that "he has denied" in the lead. It goes without saying and would be better covered in the body of the article.- MrX 🖋 13:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

(vaguely (edit conflict) - also struck out most of my initial) - I reread that RfC and sources and racially charged or a variant does seem most preferred by sources, so I guess that's what we'll go with. Do you think there should be "perceived by some" though, which is what you actually proposed in the RfC? I support dropping that "by some" per the sources not qualifying their statements on race controversy with that. One could even drop "perceived", or use "were racially controversial".. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

If we are going to do it there are kind of two things that needs to be updated. The qualifiers like many and perceived should be change per WP:WEASEL. Also per WP:PUBLICFIGURE " If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported", so while it may be a given that he would deny it, we are required to report it. PackMecEng (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, while it is true we are "required to report" his denial, we already do this in the body of the article. We need not do so in the lede. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that as well, just seems a bit off to exclude it in the first and most prominent mention of it. PackMecEng (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

It's also debatable whether it's an allegation or an observation.- MrX 🖋 17:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

An allegation based off observation then? But either way, does it matter as far as BLP is concerned? PackMecEng (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• I made the wording in the lead match the precise wording of the RfC (including "by some") - but I do support dropping "by some". Hoping to get a consensus for the removal of that Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with the proposed wording "Many of his comments and actions have been perceived as racially charged." Leave out "by some"; that adds nothing and virtually demands a tag. We don't have to use the exact wording at the start of the RfC; there were several suggestions for other wordings during the discussion and there was no consensus for that particular version. I strongly oppose changing it to "racist" since most of our sources do not use that highly inflammatory word. Anyhow the sources do not describe his actual beliefs (and are not capable of doing so) - just his words and actions. --MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

While I wouldn't say there was particular consensus for that wording or that we necessarily have to use the wording of the start RfC, I think it is best here for something so contentious to have a specific wording as a "Current Consensus", and so I chose the one at the beginning of the RfC for now that per the RfC opener was what was specifically being "supported" or "opposed" on; hopefully we can relatively quickly get a consensus to remove "by some" and update current consensus, linking to this discussion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• I think the WP:RSes support simply using the word racist. High quality WP:RS's agree. For example, see Donald Trump’s Racism: The Definitive List . If the standard is not what WP:RSes use, what is it? I would ask those who oppose using the term racist, when does your opinion change? If next week, a tape comes out in which trump uses the word nigger to describe African Americans, which may happen, is that a high enough standard to drop the use of racially charged? At some point, the use of racial charged is not neutral. It is a Wikipedia:Weasel word. It stops being WP:NPV and starts to display a point of view. I think we are already there. I wonder what is the standard for other editors?Casprings (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• I think "racially charged" works just fine for now. We can always look at the language again if it turns out Trump's been recorded using racial epithets. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• We are getting closer. More examples: Here are 10 times President Trump's comments have been called racist, Trump's tactic to attack black people and women: insult their intelligence Personally I’m not there yet, at least not in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The USA today article is a blog post and The Guardian article is quoting others, not saying in their voice for racist. PackMecEng (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that the USA today article is a blog post; the author is listed as "Christal Hayes, USA TODAY". And of course both articles cite others rather than saying it in their own voice, which could only happen in an op-ed anyhow. But then, we would not say it in our own voice either. We would say "have been perceived as..." or "have been described as" or some such wording. Note that I am speaking theoretically; I am not yet to the point of wanting to use the word "racist" in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Look at the URL it is part of their onpolitics section. If you do a search of "usa today on politics" you get "OnPolitics | USA TODAY's politics blog" first result. Correct we do not state it in our voice just like they do not state it in their voice as fact. PackMecEng (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Trump's tactic to attack black people and women: insult their intelligence Let's not pretend that's the case. wumbolo ^^^ 09:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I looked through that list, and I only saw three people specifically insulted on intelligence: Maxine Waters ("Low I.Q"; black woman), Mika Brzezinski ("Low I.Q"; white woman), and Don Lemon ("The dumbest man on television"; black man); this seems to perfectly support the conclusions of the RS (which are the only things that matter, anyhow): "But whereas the likes of James Comey, John McCain and Mitt Romney receive a smorgasbord of other insults, the congresswoman Maxine Waters and TV host Don Lemon, both of whom are African American, appear to be denigrated for their intelligence alone." Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a good albeit outdated list, and I had to look hard to find a black person he called dumb. But women, yes; he called a lot of women dumb. But women have nothing to do with this discussion, which is about race. wumbolo ^^^ 11:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• OPPOSE - that prior rfc was not really enthusiastic 10 Opposed, 8 in favor (2 of those conditional), and now its being rendered invalid by immediately reopening the language. I’m for instead let’s justrevert to consensus 24 until folks figure out what language to propose and take it to rfc. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

"by some"

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.

---

Just to focus the discussion on whether there is or is not consensus to say "by some" in this sentence, so we can at least reach agreement on that point: Should the sentence say "have been perceived by some..." ? Include or not? --MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Do not include "by some." --MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Do not include per my comments above Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Do not include ("by some") - Unnecessary and vague quantification.- MrX 🖋 18:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Do not include - Superfluous. Readers understand that perceptions are never unanimous—or even close. That's why they are called perceptions. It goes without saying. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Do not include per others. Vague and unneeded.Casprings (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Do not include – Weaseling, bad grammar, and begs the question "by whom?" — JFG ^talk 19:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• I've removed it, per the fact that no-one wants it :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:33, 16 August 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.

• Identify who said it and who opposed it per NPOV, or alternatively mention the flip views as admirers would have it if their POV is not in the same playground. And meanwhile take out the whole line until things are figured out ... a rfc is for a specific wording, and changes to language should have been IN the rfc. This change is contrary to the consensus #24 or #30. And p.s. please do not hat things within hours. That is unnecessary and just winds up incomplete. Markbassett (talk) 05:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The closer of the RfC said "feel free to tweak the wording, as necessary by normal t/p discourse". Sorry if I hatted it while people still had things to say, but it was clearly a case of WP:SNOW. --MelanieN (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Just a little perspective, how many times has Trump been labled a rascist? I can't remember turning on the news without seeing it. Is his being rascist or even alluding to it informative or spreading political views. CaptainQuizBowl (talk) 04:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Racist versus racially charged

Same idea as above. Should the sentence include the wording racist versus racially charged.Casprings (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Racist Both as per Scjessey below. As OP. One, it is supported by WP:RSes. Two, "racially charged" is a Wikipedia:Weasel words. The people making these comments, per WP:RSes are saying that these are racist comments. Not "racially charged". Wikipedia should not take on the role of making less of that. Just state the reality. I would ask anyone to go to the article on Racism and explain why we should use the wording "racially charged". Call a spade a spade We should be straight forward and match what WP:RSes are saying.Casprings (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Changed my vote to reflect what I think was a good suggestion. However, I think we should remove the passive voice. I would reword.

    Commentators described many of his comments as racist or racially charged.

    Casprings (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
    • "Commentators...comments"? 0;-D Aside from the awkwardness, I think in this case the passive is preferable. "Commentators" sounds like the description is just coming from media talking heads, but in fact it is coming from everyone from journalists to politicians to celebrities of every stripe to ordinary people. Anyhow, this subsection is supposed to be just focused on "racist vs. racially charged"; I think we should not introduce other changes here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Oh, and don't forget it is "comments and actions". --MelanieN (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Racially charged. "Racist" is a very strong accusation - virtually fighting words. To say something that negative in a BLP we need stronger evidence than we currently have, and more unanimity among sources. Trump's racial positions are never overt, they are inferred - through things he says ("they're bringing crime, they're rapists", "she has a very low IQ", "shithole countries", "I want immigrants from Norway"), his unwillingness to condemn people and groups who are frankly racist, the enthusiasm that racists (e.g. David Duke) feel toward him. "Racially charged" is a good way of describing these things without crossing over the BLP line to say "he is a racist". (BTW in discussing racial issues, "call a spade a spade" is probably not the best idiom to use. 0;-D ) --MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Call a spade a spade. Wikipedia. You can find out all sorts of things. Never knew this wss a problem.Casprings (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Racially charged Racist or racially charged. Personally, I think Trump is a racist. I think he’s a lot of –ists. But, I think it’s a charged term in itself, is difficult to use as a descriptor if it is not self-identified, ignores his long known history of making statements for some manner of gain that may or may not have anything to do with his personal beliefs, reverses himself constantly, and it’s, frankly, difficult to determine any of his personal beliefs. There is little question that he makes use of the racism of others (which IMO is actually worse than being a racist oneself). I just think we have access to language that can describe his relationship with whatever people classify as “races” without using that particular word. O3000 (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Altered my vote after Scjessey’s suggestion as I think it is a better fit to RS. O3000 (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Considering the just two deleted edits, WP:NOTFORUM O3000 (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What about "race realist"?107.77.221.160 (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC) Never seen that in any source covering the subject. What does this even mean?? — JFG talk 00:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC) It's Scientific racism. So yeah... PackMecEng (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC) It's a synonym for racist and let's not encourage trolls. O3000 (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Racist just because it's unclear sometimes does not mean it's never clear. wumbolo ^^^ 09:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Neither - I've been reading up about the difference between "racist" and "racially charged" and there are many sources by prominent black and Latino commentators who regard the latter as a euphemism designed to soften the language in order to prevent white people being too offended. I can understand their point of view, and it does seem to be shared by some of the Wikipedia editors on this article. So I propose a compromise:

  Many of his comments and actions have been described as racist or racially charged.

  We have sources for both, so let's take it out of Wikipedia's voice and use both. That should satisfy proponents of either description, should it not? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Neither - I agree with Scjessey, the best way of wording is as he suggested. We need to go with the sources which use both descriptions.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Racially charged, but prefer neither because of NPOV issues. I have read into this issue more and considered the article body of text this sentence is summarising. Sources describe Trump’s comments as either racist or racially insensitive (e.g., due to rejection of political correctness) and Trump denies he is racist. Therefore describing the comments as either racist or racially charged downplays the racially insensitive text in the article body and also if we are going to apply a very damaging label of racist in the lede then we need to include Trump’s denials, per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

"Race realism" trolling, IP blocked — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acroterion (talk • contribs) 11:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Race Realist. It means, among other things, acknowledging that the races have different levels of intelligence and aggression genetically (as well as every other trait) and that letting people into your country who have lower intelligence or higher aggression than the national average is a self-destructive act. Things like that. True but "politically incorrect". Another example would be to say that the white race is being bred out of existence through immigration of non-whites into every white nation and that this should be stopped, not only because it's incredibly monstrous towards whites who want to save their race but because it's destroying human diversity.107.77.221.160 (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC) Wow. Where would you even start... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC) Well, I'll start by saying that's an ignorant, racist comment from our IP contributor. And Trump is an expert at pandering to the kind of people who make comments like that. HiLo48 (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• I think I could accept the both version suggested by Scjessey. --MelanieN (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• both seems fine to me, acknowledges the wide sourcing that uses "racist" while also the incidents described as "racially charged" Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Racially charged. They may be Wikipedia:Weasel words but how can "racist" not be insulting (especially to his supporters)? I personally think most of these last two paragraphs shouldn't be in the lead here at all (I couldn't find the WP link). Sammy D III (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Being insulting to someone is not reason to avoid saying something if it's true. HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, of course. But if the two words are interchangeable, as they may be here, why use the inflammatory one in the lead? Maybe moot point, "both" is looking good, but if it's either or... (Sorry Mandruss, I don't know where to put this or what you mean, I should leave). Sammy D III (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I mean the argument that we should avoid insulting people has no basis in Wikipedia policy. (And generally your comment would follow mine below, with the same indent level as mine, since they are both replies to HiLo48's comment and I posted mine first.) ―Mandruss ☎ 23:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see the policy connections for several of the arguments here, this is just one of the more obvious cases. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Sammy D III For concern on insults maybe WP:LABEL and WP:RACIST suits, or in wider sense WP:Attack page or the WP:BLP guides to be restrained ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Both as proposed by Scjessey would be an improvement over the current text. As I mentioned above, I still have not seen a strong argument for 'racist' by itself. - MrX 🖋 20:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Racist per WP:NOTCENSORED. "Racially charged" is a euphemism, plus many RS use "racist". K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

  WP:NOTFREESPEECH. wumbolo ^^^ 12:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Racially charged if anything at all. How many times must we have this conversation when nothing substantially new has happened? If anything it has gone the other way in some areas. But I digress. PackMecEng (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. "Racially charged" may seem like a reasonable compromise to some people, but I have to say I think it's terrible and that something else should be used instead. What precisely does "racially charged" mean? It is an ambiguous phrase that has to be interpreted by the reader and it does not belong in an encyclopedia that is meant to be clearly written and accessible. If what is actually meant is "racially insensitive", then just say that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment "Racially charged" is simply non-encyclopaedic. It has no clear meaning. Trump almost certainly IS a racist, but he is even more a populist. He says what he thinks the audience he is targeting at any particular time wants to hear. That means he panders to and encourages racists, saying seemingly racist things, when he wants their support. HiLo48 (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@HiLo48: In the version I have put forward, we are not saying "racially charged" is a thing or not. We are saying that the term has been used by commentators (rightly or wrongly). In fact, there is great sourcing for racially charged, racially insensitive and racist all over the internet. "Racially charged" is certainly the term most used by reliable sources, with "racist" a close second and "racially insensitive" a distant third, as far as I can determine. Wikipedia need not say which term we think is most appropriate, and I believe this compromise will get support from most editors here. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Then maybe some words like you have just written here need to be in the article. Words about the frequency with which those labels are applied to Trump. But can that be done with original research? You see, "racially charged" is still a nebulous term, and I doubt if any observer of the sources has published a count of its usage that we can refer to, and a definition. Is it in any dictionary? HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

You don't need to come here to ask if a word is in a dictionary, you can find the answer yourself. Multiple dictionaries provide online access. For example, Merriam-Webster "charged" definition 2: "capable of arousing strong emotion : a politically charged subject". Add the modifier "racially" and you have: "capable of arousing strong emotion about racial issues". ―Mandruss ☎ 22:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Our job is to reflect what sources say. If they use a term that we think is nebulous, that's the term we use. It is not up to us to decide it is nebulous or to try to interpret it for the reader. --MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The lead states, at present, that, "Many of his comments and actions have been perceived as racially charged." That is not the same thing as saying that commentators have used the specific term "racially charged" to describe Trump's comments and actions. The fact that the words "charged" and "racially" both have meanings does not mean that the expression "racially charged" has a clear, properly understood meaning. HiLo48 is correct that the phrase has no clear meaning, and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Readers of the article are likely to be totally unclear about its intended meaning, and it should not be used if some more easily understandable term can be used instead. Despite what Mandruss states above, there is no certainty whatever that readers will understand that the term is supposed to mean, "capable of arousing strong emotion about racial issues". There is no need to use an unclear expression when the lead could instead simply state, in so many words, that Trump made comments seen as arousing emotion about racial issues. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: What "so many words" do you propose? "Racially insensitive", which you mentioned above, does not say the same thing as "racially charged", nor does it say what RS say nearly as frequently as they say "racially charged". ―Mandruss ☎ 23:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

You are missing the point. "Racially charged" does not say anything because it is not a phrase with a commonly understood or recognized meaning, even if it is sometimes used in the media. Readers of Wikipedia will come here and ask themselves, "what on earth is that supposed to mean?" The fact that the media use an unclear expression of this kind does not oblige us to present it to readers with no explanation of any kind. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator: What wording are you suggesting, that is used by Reliable Sources and is clearer or more easily understood? --MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Both as per Scjessey. I don't presume to put myself above Merriam-Webster on issues of language. They are in the business of documenting common usage, it's what they do. If the article is to be written at an 8th grade level, we have a bit of work to do. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• Racially charged. What MelanieN said. Kerberous (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• What the hell does "racially charged" even mean??? Like they took some words, hooked up a battery loaded up with some racism to them and charged them up? In this context "racially charged" is a grammatically awful weaselly euphemism for "racist". It's a phrase you use when you purposefully don't want to be clear about your meaning. It's non encyclopedic. Now. Wait one minute. "racially charged" actually does have a precise meaning. It describes ... an atmosphere or a situation (here's one source on the history of the term [1]). An atmosphere can be "charged". A situation can be "charged". BUT IT DOES NOT DESCRIBE STATEMENTS. This actually has nothing to do with politics or POV or ideology. "Racially charged" as is being suggested here is just horrible bad writing. Closest example off the top of my head is like someone writing that "people were evacuated". It "sounds right", but is just wrong.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Despite comments to the contrary, every single editor in this discussion knows full well what "racially charged" means. Don't even pretend you don't, people. The fact is, reliable sources frequently contort themselves to avoid using "racist" by substituting it in favor of "racially charged" when commenting on Trumps comments and actions. By using both, we avoid the ambiguity some editors are claiming. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Well that reasoning just supports the weaselly euphemism claim. I disagree, as the definitions are quite different. Maybe those reliable sources actually meant racially charged and not racist, we don't know and shouldn't care. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Closest example off the top of my head is like someone writing that "people were evacuated". It "sounds right", but is just wrong. - Again, the dictionary disagrees. "Evacuate" definition 4a: "to remove especially from a military zone or dangerous area".
You seem to make a claim to vocabulary "correctness" that transcends the dictionary, which is a fairly common misunderstanding. In vocabulary, what's "correct" is what people do, that's how the English language has evolved, and dictionaries seek to document what people currently do. Merriam-Webster has determined that enough people use that sense of "evacuate" to qualify it as "correct" usage, so they added it to their dictionary. It may have been incorrect in our lifetimes, but we have to be willing to change with the language. There is no static "correctness" in vocabulary. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Mmm, yeah ok but see [2] where it's the fourth or third usage of the term. Thanks though. Volunteer Marek 19:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment How about offensive. Bold and Brash (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

Just so we are clear what we are talking about in this subsection (since the discussion has wandered a little): This is a very limited and specific question with three proposed wordings for the sentence for the lede:

•  "Many of his comments and actions have been perceived as racially charged." (currently in the article)
•  "Many of his comments and actions have been perceived as racist."
•  "Many of his comments and actions have been perceived as racist or racially charged."

I think most people have understood, with their comments above ("racist", "racially charged," "both" or "neither"), that these are the choices, so no need to repeat yourself if you have already chimed in. I just wanted to be sure we are staying on topic. (Casprings at one point suggested an entirely different format for the sentence, but that was beyond the scope of this discussion and would have to go somewhere else. The "what does it mean" discussions above do not seem to be targeted toward making one of these three choices, or with proposing alternate wording.) --MelanieN (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• racist per WP:NOTCENSORED. Both would also be fine, which I would see as a (possibly WP:UNDUE) comment on the media resorting to euphemisms. zzz (talk) 08:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
• Racially charged, per MelanieN and npov policy. Kierzek (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• Both, per Scjessey and Casprings. Including either alone risks WP:NPOV, and including neither implies both are untrue. Putting both is closest to the truth. alphalfalfa^(talk) 10:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
• How about "racially insensitive." The two discussed options risk throwing out objectivity and ignore the possibility of double-talk. UpdateNerd (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

"Racially insensitive" is just an even softer euphemism of the much more prevalent term "racially charged" (per reliable sources). -- Scjessey (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I know, but that's the point. Many of those "reliable" sources are politically biased, while we're seeking NPOV. That said, I'm not really opposed to "racially charged"; it just sounds like interpretation. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@UpdateNerd: That's a very slippery slope to go down. We evaluate the quality of reliable sources at WP:RSN. Once they've passed scrutiny, we accept them. From that point on, "bias" is filtered out by using language that reflects the preponderance of wording in reliable sources, and particularly from prominent examples. Individual media organs may lean one way or another, but we examine the body of that work and make sure our language reflects that. By a considerable margin, "racist" and "racially charged" are the two terms which appear most in this already-vetted body of reliable sources, which is why I suggested we use both above. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

As long as it's made clear what sources are being reflected, I think that's the best call. UpdateNerd (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@UpdateNerd: References always include information about the source. What more is needed than that? Honestly, this "biased sources" crap is almost as bad a "skewed polling" was. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

They include a link to the source, but does it say where it falls on the political spectrum? We could at least be checking such charts to attempt a degree of non-bias. UpdateNerd (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, with respect to the clearly good-faith motivation of your suggestion, we're not going to be filtering our coverage based upon an idiosyncratic chart (from a non-reliable source, no less) that presumes to fix the political position of our sources as if they were celestial bodies on a star chart. 1) That's an absolutely absurd notion, and 2) Even if that weren't the case, and even if this chart came from an WP:RS, this would still be the most absolutely blatant violation of WP:Original research (by way of WP:Synthesis) imaginable. I don't wish to sound acerbic about this, but these kinds of assertions have become the single most problematic and recurrent issue/proposed violation of policy on WP:ARBAP2 talk pages and it needs to stop on this page in particular, because it needlessly protracts every single discussion. On this project, we do not interject our own personal analysis of sources and how we feel they are likely going to come down on an issue. That would be original research through the backdoor; we might as well not have an WP:OR policy at that point, since every editor looking to insert their own perspective on a matter (be it knowingly or subconsciously) would just shift their editorializing of any given personal perspective to be about where the source fits on some perceived right vs. left spectrum (or catholic vs. protestant, or "social justice" vs. "reactionary", or whatever social or political dimension they could conjure in their minds to justify the original research, try to remove it from their own experience conceptually, and then just pretend it isn't blatant original research).

When we decide whether to include a description of a topic on this project, we ask two questions: 1) which of the sources being proposed as relevant to this analysis are WP:reliable sources as community consensus defines them (which never includes where our editors or even other RS view that source to be on a political spectrum), and 2) once we've established the corpus of sources which are clearly RS, what does the WP:WEIGHT from amongst those sources say about the proposed description--e.i., is it WP:DUE or WP:UNDUE. At no point in the analysis do we cross reference the sources against a chart or filter them through our own political lens of "too right"/"too left"/"too anything", because that manifestly and necessarily involves the introduction of synthesis and original research. Snow ^{let's rap} 19:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Correct. I can't say I blame Nerd, however, since similar extra-policy analysis is widespread, even among experienced editors, including a few of the regulars on this page. We call it editorial discretion or editorial judgment. That's the larger problem, and more worthy of your well-informed and articulate commentary. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

That said, rolling the discussion back one step to what you are Scjessey were originally discussing, which comes down basically to attribution, I don't think it's unreasonable to want something more than just the source linked in the reference. The trouble becomes, when we are dealing with sources as numerous and varied as are involved here, how do you attribute a commonly held (but by no means universal) impression, without falling back on the kind of prohibited OR-based editorial analysis discussed immediately above? In most cases the kind of meta sources you would need just do not exist, and in the rare cases where they do, it is difficult to apply them in a neutral fashion that does not just torture the prose and confuse the reader. I'm afraid the best we are likely to be able to do here is just use a long string of references (in accordance with WP:extraordinary) for any controversial claims, and trust the reader to be able to evaluate the claims themselves. After-all, at the end of the day, that is our job--to present the reader with the weight of what reliable sources say on a topic and let them arrive at their own conclusions. Snow ^{let's rap} 19:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The issue with that wall of text is that it is not really true. Not in practice at least. Yes the chart has little to no value, but we do routinely evaluate sources for reliability and their bias is a factor in that. While there are times bias sources are fine and even encouraged in certain situations, that is by no means a non-issue. Also there is no community consensus any source is always reliable, that is always a case by case basis. There are sources that you can safely say are generally reliable, but again nothing is above being challenged. Take Fox news as an easy example, the community has routinely agreed they are a RS. They are also routinely removed as a biased source. Which is fine, there are plenty of times they should be removed. By that same token that logic does apply to other sources as well. Now if you challenge a source you better have a reason past WP:IDONTLIKEIT otherwise it is disruptive, but it is not a conversation that should not be had.

After that weight is the most difficult part to assess as editors. It is way too easy to fall into the trap of "well I have RS here so that's good enough", its coverage in relation to the subject needs to be considered as well. With this subject that is especially difficult as there are hundreds of articles almost daily from RS about almost every aspect of his life. We also have to look past news of the day situations to see if there is lasting impact. (That is not to imply this particular part is news of the day, it certainly has continued coverage, it is more of a general statement). So how would you go about evaluating the weight of this addition? PackMecEng (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

"[T]hat it is not really true. Not in practice at least ... we do routinely evaluate sources for reliability and their bias is a factor in that." Well, while I won't disagree that this is becoming an increasingly common tactic attempted on WP:ARBAP2 talk pages "in practice", that doesn't remotely change the fact that this an unambiguous violation of our most basic editorial policies and longest-standing points of community consensus as regards verification, original research, and neutral point of view. That's just not how analysis of reliable sources is meant to precede here, as that just moves the WP:battleground for editors looking to insert their personal analysis of matters a few steps to the side, by letting them cherry pick sources which are "appropriate" enough to source a given fact in relation to a given topic, based on their personal analysis, in a manner that is functionally no different than if they had asserted that the fact cannot be included because it is "wrong", based on their personal analysis; in other words, textbook original research.

That said, you've absolutely identified exactly the larger issue involved here: how do we forge a realistic summary of WP:weight, given the insane volume of sources regarding this man and his actions? As you note, this opens the door for all manner of confirmation bias, as most vaguely reasonable opinions about the man (and many quite ridiculous ones) can probably be sourced to something that passes the RS bar. And I'm afraid that, as far as I can provide anyway, there are no easy solutions to that problem. As to how I would proceed in this specific instance, the only (admittedly obvious) advice I can propose is to treat any claim remotely likely to be regarded as controversial (that is, just about anything discussed on this talk page, if we are being realistic) as default WP:extraordinary and require a substantial number of RS to source it. And also set the bar exceptionally high for which sources should be used in the references themselves (not with regard to whether they are politically or ideologically neutral enough as judged by one of our editors, but with regard to their general stature as a source in their particular media industry, allegiances our editors think they perceive put very much to the side). But honestly, its never going to be easy for this article, and I wish I could give a satisfying, brief, and straight forward answer on how to reliably filter the bias, other than to say that editors choosing to contribute on this and related articles need to continuously scrutinize their motivations and be prepared to go the extra mile in reading through far, far more sources than are usually employed for any WP:WEIGHT analysis, while trying not to let commitment bias take hold and make their analysis conform to previous conclusions. But one thing I can tell you with certainty is that original research is never a path towards an WP:NPOV analysis; rather, it is the exact opposite of how we achieve that end under our policies. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we agree on the issue with the second point. It is a complex situation there. The first point I still rather disagree. There is no gold standard publication that is always a RS, they need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. That is part of the base of how we define what a RS is, in this situation WP:RSCONTEXT for judging if a source is reliable and for this article we rely mostly on WP:NEWSORG type source that also need to be properly evaluated. The number of opinion sources or sources that mention it in passing is an issue.

So lets take a look at the sources used for the recent RFC on this topic. All the NY Times articles are from their "White House Memo" section which is a conversational opinion section basically.[3] The Fortune source is in their real estate section from 2 years ago which would be an issue of WP:RS AGE. The Rolling Stone is the same article listed twice by a self described Democrat activist.[4] PBS is again listed twice from a correspondent but is basically just a list article with the non-list part not really supporting the RFC text. The Washington Post article seems pretty solid for reporting and covering the text in the RFC. The LA Times is another list article the little text from the authors that is there, at least is close to supporting the RFC. The New Yorker is straight up an opinion piece so only good for the authors opinion and with something like that its probably not good enough. The Atlantic is again an old piece from 2 years ago but otherwise on topic and fine. Finally the BBC that is almost 3 years old at this point, and is just listing what other people said in tweets and emails about Trump. So out of that big list, not many are that strong. That all goes back to my original point, yes there are sources out there but it does not seem like that many good ones. If that is the case weight becomes the leading issue. PackMecEng (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, while I think the WP:RSCONTEXT argument applies better to some of those examples than to others (the WP:RS AGE arguments in particular are not strong, given that the statement being sourced is that some people think Trump is "X with regard to race" and whatever you want to plug into "X" there, it's going to be as true today as it was two or three years ago), every one of those examples is of a category that is different from (and much more acceptable than) the kind of "this source is too leftie/rightie" kind of analysis that I was noting as WP:original research. Each of your arguments there is about the format, depth, or recency of the content (all acceptable grounds for objecting to a source in some context or another), rather than subjective speculation about the supposed slant of the the institution or individual behind the source. I may not agree with every one of your conclusions about those particular sources, as an editorial call, but the arguments themselves are within the vein of analysis allowed by policy. Not so with the "I just don't think they can be trusted, because they lean too far towards [insert OR appraisal by editor on the suspected ideological biases of source]". That's an important distinction, I think. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed there needs to be some grounding in policy past a bias claim. More explanation is needed. PackMecEng (talk) 00:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Racially charged. Given the volume of sources and the relative weight of the contemplated terms between them, I don't see another option. Some sources do prefer to "call a spade for a spade" and label Trump as outright racist, as some have argued we should do here, but the vast majority are more measured in their language and we must follow suit if we want to be able to claim that the article faithfully and neutrally presents a summary of what reliable sources say on the topic, as the wrestle with the dividing line between objective analysis and polemics. Personally, I can understand those who feel many of Trump's views and actions are blatant and transparent in their racism, but we're not here to present the views of our editors. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• Both: "Many of his comments and actions have been perceived as racially charged or racist" reflects what the sources say. Some (maybe most?) news sources may wish to use the term "racially charged", but it's clear that a significant number of RSes have said that his comments have been seen by others as racist. That's what the article would be alleging if we were to put "racist" in the lead, and that is accurate. --Bangalamania (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

Currently, we have at least 10 editors supporting using both terms, 6 choosing just "racially charged" and 3 choosing just "racist". This isn't an RfC, but I would suggest we have a clear consensus to have both terms, which means changing this:

Many of his comments and actions have been perceived as racially charged.

Into this:

Many of his comments and actions have been described as racist or racially charged.

If there are no objections in the next 24 hours, I shall go ahead and implement this change. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

If this change is made (which I don't necessarily support), I would suggest grouping the citations to show which sources are using each term to avoid any controversy later. UpdateNerd (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@UpdateNerd: This will replace a sentence in the lede of the article, and we have adopted the convention of not putting references in the lede section of this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Another reason not to make the change. UpdateNerd (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@UpdateNerd: Well that's too bad. This is a discussion about the exact wording of a change we have already decided to make. We're not relitigating the already closed and endorsed RfC. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion, perhaps putting both phrasings in quotes would help maintain WP:NPOV and show they're coming from sources UpdateNerd (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@UpdateNerd: You are talking about scare quotes. They are not necessary, and simply cast doubt on referenced facts. Also, you need to go back and fix the mess you made of this talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Please make sure my vote gets counted for "racially charged". UpdateNerd (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Consensus 30 was not this proposal It seems hypocritical to tell him he cannot relitigate in the middle of your relitigating. Either respect the prior RFC consensus or start a new one. In such a contentious article, any edit in violation of the RFC results should be reverted and the editor admonished. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Unless I am mistaken your count is way off. I got 8 Both, 3 Racist, and 7 Racially charged. For both I had Casprings, Objective3000, Scjessey, Galobtter, MrX, Mandruss, Alphalfalfa, and Bangalamania. For Racist it was Wumbolo, K.e.coffman, and Signedzzz. Racially charged was MelanieN, Literaturegeek, Sammy D III, PackMecEng, Kerberous, Kierzek, and Snow Rise. PackMecEng (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The headcount is not that important. What troubles me is that we are gliding from a "weak consensus" in the RfC to say that "many" of Trump's deeds were "perceived as racially charged" into another weak consensus to call them "racist or racially charged". Given that many people took issue with the "racist" WP:LABEL, and that this whole sentence is a blatant case of WP:WEASELING, I strongly object. — JFG ^talk 01:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

JFG, That my previous closure has been endorsed, I'll leave a note that my close (and the weak consensus, therein) has no bearing on the exact word or the combination to be used.I have mentioned in my detailed explanation of my closure that I have explicitly allowed for some latency in the wording and that the consensus was basically in endorsement of the inclusion of the broader theme. If there is a consensus for Scjessey's version, that shall be implemented.

Also, whilst I have not much interest in evaluating this discussion, I fail to see where there is consensus to call them as "racist or racially charged" (Calling typically means to use WP's voice and AFAIS, no such proposal is in the airs).∯WBG^converse 04:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Thanks for your note. Indeed, obtaining a better consensus depends strongly on the details of the turn of phrase. I have no objection to mentioning the broader theme, as you noted in your conclusions. This is why I suggested an #Alternative wording below. — JFG ^talk 09:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Although it would probably be best for this to be closed by an uninvolved admin, I think that (reading their arguments) it's reasonable to interpret most of the comments siding with "racist" as supporting "both" over just "racially insensitive" in the case where we have to settle on one. Figuring out cases like that is a vital part of closing a close RFC. At a bare minimum, zzz unambiguously says they would find the inclusion of both to be an acceptable compromise; similarly, an argument that only pushes for the inclusion of one term, without objecting to the other, can reasonably be taken as being at least partially satisfied by using both as a compromise when evaluating consensus, if their first choice clearly fails to have a consensus behind it. One of the advantages to consensus-based !voting is that admins can make that sort of determination rather than resulting in awkward situations resulting from vote splits. But ofc that's just one of many things that a closing admin would need to consider. --Aquillion (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

- Neither: Before you put that up, I had an interesting idea, based on Bold and Brash's "offensive". What about something like this?: "Many of his comments and actions have been described as offensive by minorities, women, (etc)." It allows more flexibility, removes the word in question while implying it, and, combined with "described" over "perceived", draws it much closer to NPOV. The Legacy (talk) 07:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Both, since there is capacious sourcing for each. The fact that his comments and actions have been described that way is factual, extremely well-sourced, and most of all important in the sense that large amounts of the public debate and discussion over him doesn't make sense except in light of those facts. People who oppose using those terms would be better off trying to come up with an acceptable alternative way to cover it (while avoiding WP:WEASEL), since I don't think it's defensible to say that the widespread description of comments and actions as racist has no place in the article. For the better or worse, that description is a major part of how his public persona is perceived. --Aquillion (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The sources have been discussed above, they are rather poor. Also in regards to your comment above this is not a RFC. PackMecEng (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Your objection to the sources was specifically called out as groundless by name by the closer of the previous RFC. Continuing to hammer it at this point - when you know it's a minority view that failed to gain traction - is WP:TENDENTIOUS. The sourcing is excellent, and your personal feelings otherwise don't mean anything if you can't get support for your position; so repeating that objection at this point is just wasting people's time. --Aquillion (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Aquillion: I am referring to my discussion with Snow Rise here after the close had happened. So it was not called out in the close... Please look over the sources again keeping in mind the issues I mentioned. Also keep the personalizing to yourself please. PackMecEng (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Aquillion: I should also mention I was not "called out" in the close for my argument on sourcing. I did not mention sourcing in the RFC vote so do you perhaps have me confused with someone else? PackMecEng (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The count is now 10 for "both" (Casprings, Scjessey, O3000, MelanieN, MrX, Mandruss, Banglamania, Aquillion, Alphalfalfa, Galobtter), 7 for "racially charged" (MelanieN, LiteratureGeek, Sammy D III, PackMecEng, Kerberous, Kierzek, Snow Rise) and 3 for "racist" (Wumbulo, k.e. coffman, zzz). Note that MelanieN has cast votes for "both" and "racially charged". This is not an RfC, so no "uninvolved close" is necessary. It's simply a straightforward summary of what is referenced in the body of the article, so I really don't know why this is such a big deal. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Still bad count, and still partly blind Let’s again appreciate WP:VOTING miscounts, and of apparent ability to not even see opposing views like the word “neither” and throw this count out as wrong on a couple levels. This all seems WP:TENDITIOUS. Either stick with the language of consensus 30, or do a RFC proposing specific language and accept whatever results. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Consensus 30's closing does not specify a specific wording. One was given as an example, but the closer specifically said But, feel free to tweak the wording, as necessary by normal t/p discourse. That's what this discussion is. We'll go with whichever wording seems to have a consensus, and go to an WP:RFC if none do. --Aquillion (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN Could you clarify your vote, you originally posted racially charged but later said you might be okay with both? PackMecEng (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I prefer "racially charged" but would accept "both". --MelanieN (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

* Neither or charged Partisan POV insults are not enough WEIGHT for WP:LEAD, and are contrary to WP:BLP and WP:RACIST and prior consensus 24 and 30. If perceived as racially charged does not suit, go back to nothing. And stop asking over & over & over & over and... Cheers and over.... Markbassett (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Consensus seems to say NOT “racist” Let’s try counting again, a bit more accurately, shall we? I am not only getting different numbers where minor majority are not going “racist”, I also observe some people apparently cannot even see the word “Neither” so let’s just toss out that count as wrong on a couple levels. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Revert (neither) or charged Go back to consensus 24 if the “charged” weak consensus does not suit. Seriously, this is WP:TENDENTIOUS . The restraint about WP:RACIST and WP:BLP got bent weakly for the “perceived” RFC 30, clearly the consensus was NOT stronger language, and that RFC is not being respected by asking over & over so... either stick with “charged” weakly gotten or go back to the prior long standing consensus 24 and drop the whole topic or else make a new RFC with specific language proposed and see if it passes a RFC. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

 ?? Seems to have been a major delete in this a couple days ago, and I somehow made the above repetitive bits so will strike out a bit. Markbassett (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• Requested closure here.Casprings (talk) 00:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Alternative wording

In order to avoid the inevitable weaseling around "many of his comments and actions", and the "racist" vs "racially-charged" hopeless debate, while acknowledging the issue that has been hammered by RS, I would suggest a totally different approach to the wording:

His public comments on immigration issues have been widely perceived as racist.

This focuses on the specific issue of immigration, which reflects the majority of the criticism ("Mexican rapists", "Muslim ban", "shithole countries", "more people from Norway", pardoning Arpaio, etc.) The "birtherism is racism" trope is not important enough for the lede, and the other accusations are debatable. Hence we do not lose much by focusing the lede on perceptions of racism with regards to immigration policy, and we gain clarity for our readers. Opinions welcome. — JFG ^talk 01:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

No, that would be be a gross understatement. What about his actions? What about his long history of racially provocative remarks that have nothing to do with immigration? What about Obama's birth certificate? etc., etc.- MrX 🖋 01:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

What about his actions? – Which actions are you referring to? What about his long history of racially provocative remarks that have nothing to do with immigration? – Not nearly as significant as what he said since entering politics and making immigration a flagship issue. What about Obama's birth certificate? – Settled, and not lede-worthy. (and arguably race-neutral, see Trump's pilloring of Ted Cruz as a "Canadian" or McCain as "from Panama" in addition to "not a hero") — JFG ^talk 02:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

We have an entire article for your reading pleasure. The euphemistically titled article Racial views of Donald Trump.- MrX 🖋 19:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

That's a very interesting article; I remember working on it with you and a bunch of other editors after it was created. To this day, and I just read it again, I still see only words and comments and statements that get interpreted as innuendo and "dog whistles". In terms of racist actions, I can't see a thing beside the 1973 discrimination lawsuit. But please enlighten me. — JFG ^talk 20:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

MrX - Obama’s birth certificate seems about 1 month in 2011 that he has basically avoided ever since — claimed the result was due to his own participation and not said that he was wrong, but it seems avoided as bad for his 2012 election bid. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

That, actually not true at all, but even it was, I'm not aware of any minimum amount of time that someone can spew racism before being described as having done such. Give me a break.- MrX 🖋 21:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

User:MrX - actually, it is not only true but obvious: once the long form was delivered the whole crying for it was pretty much over. And your label racism seems fairly weak -- confusing a nationality ding with something of Racism means it was never racist unless any unpleasantness to other than white men is automagically racist/sexist -- which seems a fairly racist/sexist assumption to hold. Markbassett (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

We're not here to debate your definition of racism or whether you would consider any given individual racist by applying that standard. Please review WP:Original research, a policy that should be second nature to you by this point in your tenure on this project (though, unfortunately you would be far from the first person on this article to forget that principle, however they feel about Donald Trump). Whether or not we describe Donald Trump's views and actions as racist (or racially charged, or racially provocative, or whatever) will come down exclusively to how reliable sources describe him, and any digression into why he is (or isn't) "this or that" based on your own idiosyncratic logic is (in addition to being WP:OR), also a useless WP:Notaforum exercise. Please predicate all of your discussion upon evaluating descriptions in terms of their WP:WEIGHT in the sources, rather than the question of what personally seems most accurate to you. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but no. It's not just his comments about immigration that have been described as racially motivated or racist. It's things like his comments after Charlottesville, and his ripping of NFL athletes for taking a knee without "having a real issue", and his descriptions of black critics as having "a very low IQ", and the enthusiasm from David Duke and other white supremacists saying that Trump has empowered them and brought them into the mainstream. It's a lot more than just immigration. --MelanieN (talk) 03:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Eh so far it is the best suggestion of the lot. Most specific to the most covered aspects, the others you mentioned have for the most part died out. It also actually gives context vs the other proposals that just throw it out there with no thought. PackMecEng (talk) 03:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

User:MelanieN - (sorry, the big wipe in this thread seems to have lost my prior input): Belittling invective to critics does not seem racially biased. He seems kind of an equal opportunity tweeter. Tweeting vs intelligence of Helsinki critics “So many people at the higher end of intelligence loved my press conference performance in Helsinki”, or as being Deep state, or sanity in Trump Derangement Syndrome, or Fake news seems widely distributed. See response to Michelle Malkin ‘coward’ tweet about ‘born stupid’, Danny Zuker as “(stupid!)”, Stephanopolos as stupid... Maybe there is variation between his personal and presidential accounts, but Trump twitter archive doesn’t show it. Seems like mostly calling things stupid rather than people, and otherwise mostly dinging person-of-the-day individuals rather than races, but it’s certainly not just black people being dinged. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• Nope. Absolutely wrong. Trump has said and done racist and racially-charged things, and they are by no means restricted to immigration. I understand some people don't like the result of the RfC and the clear consensus emerging in the wording discussion, but this is just a delaying tactic at this point. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: you can't seriously be talking about a clear consensus emerging in the wording discussion, as several editors already pointed out to you above. That discussion is even murkier than the RfC was. — JFG ^talk 20:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: The number of people who support "racist" AND "racially charged" is roughly equal to the combined totals of "racist" OR "racially charged". The "both" suggestion is meant to be a compromise position (which is why it uses "described" instead of "perceived"), so arguments against it are much weaker than arguments against either of the other positions. MelanieN gets it, in that she favors the softer "racially charged" but would accept the compromise of both terms. So yes, I do believe the prevailing consensus for the compromise wording is pretty obvious. The RfC decreed a change MUST happen, so I now see this sideshow bullshit as a stalling tactic. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Stay classy, mate. — JFG ^talk 22:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Dude, I'm British. "Class" is my middle name.

Actually, it isn't. It's Christopher, but you can blame my father's side of the family for that. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Scjessey Factually, the consensus 30 did not "decreed a change MUST happen, so I now see this sideshow bullshit as a stalling tactic." The wording proposed was "Should the second paragraph of the lead include a sentence summarizing Trump's history of racially charged comments and racially motivated actions? Specifically, something like: Many of his comments and actions have been perceived by some as racially charged." The conclusion was "There is a weak consensus in favor of the proposal." and a final line "But, feel free to tweak the wording, as necessary by normal t/p discourse." That is not a decree to change the wording or a carte blanche for anything, it is an approval for the line as submitted and anything else should just do its own RFC already. Seen way too many false statements on this topic and asking over & over. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, per MelanieN Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• Partisan POV making too much of this ... partisan insults are not sufficient WEIGHT even for lead, and are pretty much blocked by WP:RACIST and WP:BLP. It is not encyclopedic to push the most sensational offensive bits into headline style. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose changing first sentence. Wholeheartedly agree with Markbassett. The current opening sentence (Trump has a history of making racially controversial remarks and taking actions that are perceived as racially motivated) strikes a better, more encyclopedic tone, IMHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg L (talk • contribs) 20:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose any inclusion of the word "perceived" as Trump being perceived as racist is one of the least significant segments of his public image. wumbolo ^^^ 10:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump’s Ghostwriter for “The Art of the Deal”

Tony Schwartz, Donald Trump’s Ghostwriter for “The Art of the Deal” wrote in 1985, an article for New York Magazine called “A Different Kind of Donald Trump Story,” prior to the book.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all

mentions the article:

https://books.google.com/books?id=SsEBAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA35&dq=trump

perhaps this is a useful reference

69.181.23.220 (talk) 02:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Charitable work with The Rainbow/Push Coalition on Wall Street

In 1999 Jesse Jackson gave thanks to Donald Trump for helping establish the Rainbow Push Coalition at 40 Wall Street in New York. Trump gave them a building to use in order to help black Americans have a presence on Wall St. In a speech on C-SPAN Jackson introduced Donald Trump by explaining his involvement, "when we opened this Wall Street Project and we talked about it, he gave us space at 40 Wall St. Which was to make a statement about us having a presence there. And beyond that, in terms of reaching out and being inclusive he has done that too....Last year he was a part of our workshop, of our panel workshop" Disciple4lif (talk) 11:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Truly awful source. O3000 (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I have now removed the parameter causing the video to skip the first 349 seconds. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)