Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:33, 1 March 2018

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

Rfc at Bible and violence

please comment here Talk:The_Bible_and_violence#Rfc

"Polish death camp" controversy

Could use more eyes. There are several issues on the page and content disputes between a Polish government line and the views taken by others (mainly outside of Poland). In addition, there is questionable use of sources, such as using Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Poland) to state facts that are very much in controversy about what Polish bill would or would not do - in preference to secondary sources such as the Washington Post and Reuters.Icewhiz (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure why this article should exist at all. Whatever useful info is there, must be merged into Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance--Ymblanter (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The issue pre-dates the bill by quite a bit (as does the Misplaced Pages article - created in 2006 (I would however argue that this article has mainly represented the inner-Polish view on the matter)). The bill started rolling in 2016. The Polish MFA has been campaigning on the issue for perhaps a decade and half (at least - maybe also earlier - not sure). There was a big bruhahah over this when Obama used the phrase in 2012 - . In 2004 - the Polish embassy in Canada attacked a piece in Canadian media - and there has been a campaign of sorts vs. journalists and other publishers to reduce use of the term (see a jounralist's description of some of this campaign here - ).Icewhiz (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment by R9tgokunks

This article needs sanctions imposed on it. In fact, all related articles. There's too much POV pushing. It's near chaos to me. :R9tgokunks ✡ 09:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Mega Drive vs Genesis proposal

Could use some fresh eyes at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Proposal. This proposal is not about renaming the Sega Genesis article to Mega Drive, but about stressing the misconception that Genesis is not the WP:COMMONAME and having both names share equal weight. Editors are not accepting a compromise to a heated issue despite evidence provided. JAGUAR 15:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I was just thinking about this this afternoon, for maybe the third time ever. Weird to see it in my watchlist. Thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:14, February 10, 2018 (UTC)

Wikivoice assertion of what voting method always determines the "most preferred" candidate

Our article on the Burlington_mayoral_election,_2009 discusses the use of Instant Runoff Voting.

In particular there is a paragraph that compares IRV voting to other methods. This paragraph relies on poorly represented primary sources without inline attribution. The apparent aim is to characterize the highly controversial subject of comparative voting methods as seen in this redirect: ] . Use of the redir in wikivoice is troubling, especially since one of the RS is the self pub statement of one of the main advocacy groups on one side of the controversy. I've tried to edit for faithful verification and NPOV according to the sources but have been edit warred. Ccould some others peek in please?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts and prayers

Kku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has wikilinked 55 occurrences of the phrase "thoughts and prayers" to our article Thoughts and prayers, which is about the politically-loaded meaning of the phrase. In my view that's 55 WP:NPOV violations, but I don't want to do 55 reverts without support for them as I would be committing myself to up to 55 parallel talk page discussions. Am I off base here, or no? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see this as a problem at all. If the target article is too heavily weighted toward the political interpretation of the phrase, that can be addressed by editing.- MrX 🖋 12:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The political interpretation is the only reason for existence of the target article, and there is no reason to say anything else about it the phrase there. We don't have articles about common phrases merely because they are common phrases; we're not here to teach English language idioms. Hue and cry is solely about a legal definition, and Back and forth and Hot and Cold are about everything except the general usages of the phrases. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. The phase is several things: an empty platitude; a politically-expedient way of saying this problem does not require legislation; prayers are powerful; I don't care enough to express an original thought; etc. You can nominate the article for deletion if you think it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia, but as long as it exists, it is the appropriate link target for that phrase.- MrX 🖋 12:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I haven't said I don't think the article belongs in the encyclopedia. I've said that we shouldn't be linking to it without support for the political context. And I've said that If the target article is too heavily weighted toward the political interpretation of the phrase, that can be addressed by editing. makes no sense at all since there is no place for anything but the political interpretation in that article. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

That sounds like a personal preference as opposed to something based on policy.- MrX 🖋 13:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

NPOV: "Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well" (emphasis mine). Since these wikilinks were applied indiscriminately, there is no demonstrated RS at all, so we're talking about a proportion of zero. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The phrase itself is absolutely neutral. If you read the article, you will find however, that it has a remarkable tendency to be used incongrously. Its use in various situations, however, has been reported officially and there should not be any debate about that. It is up to the reader to decide from the largely unbiased article which context to choose. -- Kku (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

To link it in that fashion is to imply something with no RS support, which violates NPOV. No, in my experience we don't make loaded wikilinks and leave it "up to the reader to decide". ―Mandruss ☎ 12:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

My initial thoughts would be to unlink all of them, and look at the links to gun control, school shooting and mass shooting. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 12:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Given that 'thoughts and prayers' are routinely spouted by politicians I don't see a problem in wiki linking to our article on why it's a political issue. I'm with MrX, you can either attempt to make the target article less about the negative issues around the phrase or nominate it for deletion, but while it exists its the appropriate target for a wiki link. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Most of these links seem to be within direct quotes, and per MOS:LWQ, are improper since we don't know how the speaker intended the phrase to be taken. --Masem (t) 13:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Yea, you can't do this. "Thoughts and prayers" following a tragedy truly is empty, addled rhetoric, but linking BLP subjects' quotes to thoughts and prayers is making that point in the Misplaced Pages's voice, which is not kosher. This would be like taking the line "Obama was born on August 4, 1961" at his article and linking it to Birtherism. TheValeyard (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Most of them should be unlinked. In an article like "Stoneman Douglas High School shooting", a link to thoughts and prayers would be acceptable with the right context, such as discussing the public/media backlash against the use of the phrase while referring to that specific incident. There are plenty of sources for that: . But in an article like "Chris Benoit double-murder and suicide", it's just plain overlinking, regardless of the NPOV issue. –Surachit (talk) 03:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• The links are fine in situations where public figures, particularly political figures, use the phrase (or a close equivalent) to describe a tragic event. It is an objective fact that when public figures reference "thoughts and prayers" or the like following a tragedy, they are choosing to employ a phrase that carries pre-existing baggage of criticism for its emptiness. We are not "making a point" in Misplaced Pages's voice any more than if a figure were to say, "this situation is like the Tet Offensive", or, "we are trying to win hearts and minds" and we were to link Tet Offensive or Winning hearts and minds. We are linking to well-sourced and factual information about the phrase that is directly relevant to the choice of the figure to use the phrase. bd2412 T 03:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Bd2412: I came here with a specific situation, not a hypothetical, and I would prefer to have the specific situation addressed and corrected if needed. As this user applied this wikilink in 55 articles within 22 minutes, I don't think a lot of thought was put into whether the link was appropriate for each case. While I have no proof, my impression is that they linked every occurrence of the phrase "thoughts and prayers" in mainspace. If they evaluated each case at all, I don't think ~20 seconds per case was enough evaluation. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• @BD2412: - Corrected ping. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I would agree that mass-linking to the phrase was probably not done with a lot of thoughtful examination. That does not mean that mass-unlinking should be done with the same lack of examination. Instances should be parsed through, and unlinked if there is no relationship between the use of the phrase and the article. bd2412 T 19:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• I think more of these links are valid than one might guess. I looked at the first 17 links and almost all of them were instances of a United States politician using the phrase in the way described in the article lede. Many were, in fact, from gun control sections of politician articles. Some are clearly off: I would remove the link from Prayer circle. I think User:BD2412's criterion for inclusion is probably right. I would just open 55 tabs and go through them one-by-one. It will take less time than you might think. Chris vLS (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and unlinked that one, and the one in Chris Benoit double-murder and suicide. bd2412 T 20:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to add some background to kku (talk · contribs), who almost diligently seems to employ a careless practice of wikilinking, I copy my recent remark on his TP here:

Would you, please, mind to take care yourself of the numerous links you introduced to the article Academic games? Please, disambiguate them in your own sphere of action instead of leaving a bot claiming about them. That is, please check links you introduce in your edits for their appropriate target. Thanks. Purgy (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Michael Oren on the Tamimi family

Michael Oren has made a number of statements regarding the Tamimi family in general and Ahed Tamimi in particular. The proposed edit in question is this one. He initially made some comments in December 2017 immediately when this broke a tweet, which was then covered sparodically for the next month by various outlets both in news and in opinion pieces, He was also interviewed on BBC radio (pain to locate transcript - there is reporting on the interview). Not that this is scant coverage, however what really got the ball rolling are comments on a parliamentary inquiry he made initially (on 23 January) to an Israeli newspaper, in Hebrew, Maariv. They were repeated in a number of other outlets in Hebrew - . Haaretz the next day, 25 Jan, ran a full feature rebuttal of the Tamimi family asserting that they are real. Haaretz (which vies with JPost for being the Israeli newspaper of record in English) then translated both pieces to English. This was also translated by other Israeli outlets, This was also picked up by AP, and oddly picked up by the Israeli YNET and Israel Hayom (someone was asleep the day before?) from the English AP wire. The English translations and the AP write was then repeated by a whole raft of other outlets, including first-line international ones, often attributed back to Haaretz. This was then discussed in in-depth pieces about Oren himself, Opinion pieces against Oren by highly liberal and/or pro-Palestinian writers (some in non-RS, however the opinion is attributable, others in significant outlets), including a J Street release against him (I'd guess he's more of an American Israel Public Affairs Committee kinda fella). coverage around Tamim's trial on 13 Feburary, other coverage of Tamimi related events, Independent re-interviews with Oren in Tamimi profiles. In which NPR says in its own voice: "ESTRIN: In 2015, Oren led a classified parliamentary inquiry to investigate whether the Tamimis were a real family and not actors dressed in Western clothing, provoking soldiers on camera. He acknowledges the inquiry found no proof. The Tamimis are a prominent family in the area. Now Israel faces another dilemma. Her arrest has given her even more international attention." And there is quite a bit more of this - Particularly in spurts (e.g. around 24-26 Jan, 29 Jan, 13 Feb due to this being in related / copied coverage) - I did not type in all of what is available. At present, citing lack of consensus, an editor (backed by other editors reverting but not discussing) is objecting to inclusion of this in Michael Oren. The relevant talk-page discussion is at: Talk:Michael Oren#Recent edit.Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Does what was removed from the article mention that he didn't find any proof? A lot of content from Mondoweiss and The Intercept (which you call "Opinion pieces against Oren by highly liberal and/or pro-Palestinian writers") has been left out. Neither of the things you mentioned are a reason to exclude a source. This is not an opinion piece. This article by Philip Weiss is fine too. The content needs to be balanced. Seraphim System 07:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Oren himself has said he has reached no conclusion regarding the relationship question and that is in the diff as well as rejection by the family. Mondiweiss and the intercept (which I read as opinion in this case) are borderline RS wise and definitely polemic - as this was very widely covered the proposed edit relied on mainline sources such as the Washington Post.Icewhiz (talk) 08:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

How is the Intercept borderline WP:RS? Seraphim System 08:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It's better than Monodweiss. It is a small outlet. Polemical. Some accuracy issues, e.g. Juan M. Thompson. And the piece in question is more of an opinion piece than reporting - but all that is besides the point - there are plenty of sources here (from all sides and POVs).Icewhiz (talk) 09:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources here, but the tone of the edit in dispute makes the "investigation" sound far more credible than the WP:RS do. It doesn't make a lot of sense to bring it up out of context, and it is distoring the WP:RS somewhat which are largely about Tamimi- maybe add a brief explanation of who Tamimi is - I don't think just a wikilink is enough.Seraphim System 11:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree some context should be provided on Tamimi. We could add another negative reaction to this hesides the family attacking the investigation or alternatively include Haaretz's findinigs which were in one of the reverted versions (synopsis - they were not able to find another MK to corroborate this, though one MK said maybe, but they conceeded that many MKs skip sessions and that Oren may have sat alone in the meeting) - this was dropped after placing the family's response of "silly and stupid" diff and seeing that some later RS, e.g. NPR, were treating the inquiry as fact and not statement, as well as adding sources and bit from later (post initial edit) independent coverage of this.Icewhiz (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment. I'd like to mention that I find the systematic deletion of all Oren->Tamimi content on both the Tamimi page and the Oren page by a small group of editors quite disturbing. Furthermore, it is distressing that one of the excuses to expunge the content from the Tamimi page was "this belongs on the Oren page, not here", and then for these same editors to go to the Oren page and memory hole it repeatedly is quite remarkable. Of course the deleters would be right if there was no WP:RS for the Oren->Tamimi content, but the coverage by WP:RS on this subject is massive and sustained and the sources include bastions such as the Washington Post, NPR, and the BBC itself (here's the Oren tweet to which the BBC refers) XavierItzm (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

One should further note that Oren is the deputy minister in the Prime Minister's Office and head of public diplomacy - an official deputy minister spokesman position in the Israeli government. Oren, who is an esteemed historian, former ambassador to the US, and a member of a centrist party has been speaking at length about Tamimi since at least December 2017. His comments have been extensively covered (links above are not complete and only representative - there is that much of it that reffing it all is quite a task) - both in standalone coverage on his comments, in interviews (e.g. Oren vs. a Tamimi family representative), and in just about every profile of Tamimi since 24 January, and in on-going Tamimi related news coverage. Most RSes are treating this position as an official Israeli position given Oren's position. Considering the depth of coverage, it should be on Oren's page. Inclusion on Tamimi's page is actually even more straightforward - given she's been involved in confrontations with Israeli forces and that we're representing views favorable to said confrontations - then the official Israeli view is definitely DUE and required for NPOV.Icewhiz (talk) 07:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Essay

I've written an essay, after repeating many of the points contained therein to new and disruptive editors in controversial articles many, many times. I would like to invite watchers here to comment on it and help improve it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll comment on it's talk page. --Masem (t) 15:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/israels-decision-to-put-a-palestinian-teen-on-trial-could-come-back-to-bite-it/2018/02/12/bf33b864-100f-11e8-a68c-e9374188170e_story.html?utm_term=.e990e40fd2b1
2. Estrin, Daniel (12 February 2018). "Trial Set To Start For Young Palestinian Activist Who Struck An Israeli Soldier". National Public Radio. Retrieved 18 February 2018. Others see her video as an example of Palestinian propaganda. A prominent critic is Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Michael Oren, who served as Israel's ambassador to the U.S. MICHAEL OREN: You've heard of Hollywood. You've heard of Bollywood. This is Pallywood. Pallywood is an industry - mostly video clips - against Israel that can cause a strategic damage around the world by influencing world opinion against us. ESTRIN: In 2015, Oren led a classified parliamentary inquiry to investigate whether the Tamimis were a real family and not actors dressed in Western clothing, provoking soldiers on camera.
3. "The figure of Ahed Tamimi, a Palestinian teenager who dared to slap the Israeli army". BBC (in Indonesian). 30 December 2017. Retrieved 18 February 2018. Michael Oren, a former Israeli ambassador to the United States and currently a deputy minister for diplomacy, tweeted accusing the Ahed family of dressing her in American-style clothing and paying them to provoke troops (Israel) in front of the camera.
4. https://twitter.com/DrMichaelOren/status/943012861617590273

Article title discussion at AR-15 style rifle (WikiProject Firearms)

Several dicussions are currently on-going within the Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Firearms and related pages. I've implemented a bold move for one of the articles. The discussion is listed here:

• Talk:AR-15_style_rifle#Article_Title

Additional community input would be appreciated. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Use in mass shootings of AR-15 / Colt AR-15 rifles (WikiProject Firearms)

I discussion is on-going at the above article regarding the inclusion of material relating to the use of AR-15 / Colt AR-15 semi-automatic firearms in mass shootings. The general discussion is here:

• Talk:Colt_AR-15#Colt_AR-15_(tm)_vs_AR-15_pattern_rifles

The two specific proposals are listed here:

• Talk:Colt_AR-15#Proposal - relates to the criminal use of Colt AR-15 derivative firearms (AR-15 style rifles)
• Talk:Colt_AR-15#Proposal_2 - relates to the use of Colt AR-15 firearm in the Port Arthur massacre.

Additional community input would be appreciated. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Shurat HaDin

Shurat HaDin is an Israeli group which poses as a "civil rights" organization and whose purpose is to punish anyone and everyone in any way linked to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign (see Shurat HaDin#Criticism). It works closely with the Israeli government. In 2007, the group's director Nitsana Darshan-Leitner confided to US embassy staff in a leak published by WikiLeaks that her group "took direction … on which cases to pursue" and "receives evidence" from the Mossad and from Israel's National Security Council.

References

1. "The Mossad's strategy against BDS". Middle East Monitor. 27 November 2014. Retrieved 22 February 2018.
2. "Fighting Israel's foes in U.S. courts, lawyer had help from Mossad". Reuters. 2017. Retrieved 22 February 2018.
3. Winstanley, Asa (16 November 2017). "Israeli "law center" Shurat HaDin admits Mossad ties". The Electronic Intifada.

Question is, would it be appropriate to mention the group's links to the Mossad and Israeli government in the lede section of the article? Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Gun control#Requested move 18 February 2018

I have concerns about this RM discussion. The gist:

• WP:COMMONNAME (WP:UCRN) is being used as an excuse to demand an article title that both sides of the issue say, in reliable sources, is laden with contentious political baggage and which they're avoiding.
• Meanwhile, we clearly have neutral descriptive alternatives that are well-attested in RS.
• The term being advanced by the UCRN argument does not at all fit the actual scope of the article.
  • We probably need an article split, to separately cover firearms policy and regulations, as such, versus the movement to eliminate or greatly restrain private gun ownership, as they are not even close to the same topic (certain forms of the former have been used as tools of the latter, but even "gun nuts" largely support certain firearms regulations, e.g. against full-auto weapons).
• The RM seems to be dominated by generally counterfactual leftwing anti-gun PoV, exacerbated by a recent mass-shooting incident in Florida. Hyperbolic rhetoric, and falsification of statistics and other facts, are flooding social media like a tsunami in the wake of this event, and have been for over a week. This is unmistakably affecting the course and tenor of the RM discussion.
• The RN is also overrun with the assumption that UCRN trumps everything, when this is patently false. UCRN is an instruction to pick the most common name as the default first choice to test against the actual WP:CRITERIA, the rest of WP:AT policy (e.g. WP:NPOVTITLE), and other policies (especially the core content policies like WP:NPOV and WP:NOR). The way this has been heading, it's violating all of them at once, to favour the WP:SYSTEMICBIASed socio-political viewpoint of en.wikipedia's largest demographic cluster of editors – likely by reflex, not design.

This RM, if no WP:SNOWBALL results, should be closed by one of our occasional three-admin panels, with an explicit focus on policy and sourcing strengths in the arguments, and a discounting of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and extraneous political posturing. This is precisely the kind of RM that a lone closer is most likely to close in favour of a pure vote-count just to avoid ranty criticism.

PS: I am not a gun owner; this is about us doing our encyclopedic "job", not about "WP:WINNING".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute of "Cult" Leader (vs. Spiritual Leader)

Calling Neutral Parties: An unnamed IP address changed the heading of a large wiki article on Sathya Sai Baba and added what is (to me) clearly an non-neutral POV description of "'cult' leader". A number of users have tried to edit it or remove it and their revisions have been undone - possibly fairly as they did not give sources for the change. However, despite objections (by me) with considerable source referencing on the talk page, no consensus has yet been reached. Need some neutral parties to it who can weigh in. To me it is obviously a violation of wikipedia neutrality as I clearly explain on the talk page and referencing from the wikipedia neutrality policy:

The text of Misplaced Pages articles should assert facts, but not assert opinions as fact.

When a statement is a fact (e.g. information that is accepted as true and about which there is no serious dispute), it should be asserted using Misplaced Pages's own voice without in-text attribution. Thus we write: "Mars is a planet" or "Plato was a philosopher".

When a statement is an opinion (e.g. a matter which is subject to serious dispute or commonly considered to be subjective), it should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion. Thus we might write: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre.". We do not write: "John Doe is the best baseball player". The inclusion of opinions is subject to weight policy, and they should be backed up with an inline citation to a reliable source that verifies both the opinion and who holds it.

A simple formulation is to assert facts, including facts about opinions, but don't assert opinions themselves.

Being not a neutral statement and an opinion held only by some sources it should be removed or placed in the allegations section, shouldn't it? Should we be using wikipedia's voice to call this a cult when as best I can tell from references the vast majority of references do not label it as such? See the suject's talk page for more.

My argument is that "spiritual leader" is a more neutral description as sourced by references in the diff page. Whether that is added or not - "cult" is disputed (the word is loaded - an inflammatory and dismissive one, partially supported by a tabloid), and as per wikipedia's neutrality rules, should be moved from the main description. Kindly let us know if you agree based on sources referenced?

Here's the diff page for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&type=revision&diff=825673266&oldid=825651116

Any help is appreciated. Thanks for reading. Objectiveap (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

"Spiritual leader" sounds like the worst kind of puffy promotion. Avoid. What does RS say? Alexbrn (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Guru seems pretty common.Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Guru is there already and I see it as neutral, "cult" removal is main question, "spiritual leader" is from BBC, NY Times, Times of India, etc... but I don't see it as fully necessary. Objectiveap (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The BBC wrote "Nearly half a million people gathered in the southern Indian town of Puttaparthi for the funeral of the revered Indian spiritual leader Sri Sathya Sai Baba.". "Spiritual leader" is not puffy or promotional, any more than priest, pope, pastor, or any other religious title. "Cult leader" sourced to The Sun is a problem, but sourced to Anthropological Quarterly may be OK.- MrX 🖋 18:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The issue is that the majority of reliable sources refrain from calling it a cult as my entries on the talk page show. Objectiveap (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Chhandama linked several academic sources on the talk page to sufficiently support the use of the word "cult." Objectiveap also provided links to sources that apparently don't use that word in their summaries. The Essence of Hindu Doctrine and its Influence on Christianity in America and Europe cites "Ashes and Powers: Myth, Rite and Miracle in an Indian God-man’s Cult" when discussing SSB, which leaves me wary assuming that the word never appears beyond the summaries in others. Also those sources don't necessarily argue that that word is inaccurate. Among Objectiveap's sources one can find the Daily Fail, which raises competency concerns. C.Fred provided an alternate phrasing that puts "spiritual leader" to the forefront, which Objectiveap still refused to accept. As Objectiveap is yet another single-purpose account who will not budge until any instance of the word "cult" is removed from the article, regardless of whatever sources say, I think it's safe to assume that Objectiveap is an SSB follower who is not here to build the encyclopedia but right great wrongs. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

To that end, note that another SPA, Mcross18, just removed "cult" and the references thereunto. That's part of why I retracted my suggested edit: I no longer think that the changes are being sought by neutral editors; I believe that some number of editors (possibly as few as one with multiple accounts) is removing the term to align the article with their non-neutral point of view. —C.Fred (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I think arguments based on what sources don't say are always verging on WP:OR. If it's a cult (and no serious source disputes that), then Misplaced Pages must call it a cult too. Alexbrn (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

By the same token arguments based upon including claims because sources do not dispute them is also iffy. If sources do not call it a cult neither can we. If some sources call it a cult and others a spiritual movement so must we (include both claims).Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

It's more that if we have sources saying "A," and no sources saying "not A," then we need to include "A." Sources saying "B" don't really negate "A" sources, we specifically need "B, not A" sources for that. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

And sources saying A do not negate B, so the same argument applies (my point). We include both and attribute them.Slatersteven (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Not so, because it it always Misplaced Pages editors' WP:OR interpretation of what a non-statement means. It's classic POV-pushing ploy to say because n sources don't say (e.g.) homeopathy is pseudoscience, then it isn't. Alexbrn (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

A, this is (in effect) a BLP, and we need sources making (what is) an accusation. B, This only applies in obvious cases where the consensus among experts is X. Yes we do not need sources saying "the sea is wet", but this is not clear cut (after all what is a cult?).Slatersteven (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@ian.thomson I actually agreed to let C.Fred post a small revision to his statement btw, but he backed out. As outlined in the talk page on the subject - completely objective source searching does NOT tend to turn up the word cult anywhere in the top results, making it a minority opinion or reference word, not deserving of the heading space, one can put in allegations. Objectiveap (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We shouldn't label this person as a "spiritual leader" or "cult leader" in Misplaced Pages's voice unless most sources say as much. If there is disagreement between sources, then omit the terms or attribute them to a source. Let's not mix religious beliefs with science. It never ends well.- MrX 🖋 19:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Objectiveap: That's not what I'm seeing at all at Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Use_of_Cult_Leader. C.Fred suggested Sathya Sai Baba (born 'Sathya Narayana Raju; 23 November 1926 – 24 April 2011) was an Indian guru, cult spiritual leader, and philanthropist. He claimed to be the reincarnation of Sai Baba of Shirdi; however, he was frequently characterized as a cult leader. You then immediately replied that this group is clearly not usually viewed as a cult. Chhandama presented sources demonstrating that this is incorrect, and you even acknowledged There are elements of the Sathya Sai Baba Movement that are cult-like but refused to back down on total removal of the word "cult" from the article. Be wedded to truth, not to consistency. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@MrX thank you that is my point from the beginning, "spiritual leader" may be more accurate but neither is needed.

@ian.thomson I like the wedded to truth line from my user page, props to you on that, but back at you because I later suggested C.Fred publish his statement with a change of one word "frequently" to "some" and he refused, you would clearly know this if you read to the end of the talk page and are (intentionally?) omitting it here. And since you are bringing it up, it's an analysis, not an admission, that some but not enough characteristics of a cult does not a cult make. By those same standards I was referring to you could call Christianity a cult. It's a disputed word and I think that isn't really disputable, though we may dispute it anyway. If it's disputed it doesn't belong in wikipedia's voice, just a fact.Objectiveap (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

And now to back track and point out that to be disputed...there must be a dispute in RS. As I said above just because not all sources talking about the sea call it explicitly wet does not mean we can say it is disputed that it is wet. We need sources saying it is (explicitly) not a cult to say this is disputed.Slatersteven (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven While that would be ideal, it's not required, you don't have to have books proving Obama wasn't/isn't the antichrist to refute claims that he is. A minority educated opinion doesn't mean wikipedia's voice should be used. The majority of educated opinions usage when talking about the group is more valuable, but in the absence of any particular term being an agreed fact, we should stick with what is: guru, philanthropist for example. Objectiveap (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

BGut this is not a clear black and white case. In fact it can be argued that any Cult leader is also a spiritual leader, the two are not mutually exclusive (unlike being and not being something).Slatersteven (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I've seen some cult leaders who passed themselves off as philosophers, self-help authors, or whatnot, but yeah, the terms "cult leader" and "spiritual leader" generally overlap. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Fair enough, you agreed on the condition that sources using the phrase "cult" were downplayed. Also, I'll admit that early Christianity was indeed a cult, you won't be able to play on my feelings there because I understand the academic use of the term. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Neither term is needed, he can be called a guru and philanthropist without dispute. "Cult" is inappropriate given wikipedia's rules of neutrality. If wikipedia had different rules and allowed disputed concepts to be used in its own voice than maybe "cult" could be used, even then probably shouldn't be in the heading. But wikipedia is clear that it's voice is not to be used for things that are not facts. Some call it that and the majority do not. (if you want run your own neutral test of sources). Can we agree on that? Objectiveap (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

If some sources say "A," and some sources say "B," then WP:DUE requires the article to say both "A and/or B." We don't look at the "B" sources and say "well, I guess we can't say A." Ian.thomson (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Heading (and anything in wikipedia's voice) must be objective, agreed by vast majority of RS, truth only. Am I wrong? Objectiveap (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's standard of objective is to summarize what reliable sources say, regardless of any editor's personal beliefs. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Anyone who does an objective search (just: Sathya Sai Baba) of what reliable sources say won't find much mention of the word "cult". I propose a vote from all contributors just to get a gauge: Considering Neutrality which is what this board is about: Do you think the word "cult" should be in the first line description of this topic in wikipedia's voice? @Ian.thomson:@Alexbrn:@Slatersteven:@MrX:@Ian.thomson:@Ian.thomson:

I'm not qualified to determine which online Indian sources are reliable (outside of the major newspapers). As far as I can tell, he is only referred to as a cult leader in a handful of sources. In other sources he's referred to as a guru or a spiritual leader. For that reason, I would omit it from the lead and include it as appropriate in the body of the article, with attribution. WP:LABEL and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV are the applicable guides.- MrX 🖋 23:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Concur with MrX. And "The issue is that the majority of reliable sources refrain from calling it a cult" isn't a legitimate issue, that's just "I really, really want to call this a 'cult' for PoV reasons, but can't find enough sources to excuse it." It's not WP's job to label things (and every religious movement has questionable practices and people). It's our job to faithfully reflect what the independent RS have to say about the subject. If they all indicate there's cult-like activity (in the vernacular not anthropological sense of cult) that will be apparent in the cited facts, without us using labels like "cult".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with @MrX: and @SMcCandlish: also - does anyone else care to vote? If not will cite this Neutrality Board in recommending the change be made along these lines. If either of you two would be willing to make the change as a neutral party with citation of this discussion, that would be nice. Thanks to all for their input. Objectiveap (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• I think MrX has a point; my thanks to him for framing it from a policy standpoint and in a way I didn't see earlier. I also tried to flip to what would be the other side of the coin, and I came up with " is an award-winning…". We already leave award-winning out of introductory paragraphs and list the awards later. By that logic, I have no objections to leaving "cult leader" or equivalent in the body of the article with clear attribution but removing it from the intro. That said, @Objectiveap: This isn't a vote, it's a discussion. It's also better to let an editor independent of the situation—not you, not me—make the call on when the discussion has run its course or reached consensus and to then make the necessary edits. —C.Fred (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@C.Fred:Your comment is appreciated and while I did ask for other votes, apologies if it seemed I was being preemptive or in some way disregarding protocol. I was not planning to make the change myself. Objectiveap (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

As with Mr X most sources I have found call him either A Guru or spiritual leader (but then neitehr preclude him also being a cult leader) maybe just say "is a Guru who has been characterized as either a spiritual leader or cult leader".Slatersteven (talk) 08:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Organization / Sathya Sai Baba movement

I don't think I've looked at these articles before, but surely the nub of the question (is this guy the leader of a cult), whether the Sathya Sai Organization (or Sathya Sai Baba movement - why do we have two articles?) is itself a cult. Certainly this noticeboard might want to look at that article first since at the moment it seems rather stuffed with uncritical puffery. Once this is sorted then it can be stated that Sathya is leader of "the Sathya Sai Organization, a $thingy" where $thingy is "cult", "philanthropic organization", "religious movement" or whatever. This also avoids BLP issues by characterizing the organization, not the person. Alexbrn (talk) 07:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC); Amended 17:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC) he's actually dead I see.

For a start lets AFD one of them.Slatersteven (talk) 08:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: "Cult" is a slur word - it's kind of like calling someone a racist in a heading of a wiki article on that person. Even if a potential RS from 35 years ago called someone a racist and a tabloid called them a racist (the two sources cited for cult) - you don't really need an RS doing a report saying they are categorically not a racist to prudently avoid using the term in a heading. IMHO opinion unless the vast majority of RS are comfortable doing it you shouldn't do it in the heading, perhaps in allegations as mentioned.

@Alexbrn: you're not likely to find much to suggest cult in the SSB organization. I'm happy to share a few facts on your talk page. Anyway, we seem to be building consensus amongst MrX, SMcCandlish, C.Fred, and myself - if you'd like to do your own research and come back to us before giving a full thumbs up, fine, but at the moment do you have objections to the change to the article proposed by ::@MrX:? do you have an objection @Slatersteven?Objectiveap (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with the topic so don't know if it applies in this case, but if something's a cult (according to RS), then Misplaced Pages calls it a cult. That is the very essence of neutrality, the focus of this noticeboard. We don't shy away from accurate descriptions because some people (usually adherents) don't like them. Alexbrn (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but attributed to the source; or in Misplaced Pages's voice only if it is a widely-held viewpoint as evidenced by use in most reliable sources.- MrX 🖋 17:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

If it's called a cult in RS without explicit contradiction from other RS, Misplaced Pages asserts that it is a cult. If the term is disputed in RS, Misplaced Pages attributes it. We don't attribute what isn't disputed (in RS) because it gives a false impression of controversy. This is set out in WP:ASSERT. In general, the only sources of use in considering the cult-or-not aspect of an organisation, are strong publications considering that specific aspect. Alexbrn (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

No, that is most definitely not how it works. It does not need to rise to level of a controversy at all. I again refer you to WP:LABEL and WP:YESPOV.- MrX 🖋 18:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:YESPOV is apposite (WP:LABEL is in a style guide). We don't give "seriously contested" opinions as facts. To show something is "seriously contested", RS is required. It's not enough for an editor to affirm it. Alexbrn (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

"If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."- MrX 🖋 18:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. If (to adopt the terminology) we have "A" and "not A" type sources, then these assertions conflict. If we have "A" and "B" sources then we do not know if they conflict, and report - if not contradicted - as additive facts. To say "b mean not A" you'd need a source for that. Alexbrn (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Alexbrn I'm glad you've discovered this interesting subject. However, there are probably millions of statements made by RS about things that do not belong in HEADINGS of articles. You don't have to have refutations directly addressing the claim to be wise enough in view of neutrality to put it in a proper place and not the heading. Common sense and wikipedia policy dictates it and MrX is correct in his citations of wikipedia policy. If several RS described George Bush as a cowboy, and an anonymous IP address puts it in the heading attributed to a 35 year old source (a la Babb) and a tabloid as reference it doesn't mean you cannot remove or move it without an RS source saying he is 'not a cowboy'. You don't need an article written proving he is not a cowboy. That's absurd. There are probably about 1000 books/articles written about Sathya Sai Baba, if a couple say cult, it doesn't make it one, and it doesn't mean it goes in the heading. The argument you are proposing (direct refutation in RS required to not have something in a heading) is that if one RS says something and if 999,999 other RS characterize it another way. The one description has a right to the heading unless that claim is specifically refuted in another RS. You must admit that is not a sound argument. Objectiveap (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

For reasons given by multiple editors above @MrX:@SMcCandlish:, in view of neutrality, it's probably not required to find a scholarly source definitively disputing cult status to remove cult from the heading. However, since it's been requested by some @Alexbrn:, here is one: a specific review of Babb (the cited "cult leader" source), specifically challenging/refuting his assertion of 'cult', in a double-blind peer-reviewed journal... So 'Cult' is disputed by scholarly RS, disputed in general, and the SSB movement is generally not characterized as s cult by the majority of RS (for good reasons imo) as we have found from our searches of RS. On top of which it is a controversial slur. It is not a fact - does it belong in the heading? Question for all ye more learned Wikipedians than I (@C.Fred:) - where should we go from here/do we have enough for consensus?Objectiveap (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

A book review is not a great source, and as for "double-blind", the mind boggles. I think we do have consensus, that the wording is okay. I'd say a fair way to describe this movement is probably "cult-like" if a middle way is desired. Alexbrn (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Alexbrn It's a specific refutation of the cited source in the article, refuting the specific idea you asked to see refuted in an academic journal. If you think it's cult-like argue it in the allegations. You know full well it's a disputed idea, controversial, avoided by the majority of RS, and that most all the editors here tested the RS for themselves, before agreeing it should be moved from the heading since there are better more neutral ways of describing it. Objectiveap (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Racial views of Donald Trump

There are multiple issues in the named article beginning with its title, and the context of the article as it relates to the title. The lede is not compliant with policy, and prior attempts to neutralize it have been a struggle. In fact, the body is also not compliant with policy - there are sections that are not related to race but take on a cast of racism because of the way they are presented. There is no question that Trump's commentary can be explosive, which has caused his detractors and political opponents to attach "-ist" to words they use to describe him; however, allegations of him being racist, whether believed or perceived, are still WP:GOSSIP, fueled for the most part by partisanship and biased sources. We all have our POV, but when the sources are also partisan, such as what POLITICO and NYTimes journalist Daniel Okrent have admitted to, it makes the issue a bit more complicated when the topic is a political opponent, especially during an election year. Rather than try to tackle the entire article at this point, I was hoping we could focus on the lede first. It may help set the tone for further changes. Following are the main concerns:

1. The first paragraph of the lede is 100% negative and one-sided
2. The second paragraph of the lede is 99% negative and one-sided except for a single sentence of denial at the end of the paragraph.
3. The third paragraph is 99% negative and one-sided, and there is omission of the undecided percentage in the polling in the last sentence; e.g. if 45% say he's racist and 40% say he is not, what about the missing 15%? Roll Call published a poll by YouGov which provides a more detailed report for inclusion and it demonstrates the partisanship nature of the results.

I doubt few will disagree that political articles are volatile, but regardless of what side you're on, if you happen to be on the opposing side at any given point in time, there are risks involved. We try really hard to not WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, especially those we know exist in society, but we must keep emotion-creep in check, stick to dispassionate and abide by our core content policies. I have always been somewhat of a pragmatist but that doesn't mean I am not passionate about injustices in RL - I just don't bring them with me when I'm editing. Let the games begin! 18:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to get into the weeds of this quagmire, but I can at least comment about the page title, to which you refer at the beginning of your post here. I do not see a POV problem with the title. It doesn't purport to say what his views are (unlike, for example, "Racist views...", which would of course violate POV). The page suffers from being about such recent events that there isn't much basis for historical perspective, but that will work itself out over time. An argument can be made that a page about his racial views, as opposed to his views in total, tends towards being a POV-fork, but the sheer quantity of page content seems to justify a standalone page at this time. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I do wish people would not exaggerate. For instance the first paragraph is not 100% negative and one sided. 'Donald Trump, the President of the United States" for instance is quite neutral. Or if going by complete sentences the second paragraph contains nowhere near fifty sentences and so cannot be 99% negative. Dmcq (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. If editors expect their arguments to be treated seriously, they need to make serious arguments. Edwardx (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The 1st sentence states that the President of the United States has a history of making racially-charged remarks and pursuing racially-motivated actions and policies that have led observers across the political spectrum to conclude that he is racist. How is that NPOV, what "history" - he has only been in office 13 months - and how does any of it relate to it being his racial view? Furthermore, "led observers across the political spectrum" is wide ranging, keeping in mind that less than half the US population considers him to be a racist, and of that number, the majority happen to be his political opposition. As a sidebar, I don't participate at the noticeboards unless I'm here to make a serious argument. 01:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, that strikes me weird "NY Times journalist Okrent admitted to" He was the Public Editor at the Times. Could you rephrase or elaborate? SPECIFICO talk 23:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I borrowed from Okrent's comment when he said in the first paragraph, "...to the appointment of an admitted Democrat to be its watchdog. (That would be me.)" I included the NYTimes piece because Jack Shafer, senior media writer of POLITICO I cited wanted readers to see left bent, not from a political POV, but from the perspective of a social scientist. He referenced Okrent's column in the NYTimes because it supported his narrative. Both articles explain each publication's left bent, but describe it in an interesting way. Okrent explained that the editorial page of the Times was "so thoroughly saturated in liberal theology that when it occasionally strays from that point of view the shocked yelps from the left overwhelm even the ceaseless rumble of disapproval from the right." 01:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

That's extraordinarily sloppy. Please read up on what Okrent's role was at the Times, consider what he actually wrote, and don't use it to put forth a midleading narrative here. SPECIFICO talk 01:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, are you saying that POLITICO is extraordinarily sloppy, because if you read that article, you will have seen that Okrent was quoted by Shafer, and that POLITICO recommended reading Okrent's article. It doesn't matter what Okrent's role was - what matters is that POLITICO thought enough about it to quote him and recommend the read. 03:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Say what? I'm saying you misrepresented what Okrent said and the context and mandate of his writing for the NY Times. SPECIFICO talk 03:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Nope. You're misrespresenting what I said. 06:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a complete - and disruptive - waste of time and WP:FORUMSHOPPING. We've been over this at the article's AFD, on the talk page, on various other talk pages and probably a few more forums. It's a textbook case of WP:TEND, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:DROPSTICK by Atsme.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Because Atsme had approached me n my talk page, I note that I can't justify an AFD of this, but I do think there are issues. Of the whole article, there's a few (4-5) sentences of Trump or people representing him providing counter-arguments. We can't make a false balance here, the racial views of Trump are in a plurality, and what Trump and others say in his defense are going to be but a small part of the article -- but from my recollection of the RSes (even those used to justify the racial statements), there's a lot more that Trump et al have said in his defense to specific incidents that seems to be missing here. We are here to document controversies, not take one side or the other, and this article is written clearly in a tone that is anti-Trump. Any of these "Criticism of X" articles have to be handled carefully. It's fixable, however, so AFD is not a solution here. --Masem (t) 02:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to summarize here a note I left on Masem's talk page. Trump and others have not commented on the assessments (from RS) that are presented in the article. There are some very energetic editors on the article who echo Atsme's concerns on the talk page but have not been able to locate or propose any well-sourced on-topic content that would "balance" the article. Our test of NPOV and balance is that we give fair representation of the bulk of RS narratives, not that we can somehow find something that says the opposite of what the mainstream reports. But the fact is that several editors have advocated cherry-picked bits from primary sources in some kind of attempt to "balance" the mainstream narrative to something different. That only demonstrates that their search for independent secondary references has only produced more of the allegedly negative assessment of Trunp's views. SPECIFICO talk 02:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Just checked: let's take the "shithole countries" (which is a very valid topic to put on this page). In the 4-5 days after that, I see numerous articles quoting Trump defending what he said (beyond what he said on Twitter), which do not appear to be in the article. We've got every other possible person with an opinion, but have a half-sentence for Trump only, the person at the center of it. That's a problem. We don't need a zillion opinions in prose to demonstrate numerous ppl think the statement was racist but we should have more from the person himself to counter those. That's one example, I suspect many more can be found. It's not about fair representation, but overbalanced on a controversy that will never be resolved, since what can be racism is in the eye of the beholder. --Masem (t) 02:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Specifico. Balance doesn’t mean we look for bad things to say about a box of cute kittens or good things to say about (avoiding Godwin, fill in the blank). We just report what RS say according to the preponderance of such. We must avoid false balance. O3000 (talk) 02:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Being a BLP makes this a different matter, particularly one that is frequently quoted in RSes. --Masem (t) 03:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

If the article is a WP:POVFORK, why does it exist? How can it possibly be balanced when its title sets out a scope of including those views that are "racial"? The existence of an article with a title "Racial views of Donald Trump" assures the creation of an article that will be overwhelmingly focussed on anything that by any stretch of the imagination can be construed as "racial". If those views exist they should be found in the article on "Donald Trump" where they can find context and balance. Bus stop (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is a BLP. But, we must remember WP:PUBLICFIGURE. And, is there a more public figure? O3000 (talk) 03:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Bus Stop, that's like saying Shakespearean tragedy is a POV fork of Shakespearean drama. Like Shakespeare, Trump is multi-faceted and prolific. SPECIFICO talk 03:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The Shakespearean tragedies were written four hundred years ago whereas Donald Trump is presently President of the United States. That article benefits from four hundred years of scholarship. This article can only be based on political squabbling. From our perspective we should be taking on the task of writing a well-balanced article on Donald Trump, not isolating a subject area in which the man can only receive negative treatment. That is what we are doing by having an article on his supposed racial views. It is not even established that Donald Trump has racial views. Political wrangling commonly includes the flinging of the invective "racist". This can be the case whether it makes sense or not. Our perspective is not four hundred years. For all intents and purposes we have no perspective. Our task is to write one well-balanced article. Bus stop (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This article can only be based on political squabbling. -- Nobody who believes that should be participating in this discussion, right? SPECIFICO talk 03:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps that was overstated. The likelihood of calling Trump a racist is high due to political squabbling. Is that acceptable now? Bus stop (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Have a look at the article talk page. There are no editors expressing personal opinions that Trump about Trump's racial views, let alone calling him a "racist". It's a very ordinary talk page discussing sources and references. Actually the POV problems are folks who keep trying to use primary sourced statements of Trumps that they then burden with their own interpretations. This is being done by editors who say they feel the article is biased against Trump because the mainstream analysis of his statements portrays him in ways that make them uncomfortable. SPECIFICO talk 04:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The article's existence is biased against Trump. The existence of this article compares favorably to a billboard. The title of the article announces that Trump is a racist. It almost doesn't matter what is written in the article. If this were 1933 and Misplaced Pages were around would we write an article called "Racial views of Adolf Hitler"? My answer is "yes". Maybe I don't know Adolf Hitler well enough, but I am assuming he announced or strongly signaled his racial views. Not so with Donald Trump—laughably not so. He is not angling to disenfranchise any racial or religious or ethnic sector of the population—at least not of this country (the United States). He says "We are going to make America great again", and "America first". But any "racial" tones are byproducts of his American nationalism. Duh—he is the President of the United States. He is entitled to talk up his country. Bus stop (talk) 04:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Remember that PUBLICFIGURE includes " If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." Now, yes, you have 4-5 sentences to this effect, but I would argue there needs to be a stronger effort to address that for each of the specific racial areas identified in the article, when possible. --Masem (t) 03:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Masem: To follow up on your example, there's been fairly extensive discussion among editors as to whether the shithole countries remark can be characterized as a "racial" view or whether it's about some other aspect of immigration. There is talk page discussion as to whether there are RS that characterize it as racial or on the other hand whether they say that it's not about race. I think that's actually a great example that shows there is no bias among the editors or in the article. Are you saying there should be a statement from POTUS to the effect that yes he made that remark but no it was not about race? Do you have a citation we can use for such a denial. That's not anything I have seen reported. SPECIFICO talk 03:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Whether the "shithole" stuff stays on that page or not is a fully separate discussion, though I do note in my quick search above, "racist/racial" wording was used in many of the articles that are quoting Trump's following comments. THat seems to make it appropriate there. However, beyond that, regardless if it is included on that page or in the immigration page, Trump's comments should be incorporated to balance out the counterpoint on a subjective matter related to a BLP. Doesn't need to be 50/50 (nor can I expect it to be) but they shouldn't be swept under the proverbial rug, if editors are going to give that much coverage to analysts and other opinion-makers about it. --Masem (t) 03:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

But none of the aggrieved editors has found any source that we could use to support Trump denying the interpretations that have been found in RS. It's not like Trump said actually this was not a racial category or that it was a good thing or whatnot. It's not like Atsme found some source that's being improperly rejected at the article talk page. What are we discussing here? SPECIFICO talk 03:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe Trump's responses are included. If there is anything missing, this belongs on the TP, not here. O3000 (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

We're talkign NPOV. You have half a sentence for Trump, and numerous paragraphs from everyone else. That's not a neutral presentation of material, and should be adjusted (But not to be a false equivalent balances - just a sentence or two for Trump, and cutting about half of the other opinions). --Masem (t) 03:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

We can only weigh what's neutral against what is found in the bulk of mainstream RS. Unless I'm wrong about that, could you state a policy-based argument that this is not NPOV? SPECIFICO talk 03:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I would hope common sense and decency here given that we are an encyclopedia, but more importantly WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:RECENTISM (and I'll point to this yet-completed essay User:MjolnirPants/Academic Neutrality that captures the issue - in that we strive for academic notability, and not the type of neutrality that UNDUE suggests). I know a lot of journalists and editors alike do not like Trump, and there's an overwhelming number of negative articles out there to justify covering him only negatively per UNDUE. But at this point in time, we have no idea if this is going to be part of his "legacy" or the like. That there are many incidents of Trump being claimed to have racial views, and there's definitely a few that belong on this list (thus justifying the article presently), but we still need to remember that we look to the long-term and look to judge the situation once Trump's well out of office. Again, you don't and can't support a false balance of equal weight, but you cannot stuff every possible opinion that speaks against Trump and not include a reasonable fair amount of Trump's own comments or those speaking to defend them (as long as they are from RSes). --Masem (t) 04:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

You've said that many times. But you have given no example that it has occurred. SPECIFICO talk 04:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Masem, the RS are available. Finding balanced, unbiased sources depends a great deal on how one conducts their Google search. WP:RACIST says contentious labels are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. For some reason, that doesn't apply to Trump. He has been judged in MSM's court of public opinion (despite the polls that show less than half of the population agree that he is racist, and of that number the majority comprises partisan opposition). We also have WP:GOSSIP, but that doesn't apply to Trump, either. Smells alot like a double standard. I have pointed out multiple RS on the TP of the article, because they actually do contain different views. The problem has been getting those views into the article amid heavy opposition which looks quite similar to what is happening now. Following are sources I've proposed on the TP: NYTimes, Vox, HuffPo, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Tribune, CNN, Fortune,Chicago Tribune, Politico. In fact, some of the same articles and opinion pieces are currently being used in the article so the passages were chosen to fit the negative narrative while the opposing views were omitted. Both views are prominent but because of the biased POV reflected in the sources, the weight lists heavily to the left. The article is about the views of a right leaning conservative president, so bias is expected, especially in this election year when so many seats in Congress are at stake. See my opening statement above regarding the polling and biased sources. 05:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• (Re to the initial posting by Atsme on the top of the thread). "Negative and one-sided" is not a policy-based argument. One should ask: does the paragraph fairly reflect what RS tell on the subject (WP:NPOV). Yes, it certainly does. There is no problem. In fact, this page follows WP:NPOV much better than a lot of other pages around. This is merely a controversial subject, nothing else. My very best wishes (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

There's a big difference between picking passages that "fairly reflect what RS tell on the subject" as long as they support ones own POV while omitting opposing views. That is exactly what has happened, not to mention that many of the sources that were chosen have a political bias (some are circular reporting) which should be taken into consideration when determining WEIGHT. 05:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This page already tells that he denied such accusation. If there is anything to add in his favor based on additional sources, this should be added in the body of the page, and then in the lead. But right now the lead seem to fairly summarize content of the page. A disclaimer: I did not read a lot about it and do not think that his "racial views" is the biggest problem. My very best wishes (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Read Masem's & Bus Stop's comments. Thank you. 05:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that Trump’s responses tend to be along the lines of I’m the least racist person you’ll ever meet, or the media are all liars and the enemy of the people, or Hispanics love me, or crooked Hillary did something. We can’t help it if the subject is ineloquent in his responses and make his case for him. We have to make do with what exists. O3000 (talk) 12:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

As WP editors we should not care how illogical or non-sequitur the responses Trump gives to defend himself to claims his statements are racist - they are still counter-points he or those speaking for him have made. We document the controversy, we don't attempt to take sides. --Masem (t) 14:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Right, but he does not respond to most of the mainstream discussion of him. He's said he's the least racist person you'll ever meet and that's easy to include. Beyond that, he doesn't respond to the kind of analysis that's in the article. Once again, the easiest way to address the concerns of the editors who feel there's an NPOV problem would be for them to propose well-sourced germane responses to anything they consider inaccurate or biased. If this thread -- like the article talk page -- produces no such proposals, then there's no point continuing to discuss this complaint. SPECIFICO talk 14:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that in general, how Trump approaches his criticisms makes it more difficult to insert his counter-arguments in a manner we'd normally use, but I disagree that it is impossible. It's out there, and I'm only using the "shithole" situation as a reference point. (eg we have what he said on Twitter in the article, but he spoke to press in the days after to clarify more which should also be included)

But the other aspect that you bring up is "kind of analysis". I know when this article was at AFD or somewhere else before that several editors did point that there are a good handful of articles that documented several of Trump's racial-charged statements/incidents, enough to support the existence of this article. That's fine. But we should not be seeking to analyze these ourselves; that's engaging in OR that also impacts the neutrality of the article. Again, using the "shithole" comments as an example, particularly now a month out from the event, the amount of commentary and discussion about it is far too excessive, as well as bordering on WP:QUOTEFARM. Yes, UNDUE says that the coverage is going to weigh the voices that considered the comment racist, no question, but we don't need every specific quote from anyone that commented on it. You can summarize "Several Senators and Republicans felt Trump's statement was racially-charged and inappropriate" or something like that. UNDUE does not mean "pile-on", particularly in light of what academic neutrality should be. And given that the incident was a blip and not a long-term issue, I would consider the amount of coverage overall to it on that page excessive (particularly given all the other sections). We should be letting sources determine when the public opinion believe what Trump said was considered racist (eg like for the Charlottesville rally) rather than us collecting quotes and says "this proves it". That's part of the neutrality problem here. --Masem (t) 15:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

It is not uncommon for articles like this to become a bit bloated. Some of the piling on is a result of UNDUE complaints to show "dueness". I’m not one of the article authors as I’ve only made one 18 character edit. But, I think trimming suggestions should always be welcome. O3000 (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Quite right. And. I’m not seeing from this discussion how that the editors have failed at that task. I’m just seeing a broad based statement that the article as a whole is biased after the originator failed at changing consensus for individual inclusions/exclusions. O3000 (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Masem: I am puzzled when you say we should not be seeking to analyze these ourselves; that's engaging in OR that also impacts the neutrality of the article. Where in the article do you see analysis that is the OR of Misplaced Pages editors rather than RS noteworthy reporting or analysis? If there were any OR, it would have been identified on the article talk page and removed. In fact the only OR I'm aware of came up when an editor tried to insert a cherry-picked and misquoted string of words from Trump's inaugural address. I don't recall any other case of editors inserting OR into the article, including OR that attributes a statement to the topic of race when RS have not explicitly made that connection. SPECIFICO talk 17:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Masem, don't you find it rather disconcerting that our encyclopedia even has a BLP wherein the person has to "defend him/herself" because of partisan disapproval that comprises the bulk of the article? The Trump vs Media war is in full swing, but appears to be winding down somewhat as evidenced in this article. I am sad to know that WP jumped on the news media bandwagon despite WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NEWSORG and the many other policies that demonstrate noncompliance in the article. As I stated in my opening remarks, the lede comprises one negative opinion after another, some of which are cited to a social justice advocacy, commentary, and opinion - none of which can be seriously categorized as raw news supported by statements of fact. While WP is not a WP:SOAPBOX or a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, a few of the comments I've read over the past few months supporting the status quo of this article indicate otherwise. The claim by Durbin that he said "shithole" remains disputed and controversial - there was a brief period of reporting that mentioned it could have been "shithouse", but all are based on the single allegation made by one of Trump's most aggressive detractors. Others in attendance vehemently denied the allegation, Trump denied the allegation, yet article after article (some of which is circular reporting), ran with the statement as if it was a statement of fact. Aren't we supposed to use editorial judgment when including such derogatory opinions along with in-text attribution, especially one as controversial as this one? Where does it say in our PAGs that an entire article can be based on nothing but derogatory opinions and unsubtantiated statements...WP:GOSSIP...and WP:Racist labeling published in biased news sources that used weasel words to describe it? Is this what our encyclopedic has become - a political SOAPBOX to denigrate opponents? Our PAGs caution us about such things, yet those cautions appear to be unheeded for the most part.

Re: the last paragraph in the article should be cause for concern because it indirectly implies that over half the US population and a significant portion of the world population is racist in the statement: "but excused by his supporters", not to mention the fact it is stated in WikiVoice. Equally as bad is the use of an ever-changing "morning consult poll" to establish what American voters think of Trump being a racist but it leaves out the undecided opinions which could support either side - but we're still talking about less than half the population with at least a 5 to 7 point margin of error who believe he is racist, and the majority of them comprise the political opposition. The polls were wrong about who would be president, so why are we allowing in the lede a weekly poll result (obviously cherrypicked) for inclusion knowing the small window of polling (from Oct. 19 to 23) during a time when controversy was raging over Trump’s phone call to Myeshia Johnson, which sadly was another emotional he said/she said scenario that makes it even more difficult to maintain a NPOV?

Trump's racially insensitive statements have been condemned by many observers in the U.S. and around the world, but excused by his supporters either as a rejection of political correctness or because they harbor similar racial sentiments. Several studies and surveys have stated 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. According to an October 2017 Politico/Morning Consult poll, 45% of American voters think Trump is racist and 40% don't.

This discussion by JFG, as well as this discussion by me took place regarding "racist attitudes and racial resentment". 16:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

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. However, I know very much I'm in a minority based on the previous discussion of the page. So I'll live by consensus that has demonstrated this is a topic covered in RSes. But as I noted before, like any "Criticism of X" page, particularly one involving a BLP, there are many many cautions one must apply to avoid an implicit bias; that's not happening here yet and that is what needs to be fixed. It is key we should remain as impartial and dispassionate about the topic despite the furor in the media, but I think it's a case where trying to see the neutral point is difficult when this is also a very emotional topic for both the press and editors here. Regardless, we need to try to work collaborative to fix it, since there is some broader consensus behind the reasons to keep this article. --Masem (t) 16:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This is really a horrific straw man. This article is not a "Criticism of X" article any more than "Racial views of Obama" or "Racial views of Nelson Mandela" would be "Criticism of X" articles. I think that what we've learned in this thread is that some editors feel that our definition of NPOV is flawed, or at least that it doesn't work for certain kinds of articles, particularly current events. That's a useful discovery for future discussion, but for the time being I think it's now settled that nobody has identified a single instance of NPOV failure that we can correct so as to improve the article under our current definition of NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 17:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, perhaps we're reading different PAGs - Masem and I have cited relevant PAGs - which ones support your argument? Where is the article on "Racial views of Obama" or "Racial views of LBJ" or "Racial views of Barry Goldwater" and so forth? In fact, are there any other articles that represent any other BLP's "racial views" from which we can create a precedent? What exactly is racism because I fail to see how border security and national defense fall into that category? 20:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Aww, I bet we're really not reading different policies, Atsme. If you think there is good content for those articles about Obama, Goldwater, and LBJ, I certainly encourage you to start them. I'll be looking forward to contributing. SPECIFICO talk 20:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

"Racial views of Trump" is a valid topic, if approached from the "academic" angle, or more specifically, sources completely disinterested in the controversial nature of Trump; we'd expect the same for a "Criticism of X" type article. The problem is that there are very few academic sources about this at the present - nearly all sources used are current press sources citing opinions about Trump's statements. That is nowhere close to academic, and to try to argue that forms a topic from this state begs (but not necessarily) original research ("A lot of people hate on Trump, we can totally justify this!") I have little question in the far future this will be subject of academic debate, so I don't see the point in deleting the page presently, but we need to recognize that collecting every sound bite to express how much ppl hate Trump is not appropriate for us. It goes back to documenting the controversy while not taking any side in it, until we can start pulling disinterested secondary sources that help to guide how we can frame the situation. --Masem (t) 21:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

There has been, and continues to be, enormous RS coverage of Trump and racial issues. This is not surprising as he seems to be constantly running smack into race-related problems. Claiming that this is about border security and national defense grossly understates the situation, as documented by the article based on RS. IMO, the article wasn’t created until there was so much commentary in RS that it became embarrassing for WP to ignore it. O3000 (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, no, we're not require to cover something just because a zillion sources have covered it. Celebrity gossip is for example one thing we ignore volume of RSes in favor of BLP. That said, I fully agree to not have something on Trump and his racial-charged statements in some article would be improper, and we do have some good summary sources (including an NYTimes article) that address the situation (including that Trump seems to deflect the criticism) to that point, and the topic will only gain more appropriate secondary sources in the future. But we should try to avoid the overabundance of primary sources (the news opinions and analysts, rather than simple summaries of the dispite) here, and for that reason is why this article feels out of whack in terms of neutrality. --Masem (t) 00:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I went back and re-read WP:NOV while focusing on this particular page. It seems to me that the WP:GEVAL section of the policy page is particularly relevant here. Creating a false equivalence between both "sides" would itself be a POV violation – and therefore giving more weight to ways in which Trump has said things that are controversial, relative to defenses of what he said, is appropriate. On the other hand, determining exactly how to apportion that weight at this time is pretty near to impossible, given the lack of historical perspective. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I think there may be some confusion as to what constitutes encyclopedic content, and that it isn't necessarily an indiscriminate catch-all of everything published in a news source, especially when it's opinion and not news at all. Trump being a racist is nothing more than "derogatory opinions" and other people's perceptions - are we now trying WP:PUBLICFIGURE in the court of public opinion, or are we using wise editorial judgment and including substantiated statements of fact? Worse yet, those derogatory opinions come from predominately biased sources and political opponents, not to mention circular reporting that lends credence to the logical fallacy of "multiple reports". Our PAGs also say how we should treat WP:RACIST labels, and I see no justification to treat them any other way, regardless of the number of sources that publish such WP:GOSSIP. A closer look at where the allegations originated and how those opinions were formulated gives one much better insight to what is truth and what is opposition rhetoric to cause political damage. It's actually quite sad. 18:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, for the love of everything decent! Why do you keep calling Trump a racist? I don't see any other editors doing that. It's weirding me out. Also, please differentiate between analysis and accusation. I don't see any accusations. Finally, what makes you think it's even particularly bad to be called a racist or to be a racist in the contemporary United States? How many years was Strom Thurmond in the US Senate? I see more NPOV problems with the way this question has been posed than anything on the article pages. SPECIFICO talk 20:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I actually do love everything decent. Uhm...your question which misinterprets what I said, but that's ok - when sh*t happens it makes sh*tholes - I will assume full responsibility for that *sh*tty* phrase and will summarize by drawing your attention to the 1st sentence in the lede of the article (my bold underline): ...has a history of making racially-charged remarks and pursuing racially-motivated actions and policies that have led observers across the political spectrum to conclude that he is racist. I should have pretended that statement is not in the article. My apologies. 🤗  21:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the content in the Lede is well-sourced. Lots of folks across the political spectrum in the USA consider him a racist. It's not stated in WP's voice and editors didn't just make it up. You remember all the sourcing for that, right? SPECIFICO talk 21:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Nope. 22:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, you asked about this: Donald Trump, the President of the United States, has a history of making racially-charged remarks and pursuing racially-motivated actions and policies that have led observers across the political spectrum to conclude that he is racist. Ok, who said it if not Misplaced Pages? Whose voice is it?"

Okay, how about this very similar quote from Jim Acosta (his running comment about Trump's "shithole" remark is collected here): "The president has a long history of making racially insensitive remarks, from his comments on Mexican immigrants ... to his defense of white supremacist protesters in Charlottesville last year. The president's latest comments raised questions about past White House denials, that its immigration policy is racially motivated. You're trying to engineer the racial and ethnic flow of people into this country." CNN transcript -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer, as long as it is properly attributed to Acosta, it belongs in the article, but not in the lede. The lede sentence should be changed to read something more along the line of The President of the United States, Donald Trump, has been widely criticized for making statements many consider to be racially-charged, and for pursuing what his political opponents consider racially-motivated actions and policies which have led them to the conclusion that he is racist. <--- factual statements compliant with NPOV using editorial judgment to include what the sources say. Back to your question - the alleged "shithole" remark originated from Durbin, one of Trump's many aggressive political opponents in the Senate, and the only Democrat who attended that meeting. The news jumped all over his allegations like a duck on a June bug - WP should not have per PAGs. Our presentation should more closely follow a similar tone to what this report reflects. I have yet to find any supporting evidence that (1) Trump actually said those words, except for Durbin's claim and what the biased media claims, and (2) verifiable evidence that Graham agreed those were Trump's exact words eludes me - in fact, Graham's public statement tells a different story although it aligns with the feasibility that Trump said something in the meeting that was not politically correct when describing certain poverty-stricken countries. There could be a section titled Journalist accusations of racism or Media accusations that Trump is a racist or the like and include Acosta's statement in that section along with the others.

As for the Charlottesville incident, this NBC report provides a transcript of what Trump said from which quotes can be used in the article, and also include Trump's sentiments about the media in that same section. That is what I consider providing properly balanced information from which our readers can draw their own conclusions. It is important to eliminate all the circular reporting and factor in what the majority of people in the US believe per legitimate polling; i.e., that the majority does not consider Trump to be a racist and that is the mainstream view - not biased media's view - but we have to take media bias into consideration because of the Trump vs MSM war if we ever hope to formulate a truly balanced and NPOV compliant encyclopedic article that will have staying power. Yes, it's extremely difficult to leave our biases, social justice beliefs and other emotions at login - it takes practice, often decades worth - but you can do it, BR. I've seen your work and you're a damn good editor. Let's get this article right so we can get back to NPP and AfC work before the backlogs swallow us alive. 15:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

You asked for an example, you got an example (Acosta). Now you're trying to argue something different. The sentence accurately summarizes the contents of the article, which is based on reliable sources. That's it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

No, VM - we are having a civil discussion and being productive as a result. The discussion continues after the arbitrary break. You are the one trying to turn it into an argument but I will not partake. Happy editing. 12:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

So here they are for comparison:

1. Donald Trump, the President of the United States, has a history of making racially-charged remarks and pursuing racially-motivated actions and policies that have led observers across the political spectrum to conclude that he is racist. Currently in lead.
2. The President of the United States, Donald Trump, has been widely criticized for making statements many consider to be racially-charged, and for pursuing what his political opponents consider racially-motivated actions and policies which have led them to the conclusion that he is racist. Atsme's suggestion.

I think there is merit in Atsme's suggestion. Work with it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I think this new suggestion is no good. First, it adds weasel language in several spots. "Many consider" adds no meaning. What RS reports Trump has not been criticized for making racially-charged remarks? This doesn't have WP stating he's "racist". (which I've repeatedly opposed). Second, "what his political opponents consider..." introduces the SYNTH insinuation that they were his opponents first and then later conveniently attached themselves to the claim that Trump's policies are racially motivated. This weasel/synth soup would start off leading our readers away from the mainstream consensus. What sources tell us is that most people criticize his racially-tainted statements and actions that this rejection of his positions led these people to oppose those actions or to oppose Trump politically. We have accomplished nothing at all in this long thread. It's all a rehash of arguments that were previously rejected on the article talk page. If there were any merit at all to your concerns, this NPOV/N would have shown the usual outpouring of support that it produces when valid arguments are presented. SPECIFICO talk 16:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

What RS reports Trump has not been criticized for making racially-charged remarks? You can't prove a negative, and in addition, you're only considering "reliable sources". We can only include factual statements from RS, but that does not prevent inclusion of appropriate opinion from non-RSes (eg Breitbart).

This is pointing out the overall problem when we are trying to construct articles of ongoing controversial topics. We have no idea, in the long-term, what the big picture is. In the short-term, we know nearly every mainstream press dislikes Trump, and spend much of their broadcast time to criticize him. From an UNDUE frame, it suggest we should only include the complaints, but that's not academically neutral. We want to document the controversy which means in the short term being very caution about the volume of opinions from the press and others; we know its a majority, and should reflect that, but we cannot presume they are "right". Decades from now, scholars will be able to provide a better summary of how to write these events. Maybe then we don't have to weasel-word the lede, but in the immediate time frame, we cannot make these superlatative generalizations - we need the careful wording like "many consider..." to avoid absolutes that we cannot justifiable assert right now. We need to step farther back, and until the controversial aspects have died out (well after Trump has left office in this case) can we get more in-depth using secondary sources rather than primary ones. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talk • contribs) 16:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Masem, it's not "proving a negative" to find a single RS that states "Trump has not been criticised..." The rest of your post is repeating points you've already made, some of them valid, some not. I don't see any superlatives in either version of the lede, but as I said, the current lede is supported by the article text and its cited sources, so there's that. SPECIFICO talk 17:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, the suggested change is not "weasel-synth soup" 😂, it is policy compliant unlike the current statement which is noncompliant and wrongfully stated in WikiVoice as a statement of fact when it is nothing more than opinions, primarily drawn from the partisan left and Trump detractors. I've already recited the portion of NPOV that is relevant to how I phrased it. What Masem said hit the nail square on which is supported in part by WP:NEWSORG - "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). Opinions comprise a significant portion of the political section in a RS, so it's not really "news" nor do those sections necessarily contain statements of fact. Such columns are subject to publisher/author opinion, propaganda, editorial decisions to increase bait & click revenue, and are likely to be biased as I've already explained. Statements of fact are exactly that; e.g., the train derailed, there was a 12 car pile-up, the hurricane devasted the island, etc. Labeling Trump a racist is nothing more than a negative opinion being floated by biased sources in their respective political sections. There is also the reprint factor from news agencies (circular reporting) that must be considered, such as BBC News, NYTimes, WaPo, Reuters, UPI, API, which are actually primary sources; therefore, when the Chicago Tribune cites WaPo, and the NYTimes cites the same WaPo article, that is considered one source, not multiple, and the same applies if WaPo, NYTimes, and Chicago Tribune all cite the same AP report = 1 source. We don't determine WEIGHT by the number of sources involved in circular reporting. As Masem pointed out, WP:RECENTISM#What_to_do_about_it is also an issue that has to be addressed. When there are allegations it "should prompt consideration of proportion, balance, and due weight" which is exactly why I brought the issue to NPOV/N. 18:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Well you've seen me opposing recentism on a dozen of these politics articles, but that's not really a subject for this board. Anyway what are you going to do if folks think less of Trump in the future. Right now 30-someodd percent say Trump is not a racist. Maybe you should take your winnings and call it quits. SPECIFICO talk 19:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the second one is marginally better than the first one, but they both have the same problem: they tell us very little about Trump's views on race. While I've seen some arguments that nobody really knows Trump's racial views, quite a few analysis articles connect them to "white identity politics and the politics of white resentment," (see also: , ) which helps explain the rest of the article. _Gravity 22:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

After going through and checking some of the cited sources, there were quite a few sources that make no mention of the words "race, racism, or racial", and the ones I've reviewed that do use the terminology against Trump do so in a single comment or in passing mention rather than it being a "significant viewpoint". Example 1 where there is passing mention, Example 2 with no mention. I actually evaluated the sources cited in one section and was dismayed by what I discovered. It appears the issues are not just NPOV but OR and SYNTH as well, which appears to be what was used to determine the tone and weight of the article. Masem what is your suggestion at this point in time? Do we wait for more uninvolved input, do we close this discussion and just keep working to correct the noncompliance even though, as evidenced in this discussion, there is substantial resistance to change? 10:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Confusing title

A slight side issue... I have to say that the title of the article is confusing. My expectation on seeing it for the first time was that the article was going to be about “how people of different races view Trump” ... which is not at all what the article is actually about. I do think it needs to be retitled. Perhaps something like “Remarks made by Donald Trump that have been perceived as being racist” would be neutral, but more accurately describe what the article’s topic actually is? Blueboar (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, it’s remarks, actions and policies. This runs afoul of conciseness. I also think the word racist in the title would result in too many arguments. Albeit, the word has been used 97 times in the last 15 days on the TP. There has been extensive discussion on the title, which resulted in what we have now. Unless there is an NPOV concern, if any further discussion must take place, probably belongs on the TP. O3000 (talk) 12:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

OK... to tie my concern into the broader NPOV issues... once I got past past my initial confusion, the current title implies (in WP's voice) that Trump actually has some sort of "views" on race... something we can not say with accuracy (since we can not read Trump's mind). However, what we can say with accuracy is how his statements have been perceived by others (to be racist). That is really what the article is about (or should be about): how others view what Trump has said. While those perceptions are POV by their nature (all perceptions are), they can be presented neutrally. If the title included the word "perception" (or a variant there of) then the title would more accurately describe the content of the article. As it is, the title itself is POV, because it presumes (in WPs voice) that Trump actually has "racial views" of any sort. Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Blueboar There was a recent RfC resulting in no consensus with indications an alternative title was supported. 14:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I think there is a big difference between "racial views" and "racist views": racial views need not be racist. In fact, pretty much every figure who has advocated for civil rights has "views" about "race". There is no doubt that Trump has expressed, himself and publicly, views about race. Reporting those as views about race is, in itself, NPOV. Interpreting those views as racist is something that needs to be attributed. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't think we could title an article "Racist views of Trump" without immediate, meaningful and accurate BLP complaints. Personally, I think it's rather obvious that he is racist, and I believe that there are enough sources to overcome the BLP hurdle, but I'd prefer not to fight such battles over the title of an article. I think "play it safe" should be the rule where editor judgement is required to arrive at a title. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

In no way would I want to change the pagename that way, either. I was just trying to explain why the existing pagename is not a POV violation. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that they are not the racial views of Donald Trump, and attempting to add commentary to the article to make situations fit that narrative is OR, and noncompliant with policy. 19:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I know, I wasn't trying to imply that you were*, only giving an example where we swapped out "racist" for "racial" as being a more accurate description of the subject. I wouldn't be opposed to all uses of the word "racist" in the title, but anything that directly called Trump racist (or claimed he had racist views) as a title would be a non-starter for me. As article text however...

*Apologies if I did exactly that: I've been on a lot of medication the last few days and it's fuzzing me up some. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

How about Donald Trump and racism - leaves it open, not accusatory, NPOV? 19:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

We actually have a policy provision limiting the use of “and” in an article title... precisely because it can be used in POV ways. One way to tell if a title with “and” is appropriate... switch the terms around. Ask yourself: would “Racism and Donald Trump” convey exactly the same meaning as “Donald Trump and Racism”? If not, then the “and” is POV. Blueboar (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Kinda like Mother Theresa and necrophilia. SPECIFICO talk 20:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Good point, Blueboar - I suppose it depends on one's perception. It works either way for me. How about Donald Trump's views on racism? or is there a policy privision limiting apostracatastrophies? Can you point me to that policy provision? I've been at this 6 years and what started as sticky notes with acronyms is now a the size of the Yellow Pages. 20:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

How about Donald Trump's views on racism? That simply is not what the article is about. Frankly from what I see, what the press coverage, and therefore the article, is about are Trump’s issues with race. He can't even give an award to elderly Amerind vets without uttering a racial slur. O3000 (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)O3000 (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Interesting...so if the article isn't about Trump's views on racism, why is it now titled Racial views OF Donald Trump? Google "racial views" and the first thing you'll see is the WP article Racism and 2nd is Racial views of Donald Trump. Do we not all agree that racial views and views on racism are the same? Enlighten me... 21:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

But that's accurate and well-sourced. Lots of folks are saying he is a racist, not that there's anything wrong with that. My personal view, fyi, which I stated on the article talk page in discussing a certain NY Times article that I believe supports this view, is that Trump is indifferent to race. It's not a category he cares about. So when social or political or civic norms require him to be mindful of race issues, he draws a blank. It's like a driver being indifferent to traffic lights and road signs. The NY Times article conveys that pretty well. SPECIFICO talk 21:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree and have already explained why. It is not the prevailing mainstream view, it is a biased MSM view and as a result, it is subject to WP:RACIST (among other PAGs) and warrants in-text attribution - opinions should not be stated in WikiVoice. There are other sources (many independent of each other) that clearly deny the allegation of him being a racist which I've already pointed out numerous times - therein the problem lies and why I tend to believe the problem is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when I know full well you did. I've also explained about circular reporting, and what constitutes a RS (per TenOfAllTrades explanation), the difference between statements of fact vs opinion, how PAGs say we should handle WP:GOSSIP, and quite frankly, I've grown weary of explaining. Please - will you and O0003 tone it down and allow UNINVOLVED editors a chance to comment here? If I wanted to continue having discussions with the same local editors who have resisted changes at the article, I would not have brought this issue to NPOV/N. Enjoy the evening! 22:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Racial views are one's views on race. Views on racism are one's views on racism. These are very different. For example, a common KKK view on race is that blacks are inferior. Some common KKK views on racism include racism doesn't exist, or they're not racist because they're right, or blacks are racist for claiming they are equal to whites. O3000 (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Then why isn't it reflected in the article? That is why I brought the issues here. 22:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The subject of the article is explained in its lede. The title was a subject of a great deal of discussion. O3000 (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Right - nothing was resolved and that's why I brought it here. I believe it's something that can be resolved on the article TP rather than here as the close left open the possibility of an alternative title. 22:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, the article's just fine. Believe me. And I really don't get the sensitivity about language. We say what POTUS says, that he's the least racist person you'll ever see. So it doesn't sound like he's hung up on any of this. There's no reason to be defensive about it. This is all public information and state policy we're talking about. SPECIFICO talk 22:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Barely - that article says what others say ABOUT him, not what he or his supporters say about him...Masem already pointed that out. That's why I brought it here and now see that you and a few other "article regulars" have hijacked this discussion - congratulations - you validated my earlier suspicions that NPOV/N is nothing more than an extention of the article TP, and a complete waste of time. Would you like another cup of tea, or do you prefer Koolaid...I also have wine coolers and 🍻. 22:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps the disconnect here is in better distinguishing Trump’s views from what others say are Trump’s views. I would expect an article entitled “Trump’s views...” to focus mostly on what he says his views are, and a lot less on what others say his views are. If we want to focus mostly on what others say, then the title should reflect that focus. Certainly many have perceived Trump’s remarks as being racist... the question is whether he intended them that way. Blueboar (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• I know this has been suggested before, but I've always been partial to "Racist/Racial controversies of Donald Trump". It sums up exactly what the contents of the article are (it's all coverage of racial controversies), much better than any alternative. I don't particularly care whether we use "racial" or "racist" as when they are applied to the word "controversies", they both mean essentially the same thing. I mean, I suppose it's possible to be embroiled in a racial controversy that isn't also a racist controversy, but I'm not quite sure how. The only distinguishing feature between them is that "racial" works slightly better from a grammatical standpoint. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• It could work MPants, or modify it a bit to read: Racial controversies of Trump presidency since they appear to have gained notability because of his presidency. I'm hesitant to accept inherited infamy because of the policies his father, Fred, initiated when he ran the company. There was never any admission of guilt and that needs to be considered as well. 17:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

No, because that would invite editors to argue about all the notable incidents that occurred before his presidency. Attach it to the person, not the time period, I say. I'm not sure what you're talking about with respect to the "inherited infamy" thing because I'm categorically not reading through this entire discussion to find out, but if you're discussing the stuff that has been done by his companies but which was never tied to him, I'm of the opinion that it should be included (since the RSes cover it in this context) but we should also be sure to include the facts that it was never linked to him. Regarding his missing admission of guilt: So what? We don't require him to announce "I admit it! I'm racist!" in order to document the countless accusations of racism against him. We don't even need to point out that he never admitted being racist unless an RS makes it an important point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I likened "inherited infamy" to WP:BLPRELATED as it related to his father having made the infamous company policies back when he ran the show and the discrimination lawsuits arose. 10:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• May I also suggest a different title? Something like "Donald trump and race" is broad enough to describe the cultural milieu in which Trump has made remarks and instituted policies that have been perceived as racially motivated, but also staying within the bounds of neutral reporting. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

See WP:AND... as I pointed out above, for an “and” title to work see if you can switch the terms around. Does “Donald Trump and race” mean the same as “Race and Donald Trump”? If not, the “and” is inappropriate (usually indicating a POV). Blueboar (talk)|

Ok. In that case, "Racial controversies of Donald Trump" proposed above by MPants seems better. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Which may start to beg a question, how many of these are controversies? Some are, but many of these then start reading as "Trump said something. Some took that as racist. Trump responded. Nothing else happened." A bunch of isolated incidents that this presents could be seen as a non-controversy, just a brief spat between the White House and the press corps. This itself is another reason why we should be wary of covering this type of topic in so much depth while the situation is still going on (per NOT#NEWS/RECENTISM).--Masem (t) 21:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I would be willing to get behind a provision stating that, for inclusion in that article, an issue needs at least four RSes covering it, with at least two explicitly attributing Trump's actions to racism or calling Trump racist. That would actually trim the list down a bit which would make our conservative editors happy, and it might make our liberal editors happy once they've gone through the effort of finding sources meeting those criteria for some of these. I can tell you in all honesty that I've never seen a topic in which it's easier to find better sources than those used than Donald Trump. Sometimes it seems that every time an editor points out OR, another editor responds with a whole list of sources that explicitly confirm the text. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

More for me, it's just right now every possible racial-charged statement/incident appears to be included. Some of these are slights that disappear from the news cycle in a week (though may pop up in retrospectives), others have a long tail. As I noted above, I'd rather not see us have this article until Trump's well out of office and no longer a significant factor in current politics, at which point we can actually focus on those deemed the most "notable" (or notorious in this case) , giving us strong secondary sourcing for inclusion and the ability to pull in any appropriate primary sourcing from now, at that time. Erasing/salting this article is not going to happen, so we do need an appropriate middle ground. I fully agree a minimum amount of sourcing for every incident - trying to avoid petty issues, looking for those that carry the most WEIGHT, and keeping in mind news regurgitation - would help to make sure the list does not veer off into being just a collection of the media's complaints against Trump. --Masem (t) 23:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

That would be ideal, but I just don't see it happening. However, I'm not opposed to any ideas that might trim down the page quite a bit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• It seems this article, as currently constituted, is more along the lines of List of incidents involving Trump perceived to be racist by some people - which seems POVFORKY - as opposed to actually covering Trump's documented opinions on the issues of race.Icewhiz (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

  Completely accurate, Icewhiz. Take this section, an issue I tried to discuss but got nowhere with. Nowhere does it connect Trump's motives to racial prejudice and nowhere, except for the final sentence, does it ever discuss Trump's views on race; it is actually more of a discussion on his views on the death penalty. Editors fought tooth-and-nail for this "article" just so they could bash Trump. I disagree with the man but at least have the ability to approach articles on him without any excruciatingly obvious biases.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

If you check the talk page, there are 4-5 references explicitly attributing Trump's statements about the CP5 to racism. But as I said to Masem above; this is a subject where the claims seem to be added to the page based on weak sourcing, even though the claims are -for the most part- verifiable in other sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree, TheGracefulSlick - nice to know we don't always have opposing views. 😁 Agree, Icewhiz, several editors also see it that way but getting them over to the article to collaborate is still in the wishful thinking stage. As for the 4-5 references containing detractor slurs, I picked one section in the article and whittled down the sources to demonstrate scope of context and actual weight of race/racial/racism criticism of Trump, and was left with 1 source. It's like Masem said a few paragraphs up about helping "to make sure the list does not veer off into being just a collection of the media's complaints against Trump." Unfortunately, that's what we have now, and why I brought the discussion here. We don't need piled-on circular reporting or questionable sources (op-eds, commentary, political section) to demonstrate how much left-leaning media hates the guy - as editors, we already know that, our readers know it, and I'm concerned that articles like this one serves to lower the quality and integrity of the encyclopedia. There is a BBC article published in March 2017 that was enlightening, and included one of WP's embarrassments regarding another topic. Anyway, we should be focusing on is his presidency, not his hairdo, his handshake (that was deleted, TG!), his non-existent collusion with the Russians, and on and on - focus on statements of fact verifiable in RS to avoid OR, and add a splash of what others perceive him to be throughout the prose. There is no reason we should treat Trump any differently from the way we've treated past presidents...and the US has had its share of doozies!! 02:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, it has been pointed out repeatedly by various editors at the talk page that there is a mismatch between the article's title and its contents. A proposal to rename the article to Accusations of racism against Donald Trump did not find consensus, but the present title still does not reflect the majority of article contents. Perhaps Comments about Donald Trump and racism would be a better match, but frankly that sounds quite WP:WEASELY… — JFG 05:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm still standing by Racial controversies of Donald Trump as the best title. It's neutral. It will clearly define the scope and avoid all this bickering about whether we believe an inveterate-liar-of-a-primary source or the overly-opinionated-and-ridiculously-rhetorical-but-otherwise-reliable sources. It will allow us to get in there and trim things down to "Trump said/did X. RSes said 'racism!' Trump responded 'I'm the least racist person!'" repeated ad nauseum, and only leave us to work out what's DUE or not. Right now, it's all due by default, because all of it addresses his racial views. Well, just because his views are a notable topic doesn't mean we need an article about them. We don't have an article about the Racial views of Barack Obama even though the conservative media never shut up about them and the liberal media never stopped defending them. But the thing is, Obama wasn't involved in all these racial controversies, was he?

Plus, it doesn't leave us in the uncomfortable position of having an article title that begs the question and an article that refuses to answer it. What are Trump's racial views? Are they more or less extreme than David Duke's? Does he like African Americans less than Muslims? What about Hispanics? He seems to like Jews... I couldn't tell you, or even hazard a fucking guess from reading that article. You know what I get from reading that article? That a bunch of fucking Wikipedians are eager to make the case that Trump's racist... And failing. Which is ridiculous, because it's so goddamned easy to make the case that Trump is racist: "Muslim ban, Somali refugees and the Congressional Black Caucus. What have you got to lose?" Case closed. We need an article that can focus on the stuff that actually generated controversies, not every well-covered-by-the-media time he's opened his mouth and stuck his foot in it.

So seriously, can I get some people to weigh in on this title? I'll make an RfC if I have to. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, the question-begging is flabbergasting… I'd support that title, although it does substantially change the article scope. Surely some pruning will help our dear readers understand the various positions and make up their mind. — JFG 07:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe a little more precise with Racial controversies involving Donald Trump? Some incidents he caused directly with that splendid foot-in-mouth syndrome, others are amplified by commenters twisting his words (the "best words", believe me!) and trumpeting racism accusations out of proportion. Not everything is "of The Donald"… (although, reading the U.S. press, one may wonder whether anybody else still contributes to policy there.) — JFG 07:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not a bad suggestion, but I worry about the connotations of "involving" vs "of". It seems to imply that he's not the center of most of them, and it opens the door to include coverage of any racial controversy about which Trump tweeted, which could end up bloating the article again. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, whenever Trump tweets something about a racial controversy, and gets RS coverage, it would certainly deserve inclusion with the "of" title, so we won't bloat the article by labeling the title more precisely with "involving". Actually, the current article does not have much of what Trump uttered or tweeted, so it's rather difficult to nail down his "racial views", if any; like on many issues, Trump's positions can change with the wind. Some of the most insightful comments I've seen were that he is supremely indifferent to racial issues, and that in itself is interpreted as racism by some (because black lives matter), fairness by others (because all lives matter). — JFG 14:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

...whenever Trump tweets something about a racial controversy, and gets RS coverage, it would certainly deserve inclusion... This is a terribly mindset, not towards Trump, but towards WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:RECENTISM. A major concern I have with this article is that is not being written from the long-term view and instead using too-close-to-the-event primary/non-independent sourcing to include every possible situation that would be representative of the title. We should only be looking at the incidents that have had a long tail of coverage/importance (eg like his immigration policy) rather than every slight he makes in Twitter that the media jump on. --Masem (t) 14:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Masem: I wholeheartedly agree that not every WP:FART is notable! However, in spite of Wikipedian policy, recentism and the news cycle seem to be the dominant factors in editing articles about U.S. politics. Sad! — JFG 14:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC) (Recent example: it's apparently a "notable activity" of Donald Trump Jr. to have one day called to vote "tomorrow" for an election that took place "today".) — JFG 14:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Longtime coverage? Like the Central Park Jogger thing? How's that going? Anyway we're not going to change the title on this page so it's pointless to continue here. SPECIFICO talk 14:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, whenever Trump tweets something about a racial controversy, and gets RS coverage, it would certainly deserve inclusion with the "of" title, No, it wouldn't. That's not a controversy "of" (which is synonymous with "stemming from" or "originating with") Trump, but a controversy "involving" Trump.

Also, I've seen some people comment that Trump is indifferent to race, and while I understand the logic, it's somewhat ignorant of both basic psychology and Trump's track record on race. No-one is indifferent to race, and Trump has said things which were explicitly racist, and then acted surprised that anyone thought they were racist. It would be more accurate to say that Trump's racism is entirely unconscious, as in he doesn't think he's racist at all and doesn't even realize that many of the things he believes about race have no basis in reality. I'd say he's the "race realist" type of racist; he thinks that a person's race means a lot more than it really does, all while acknowledging that we're all still human. That would explain the dichotomy between his habits of associating with African-American celebrities and then turning around and suggesting that all AA people live in abject poverty and that all welfare recipients are AA. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

You may well be right about Trump's "unconscious racism", but enough armchair psychology for today. I still prefer "involving" to "of". Or if you want to be restrictive, say "originating with", that sure would trim down the article neatly. — JFG 15:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

What would you say to "surrounding"? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Racial controversies surrounding Donald Trump? Sure, I've always had a soft spot for surround sound Perhaps the more conventional Racial controversies related to Donald Trump would have better chances of being adopted. — JFG 18:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

"Related" works just as well as "surrounding", and as you say, seems like it might go over better. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Fantastic, we got a consensus of two editors! Shall you do the honors and open the RM? (I'm either too lazy or too tired to compose a proper rationale right now.) — JFG 21:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Another issue - primary sources?

I am probably going to get us into some deep weeds with this... but I think it is worth discussing: Is this article (and similar ones regarding other current politicians) overly reliant on PRIMARY sources? To answer that, we need to discuss whether (and when) news reports and op-eds are primary, secondary (or perhaps both at the same time) ... and that is a question that we as a community have had difficulty with.
Let's lay out the scenario: Trump says something... news commentators report on what he says, calling it "racist". Now, those commentators are secondary sources for reporting what Trump said... but I think they are primary sources for the conclusion that his remarks are "racist" (it's the commentator who first calls the remark "racist" after all). IF this is the case, then the article has a more fundamental problem than just potential POV... that POV may occur because the article is overly reliant on primary sources. Please discuss further. Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

side note: I do realize that this isn't really a NPOV question (and it goes beyond just the article under discussion)... I asked it here to keep the discussion centralized and to avoid "venue hopping". However, if people think I should move it to some other noticeboard (or perhaps to the village pump), I will. Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

It's overly reliant on dependent opinion-based (technically secondary) sources, as long as one accepts that the media is steadfast opposed to Trump as President. Normally, the media's relationship with the President is far less dramatic and can be treated independently. This is not the case since 2016; the media is openly hostile to Trump, and vice-versa. NPOV should be used to judge the appropriateness of weight and inclusion against independent sources, but dependent sources should be used sparingly. --Masem (t) 14:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Are they secondary? As a historian, I would classify them as contemporaneous Chroniclers... ie primary. Blueboar (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Depends on which version of secondary you use. If you go by transformation of thought, they are secondary (opining on events), but if you go by the historian aspect, they are primary. In either case, I fully agree that most sources here are too close (either in time , or in dependency) to the event to be appropriate sources to build an article on. There are a few pieces like one by NYtimes that summarize several of the events, and those are secondary by either definition. --Masem (t) 15:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it's worth pointing out that, in your profession, the weight of primary and secondary sources is somewhat inverted to what we give them here. The basic formula seems to be that WP adds one level: so what historians consider primary, we consider secondary, and what historians consider secondary, we consider tertiary, etc. Feel free too ignore me, I'm mostly commenting because it's interesting to me.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• News reporting from reputable mainstream media outlets has always been considered reliable secondary sourcing, as a matter of both policy and practice, and such sources support the bulk of our reliable encyclopedic content. We are not going to write an entirely separate set of rules for Trump coverage. There is already enough confused, bizarre, and incoherent commentary in this thread. While you two are under no obligation to be part of the solution, you are expected not to be part of the problem. MastCell  16:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

MastCell... an important aspect of being part of the solution is defining what the problem actually IS. Blueboar (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Gaza

Please see my discussion with Eggishorn on my request to edit the line

Gaza Strip, an Arab-inhabited region on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea

to

Gaza Strip, a small Palestinian territory on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea

I fail to see how the latter violates WP:NPOV, while the former does not. I think it should be obvious that the latter is a more accurate description of the linked article. Tissn (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I have already made most of the salient points at the referenced discussion but this statement shows that the asked-for edit is not neutral: I certainly hope Misplaced Pages hasn't adopted a policy of ignoring international law and opinion to appease an illegal occupant. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources generally refer to these people as Palestinians. Eggishorn do you believe that there is no such thing as Palestinians? TFD (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

My take as well, who does not refer to Gaza as a Palestinian territory?Slatersteven (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces:, Who said anything about the ethnicity of the inhabitants? Tissn wants the disambiguation article to pick one side of a political identification that is disputed and the various ABRPIA... series make it clear that we should not pick sides on this issue. Per WP:DABNOT, disambiguation pages should only be specific enough to direct the reader correctly. @Slatersteven:, well, the Israeli government, for starters. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Well for a starter this dos not say that, it says they do not occupy it (by the way which of those questioned spoke for the Isralie government?). In fact it talks about it using terms like "Palestinian".Slatersteven (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The common view is that Gaza is Palestinian. However, matters are complicated by the Hamas/PA split, claims (by Palestinians and their supporters) of continued Israeli occupation, and Egyptian influence. The most salient point is that Gaza is clearly not controlled by the recognozed Palestinian government - being controlled by Hamas. For a DAG, stating it is Arab inhabited skirts around all the possible geopolitical arguements.Icewhiz (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The statement of mine that Eggishorn is referring to is irrelevant to this discussion. My personal neutrality, or lack thereof, is not the question here. His choice to use that as an argument to support his position in this case should raise some concern over his suitability to have any editorial control over articles about this issue.

@Icewhiz: As I've already pointed out, the supporters of the Palestinian claim of continued Israeli occupation is none other than the International Court of Justice, the UN General Assembly, the United Nations Security Council and Israel's own Supreme Court, to name a few. Gaza is widely recognized as part of the Palestinian state. The question over who currently "controls" the area is irrelevant. Refusal to refer to Gaza as a Palestinian territory cannot possibly be said to be impartial or neutral, but rather the direct opposite. Tissn (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Is Gaza no longer part of the PLA? If not then should it not be called

Gaza Strip, a small Hamas territory on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea?

Slatersteven (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Gaza is controlled by Hamas. Hamas has not said it is not part of the PA, but it has, at times, contested the legitimacy of the PA government claiming at times to be the legitimate leaders of the PA. In any event - the recognized Palestinian government does not control Gaza. In a long article you can get into this level of nuance - but in a two line DAG?Icewhiz (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that the DAG should elaborate on the conflict. It should as succinctly and accurately as possible describe the linked article in a neutral way. Refusing to refer to Gaza (a political geographic entity) as Palestinian can't possibly be said to be neutral. Tissn (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Eggishorn, there is as you are no doubt aware a view among some that there are no Palestinians, just Arabs living in Israel/Palestine. Your version appears to promote that view, which is why I would object to it. TFD (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Pardon me for saying so, but there is also a view that Jews are sub-human. "Arab-inhabited region" just sounds crude. Sounds like infested. And the concept that there are no Palestinians is just plain offensive. The term goes back to ancient Greece and ancient Rome. O3000 (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful to discuss the origin of the term Palestinian, since it was given to the region by the Romans after the Bar Kochba revolt, to spite the Jews. Whatever the history of the term, I think the current situation is far more prescient. You have a group of Arabs who have come to identify with the term, much as the concept of Syrian or Lebanese has emerged. I agree that the wording was somewhat off previously - frankly, I'm happy to acknowledge Gaza as an independent, de facto self-governing entity. It's a shame they're not held to the same standards as others... but I digress. The point is, I think the current wording is reasonable. But Tissn, just because the UN says something, doesn't mean Misplaced Pages has to agree. The UN has a majority of undemocratic regimes - frankly, I think it needs deep reform. While they are certainly influential, that doesn't make them right. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

You have a group of Arabs who have come to identify with the term, much as the concept of Syrian or Lebanese has emerged

I find your arrogant disregard for these nationalities offensive.

I'm happy to acknowledge Gaza as an independent, de facto self-governing entity

Just not "Palestinian", is that it?

It's a shame they're not held to the same standards as others...

Like the gold standard set by Israel, I assume?

But Tissn, just because the UN says something

And the International Court of Justice, and Israel's own Supreme Court, and most of the rest of the world. Frankly, I find your whole attitude appalling, and I have no appetite to continue this toxic discussion. I'm happy the page has been corrected, and I consider the issue resolved. Tissn (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree it is nasty. And talking about Roman times as if it had any relevance to rights or practically anything else nowadays is silly. Going by what Jews say themselves if we're talking about same standards could we at least limit things to the seventh generation or something like a hundred and fifty years at most thanks. Or should we still have this sort of argument still about Palestinians and Jews in two thousand years time? And personally I'd prefer if we were able to just talk about Israelis rather than Jews when talking about the trouble there thanks. Dmcq (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Nathan Bedford Forrest

See Talk:Nathan Bedford Forrest#Disputed template and Talk:Nathan Bedford Forrest#Disputes regarding (1) Fort Pillow massacre and (2) KKK membership. deisenbe (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I have now created a section specifically for the NPOV discussion and started it off by gathering together some of the headline issues that had been raised at separate places on the Talk page (including those touched on in the two sections mentioned above) . I have also left notes at American Civil War and WP:WikiProject Military history. Hope that helps FrankP (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Water privatisation in England and Wales

I don't mean to be political here, but the article section "Post-privatisation" presents (mostly) improvements that have occurred since water privatisation in the UK.

My issue is that these improvements are not necessarily because of privatisation - the direct link is not presented.

The OECD and World Bank did not explicitly thank privatisation for all of these improvements, yet the article appears to suggest they did.

My point is backed up by evidence from other countries where similar efficiency/quality improvements have been observed, despite water industries remaining publicly owned.

The improvements are often the result of technological advances that are equally available to public and well as private operators. The article seems to neglect this.

On the other hand, I'd say too much prominence is given to the Camelford disaster.

Overall I think the article is badly laid out and may have a slight underlying bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick.harrison83 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The article has been bugging me for some time now; I have commenced a rewrite today that should address Nick.harrison83's concerns viz post-privatisation. WRT Camelford, the 2 paragraphs as they stand are not excessive, but may appear so given the sparse text afforded to the main topic. Neil S. Walker (talk) 12:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Vista Outdoor and recent mass shooting

Anger about the recent mass shooting seems to be translating into problems with the lede over at Vista Outdoor. I think this needs some uninvolved eyes. 60.234.42.253 (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I think first you should discus this on the articles talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

the IP is flat out whitewashing with obvious lies like this one as I've demonstrated at Talk:Vista_Outdoor#NRA_boycott. Further I don't need concensus to add a well sourced brand new section to a page. It's POV vandalism on their part and I've warned them on their talk. Cheers. Legacypac (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

You are here to POV push. That is coming through with your rage. That might be hard to see because you are so emotionally involved in this issue. Take a step back and compare the quality of your other edits to the quality of the edits you are making related to the NRA and gun control. The difference is night and day. 60.234.42.253 (talk) 05:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

IP's edits are not constructive or credible. I have a long establised track record of edits across many topics. IP only shows up to make whitewash edite at this one page and misrepresent the sources in their edit summaries. Legacypac (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution