Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 70

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 65

←

Archive 68

→

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:

The first paragraph of the lede is 100% negative and one-sided
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.
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! ^{Atsme📞📧} 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. ^{Atsme📞📧} 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." ^{Atsme📞📧} 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. ^{Atsme📞📧} 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. ^{Atsme📞📧} 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 Wikipedia 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. ^{Atsme📞📧} 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. ^{Atsme📞📧} 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. ^{Atsme📞📧} 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 [1] 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 Wikipedia 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[21] have been condemned by many observers in the U.S. and around the world,[22][23] but excused by his supporters either as a rejection of political correctness[24][25] or because they harbor similar racial sentiments.[26][27] 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.[27][28] According to an October 2017 Politico/Morning Consult poll, 45% of American voters think Trump is racist and 40% don't.[29]

This discussion by JFG, as well as this discussion by me took place regarding "racist attitudes and racial resentment". ^{Atsme📞📧} 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? ^{Atsme📞📧} 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. ^{Atsme📞📧} 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 ^[FBDB] - 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. 🤗 ^{Atsme📞📧} 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. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC) ^{Clarify, "nope" refers to it being "well-sourced" and that it is "not stated in WP's voice" because it darn sure is in WikiVoice unless I'm blind and can't see the in-text attribution or the preceding "according to reports" or the like. I pretty much remember the sourcing, one of which was the NYTimes (biased), 2nd of which is a social justice advocacy (SOAPBOX), 3rd of which is the Real Estate section of a financial magazine (deserves a Scooby Doo "HUH?"), and the 4th being a rock/music magazine (they do know how to strike a chord in G are you kidding me?). On what level do you rate the scholarly credibility (or even the journalistic integrity) of 2, 3, & 4? ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
C'mon now, Atsme it does not say he's a "racist" in WP's voice. And of course you may need to go to the article corpus to see citations for everything stated in the lede. I'm afraid this NPOV/N has run its course, unless anyone has a fresh concern to bring to the table here. SPECIFICO talk 01:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I'll lay it out if it will help you - 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 Wikipedia? Whose voice is it? I don't see any quotations, don't see "alleged", or "it was reported that" - it simply states in WikiVoice that his history (all 13 mos) of making racially-charged remarks (says who?) and pursuing racially-motivated actions and policies (according to whom?) that have led observers across the political spectrum (pause for laughter) to conclude that he is a racist. Inline citations for verifiability include 1 biased source and 3 questionable sources. Masem do you see it differently? ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
There are rather a huge number of cites. (And would you please stop using unnecessary phrases that sound condescending like if it will help you. Your edit would have been just as communicative without it.) O3000 (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Jeez Atsme. "observers across the political spectrum" say it, not Wikipedia. This thread is exhausted. SPECIFICO talk 02:03, 27 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 Wikipedia? 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. ^{Atsme📞📧} 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. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

So here they are for comparison:

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.
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. ^{Atsme📞📧} 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," [2] (see also: [3], [4]) which helps explain the rest of the article. ^Falling_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? ^{Atsme📞📧} 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. ^{Atsme📞📧} 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. ^{Atsme📞📧} 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? ^{Atsme📞📧} 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? ^[FBDB] 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. ^{Atsme📞📧} 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...^{Atsme📞📧} 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! ^{Atsme📞📧} 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. ^{Atsme📞📧} 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. ^{Atsme📞📧} 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 🍻. ^{Atsme📞📧} 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. ^{Referring to the allegations of racism prior to his presidency.18:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)} ^{Atsme📞📧} 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. ^{Atsme📞📧} 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!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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!

^[FBDB] 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 ^talk 21:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, there are 5 active threads at that talk page, plus this (which contains three sub-discussions). I'm not in any hurry, so I think I'll wait until things are a little calmer and watchers to that page are less likely to loose the RM in the flood. However, if things haven't calmed down by, let's say Monday, I'll go ahead and push forward on it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:52, 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 ^Talk 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)

The problem seems obvious: a relatively small subset of editors can't seem to handle reliably sourced material that reflects negatively on Donald Trump, and they come up with increasingly tortured interpretations of policy to try to exclude this material. It goes something like this:

DONALD TRUMP: <says something widely perceived as racist>
MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Donald Trump said something widely perceived as racist.
MASEM: The mainstream media is biased against Donald Trump!
BLUEBOAR: Maybe secondary news sources actually become primary sources when they report things that reflect negatively on Donald Trump!

So the solution is? MastCell ^Talk 21:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

MastCell! I wondered where you were - even thought about pinging you to get your perspective. I can see by your first comment that the problem obviously is not obvious enough based on your conclusion. We have to do better getting the point across. Thank you for sharing your views. The problem with the article actually is NPOV created in part by cherrypicking parts of articles that support a particular narrative. Depending on what words you use in a Google Search, it's highly likely you'll pull up the sources you need to support your POV. You mentioned a small subset of editors above, but you miscategorized the problem which is refusal to allow proper WEIGHT and BALANCE into the article because they insist on it being "a denigrate Trump narrative", like the hundreds of other denigrate Trump articles in WP. In this particular case, the sources being used to justify inclusion of racist labels in WikiVoice are not exceptional enough for such an exceptional claim, many are borderline questionable, and several should be used with caution. We're all entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts. It's easy to see what's missing in this article: statements of fact. The cited sources use their share of weasel words and make sure to quote others who have made racist accusations - none of which are the "racial views of Donald Trump". Most of MSM has been giving us a handy dose of biased opinions, primarily interviews with Trump haters and his critics in the DC establishment who wake-up with nightmares of gurgling sounds, only to discover the sounds are coming from the drain in their bathroom. But aside from all that, what I found most disconcerting with the article were some of the reasons given on the article TP to keep information out of the article - a mix of RIGHTGREATWRONGS and SOAPBOX - to which I responded. In that particular discussion, I provided a review of each source used in that section, and the amount of weight given to Trump's racial views respectively. The first 4 sources of 7 had zero - yes, zero. I've broken down other sources in a similar manner.

I hardly think Masem, Blueboar, JFG, Bus stop, Sławomir Biały, Icewhiz, TheGracefulSlick, myself, or any of the editors at the article TP who have expressed concern over the NPOV issues could be considered "a relatively small subset of editors". There are all kinds of 🚩🚩🚩 waving over this article. Sources have ranged from extremely biased to slightly biased. Regardless, even those sources have given a fair amount of weight to the opposing views - and in some cases more weight - yet those views are not being allowed in the article, currently under DS 1RR/consensus restrictions which strikes fear in the hearts of ~~men~~ they or them or him/her or men/women, whichever works best. The articles published in the political commentary section are not actually "news" as one would expect. While the news event is typically the context, such as border security, the authors I reviewed (and I read them all

) always manage to find room in a paragraph for a racial epithet aimed at Trump. That is probably what Masem was referring to, and I agree with him wholeheartedly. What we're dealing with are opinions and commentary by political pundits now referred to as journalists or writers. Op-eds are cited but when it's material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, our PAGs are being ignored. The same applies to circular reporting which is a big part of why it appears there are a lot of secondary sources. Social advocacy publications, the Money section of Fortune, and an article in Rolling Stone are not what I consider exceptional sources to make exceptional claims in Wikivoice that a BLP is a racist, or to spread WP:GOSSIP from anonymous sources about the president of the US. I certainly hope our encyclopedia hasn't fallen to that level. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@MastCell: Masem is right in your summary: the problem is that the people proclaiming that the media is biased against Trump never allow the issue of why the media's biased against Trump to be discussed. Though I suspect Masem might be willing to have that conversation, I've seen a number of other editors refuse to. Also, Blueboar's comments bear only a passing interest to your summary. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

(yes, I'm out of order, but this is exactly right on my stance; its not just Trump as it was happening before 2016, Trump only amplified the problem exponentially. --Masem (t) 02:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC))

@Atsme: Almost everything you wrote here is the same set of unfounded generalizations and poor understanding of policies that you have filled the article talk page with, after you failed to get the article deleted. The consensus editing process is working exactly as it should. By the way, it's patently misleading to state that the article calls Trump racist in Wikipedia's voice. This has been pointed out to you before. The fact that you would repeat such a falsehood here tells us everything we need to know. Cheers.- Mr X 🖋 00:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

MrX, per this diff by BullRangifer who believed my suggestion had merit, in case you missed it above:

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.
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.

MrX, it appears you are the one who is misunderstanding. What makes you think the first sentence of the lede is not stated as fact in WikiVoice? It's undeniable starting with "Donald Trump, the President of the United States, has a history of making racially-charged remarks and pursuing racially-motivated actions and policies"...what do you think "racially motivated" means? It means motivated by (the hate or prejudice of) someone's race...and what is the definition of racist? My goodness, MrX, if you would stop repeating the same mistaken beliefs over and over, I wouldn't have to keep explaining them.

^{Atsme📞📧} 03:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

You wrote "... to make exceptional claims in Wikivoice that a BLP is a racist", which is plainly false. Now you're doubling down by claiming that "racially motivated" means racist? You might want to take a step back before you fall off the credibility cliff.- Mr X 🖋 03:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

MrX - please stop accusing me of making false statements - everything I've said is absolutely true and verifiable. I may make an occassional mistake but you can rest assured it was an honest one. I am not going to belabor the meaning of racially motivated. As for my credibility, I'm not the least bit concerned, and quite frankly, you shouldn't be either. Be more concerned about the unkind things you've been saying, and work on being more collegial toward others with whom you may disagree. ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Atsme has spent over a year claiming that editors that disagree with Atsme are biased, that the NYTimes and WaPo are biased, that highly regarded RS spread gossip, that other editors are pushing a POV. As MPants points out, the fact that many RS are critical of someone’s words and actions, is not evidence of bias. Further, Atsme continually denigrates other editors, and asks them to leave discussions. I’m not asking for a BOOM, only because I don’t do that. But, I believe this is disruptive. O3000 (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Why are editors who deny or cannot accept fundamental Wikipedia policy continuing to edit on this and other Trump-related articles? Why not just work in areas that don't raise that conflict or do your politics-related work on other sites that are not dedicated to conveying the mainstream view? SPECIFICO talk 01:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

But ARE we actually presenting the mainstream view, or only one viewpoint? (And is confirmation bias an issue on WP when political sources are concerned?) Blueboar (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

This discussion appears to be RIGHTGREATWRONGS and SOAPBOX. The fact that it's happening here vs the article's Talk page does not seem to be leading towards a different outcome. May I suggest an RfC. It would seem more productive. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

But if the vocal Trump-dissenters wish to change basic WP policy, neither this page nor an article talk page is the right place to do it. SPECIFICO talk 02:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

No one is asking to change policy, but enforce policy - elements of which have been not enforced as well in recent years (NOT:NEWS) which is now creating problems with a real-life controversial subject. Again, what would be the expected state of this article in 10 or 20 years, and compared to other controversial figures (like Nixon, Hilter (hi Godwin!), McCarthy, etc.) that we have had time to analyze fully. --Masem (t) 02:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but Masem and Atsme are not Wikipedia's arbiter's of policy. It's insulting that a couple of editors presume to insist that their interpretation of policy trumps the interpretation of other experienced editors, and consensus. By the way, it's not NOT:NEWS; it's Wikipedia is not a newspaper, which is intended to keep routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities out of the encyclopedia. It's not intended to prevent updated information in articles, which happens to be one of Wikipedia's greatest strengths. If you don't like the way an article is written, you have a voice like everyone else with which to make your best argument. But don't complain when consensus doesn't go your way; don't rehash the same arguments; don't move the goalposts; don't canvass people favorable to your view; and don't forum shop the same issue to multiple venues.- Mr X 🖋 03:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The whole issue is that the goalposts have been moved - by mainstream sources. When our core policies were developed a decade ago, the media was not engaging in subjective coverage of the news - all the policies made sense then. When mainstream has switches to being endlessly criticizing Trump and anyone that seems to align with him (a whole subset of identity politics), they take themselves out of how our policies are supposed to apply. However, too many editors want to act like there is nothing wrong with the media and thus policy should apply as is. --Masem (t) 04:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Objective3000:As MPants points out, the fact that many RS are critical of someone’s words and actions, is not evidence of bias. That's not exactly what I'm saying, though I do agree with it in a general sense. What I am saying is:

The fact that the media tend to be biased against Trump is not evidence that they're wrong in their conclusions about Trump. And I hasten to add that the fact that the media tends to be biased against Trump does not mean that every negative thing written about him is a direct and exclusive result of that bias, nor that ever outlet that writes negative things about him is necessarily biased, itself.

And to an certain extent, I strongly agree with Masem that the quality of news reporting -especially on political subjects- has declined in recent years. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Arbitratry break

Proposed: Donald Trump, the President of the United States, 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, leading them to consider him a racist.

It's a factually accurate statement. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Seems to violate weasel wording. Who is making the criticism? If I were to go to a bar in the U.S., is that what the patrons would be talking about? TFD (talk) 11:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

TFD, the original lede sentence in the article now is 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 with different political standpoints to conclude that he is racist.[1][2][3][4]. Trump has responded to reporters' questions about racism by stating, "I am not a racist. I'm the least racist person you will ever interview".[5]^{Atsme📞📧} 09:19, March 2, 2018‎

As long as one includes 3-4 high quality inline cites to sources (eg NYTimes, WaPost, etc) to support that specific statement (in the lede or in the body if LEDECITE is being followed), then that's completely reasonable as a summary statement. The wording becomes an issue if one's pulling from low-quality sources to try to synthesis an argument that "widely criticized" is there. I know we have at least one NYtimes article here [5] that well and truly supports it. --Masem (t) 14:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

That's a non-starter, for the reason I previously stated. It leads the reader to think that only POTUS' opponents "consider racially-motivated actions and policies, leading them to consider him a racist", or that they were his opponents first and therefore choose to "consider racially-motivated actions and policies, leading them to consider him a racist", rather than that they oppose "racially-motivated actions and policies, leading them to consider him a racist" and therefore oppose POTUS. Furthermore, it's widely reported that many of his supporters, e.g. Gary Cohn and others (at the time of Charlottesville) "consider racially-motivated actions and policies, leading them to consider him a racist" but do not oppose Trump.

Masem, as an Admin here could you please consider and advise the group as to what would be the correct page for editors to continue discussing this matter? This has become a narrow side group and it seems to belong on the article talk page or on some policy talk page. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Your suggestions may fit well in the body using in-text attribution, not in the lede which summarizes. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

PBS described him: "While Trump’s actions have landed on both sides of racial currents, his public record depicts a man who most often moves in one direction: overlooking racial sensitivity and concerns in the name of fighting “political correctness.” There actually are several sound RS that support the proposed lede sentence (or something better?): CNN, The Chicago Tribune, and Politico, and an AP Report in Fortune Politics, unlike the Real Estate section that was used in the current lede. Would very much appreciate your further thoughts. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Specifico: the issues being discusses are broader than just those at the article, even though there are points specific to the article's nature that should be at the talk page (in addition that the whole here is looking for input from beyond the group watching that talk page). For that reason, here or a VPP page is the best place for discussion of the broader points being raised on NPOV in this general area. --Masem (t) 15:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. But we wouldn't want to go too far with article text here rather than on the article talk page, right? I mean I understand we could reach consensus on an issue of policy or principle, but we would still need to get consensus on the article talk page before we could change the article lede text, as is now being proposed. SPECIFICO talk 15:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Masem explained quite well, and that was one of the reasons I brought the discussion here, and would really appreciate being able to get at least one issue resolved but two would be nice - the title, and the first sentence in the lede - without further distraction from our TP authors; i.e. a chance at a broader consensus focused on NPOV. Why else would we have a NPOV noticeboard? ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Well no, you can't circumvent the article talk page by filibustering all your dissenting colleagues here on a noticeboard. SPECIFICO talk 20:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, if I did what you're doing to this discussion, it is highly unlikely that you would be showing me the same unrelenting patience I've shown you. I brought the discussion here because your accusations of what's happening here is exactly what was happening on the article TP, and the reason I moved it here, so please, please, please - your behavior is distracting, and diverts attention away from the issues. Please allow the discussion to continue among uninvolved editors without sidelining it - you're wearing us out. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, silence is golden, but trying to silence others is not golden. It's simply a matter of fact and procedure that you can't gather a posse here on a noticeboard and override the article talk page with "consensus text". You can reach a local consensus as to policy and sourcing advice to pass over to the talk page, but you can't short circuit article editing here. Anyway you hardly seem worn out. I admire your stamina. SPECIFICO talk 21:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

And I yours, SPECIFICO. But I believe we're on the right track to resolution regarding NPOV policy compliance. Let's keep things focused - regardless of who is participating. The responses to the proposal should be either support or oppose (with alt suggestions), so we should probably create a Discussion section for the sake of organization and being able to expeditiously determine consensus. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

NPOV says WP stays in the no-fringe zone, but you're in the other one and headed for the edge. SPECIFICO talk 23:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

And I've long since learned that your definition of "no-fringe zone" is whatever conflicts with your POV. I have chosen instead to adhere to written PAGs, and actually tread lightly around IAR. You could write it off to those pesky "for the sake of good order" scenarios that haunt us - I think WP refers to it as civil collaboration. Wishing you many hours of happy editing...but not at the expense of reaching consensus here regarding the issues under consideration. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

OK. Gotta hop. Time for my laetrile. SPECIFICO talk 00:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

If it's got you hopping, you'd better lay off that stuff. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Masem, I added a NPOV lead tag to the article while this discussion is still open and we're trying to get the NPOV issues worked out at the article, but Volunteer Marek reverted the tag without justification and accused me of forum shopping when all I've done was follow the guideline for WP:RfC. It is because of his behavior and the few others of like mind that I came to this noticeboard to begin with, and I'm finding it hard to believe that such behavior has been allowed to go unchecked. The responses on this noticeboard (except for the same relatively small subset of editors who can't seem to handle RS material that reflects positively on Donald Trump) have indicated agreement that the article has NPOV issues which warrants a NPOV tag. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course I removed it. The NPOV tag is not a consolation prize for being unable to convince others of your views and failure to get consensus. And I did justify it, so I'd appreciate a bit more truthfulness here. And the "small subset of editors" better describes yourself and maybe one or two others that just can't get over their WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Please. Stop. Being. Disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Adding the following last paragraph of the lead which is equally as problematic as the first sentence, and is not only SYNTH, it may possibly be a BLP violation. I've proposed removal at the article TP but wanted to make note of it here for those who are participating in this discussion. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The sentence is fine. Calling it "problematic" doesn't make it so. An assertion is not an argument. It's not a BLP violation - it's very well sourced. WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT from someone who wants to use junk like The Daily Caller in place of reliable sources because of the "evil mainstream media" is still not a valid reason for your continued efforts at wasting other people's time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

VM, your oft repeated canard that I'm wasting other people's time is a waste of other people's time. You have the freedom to not participate, so please don't; that way others will be able to get the article right. ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Trump's racially insensitive statements^[1] have been condemned by many observers in the U.S. and around the world,^[2]^[3] but excused by his supporters either as a rejection of political correctness^[4]^[5] or because they harbor similar racial sentiments.^[6]^[7]

References

^ Desjardins, Lisa (August 22, 2017). "Every moment in Trump's charged relationship with race". PBS Newshour. Retrieved January 13, 2018.
^ "'There's no other word but racist': Trump's global rebuke for 'shithole' remark". The Guardian. January 13, 2018. Retrieved January 13, 2018.
^ Raymond, Adam K. (November 30, 2017). "British MPs Condemn 'Racist,' 'Incompetent' Trump for Endorsing 'Vile Fascist' Group". New York. Retrieved January 13, 2018.
^ Salama, Vivian (January 12, 2018). "Trump's history of breaking decorum with remarks on race, ethnicity". NBC News. Retrieved January 13, 2018.
^ Nichols, Laura (June 29, 2017). "Poll: Majority of Trump Voters Say His Political Correctness Is 'About Right'". Morning Consult. Retrieved January 13, 2018.
^ "Trump's 'shithole' comment is his new rock bottom". CNN. January 12, 2018. Retrieved January 13, 2018.
^ Cite error: The named reference nation-20170508 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Tremendous waste of time...

Occurring simply because Atsme (and a couple others) either doesn't understand or doesn't wish to follow our core policies on NPOV, UNDUE and OR. This has gone long enough and has turned into one massive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Time for a topic ban from talk pages of these articles and related noticeboards, or just simply a topic ban on anything Trump related. This has wasted enough of people's time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. As has been pointed out, we're dealing with a new state of the media that was not envisioned when the core polices were written. While this has come up before, anything involving Trump has exacerbated the issue. I do take Specifico's point that NPOV/N may not be the best place for the overall answer, but broadly this is nowhere close to being resolved. (And I would further that there's just as much IDHT from other camps here too, people are not speaking towards a solution). --Masem (t) 16:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

"New state of media" - like what? Facebook, twitter? Well, guess what, we STILL don't use these as sources so it's not an issue. We still use the same damn sources we used when the policies were written. The only thing that has changed is that sources whose reliability was non-controversial back then, are now under attack by a bunch of wackos and crazies who want to use garbage conspiracy websites and other junk as sources instead. Nothing has changed except the WP:FRINGE crowd has gotten bigger and louder. We STILL follow policy and we STILL don't accommodate their delusions. And they're STILL WP:NOTHERE. If you want to make this - the whole "new state of media" thing - an actually serious argument, then the place to do that is to propose something at the WP:RS talk page. You do that, you get WP:RS changed, then we can talk. Right now, I'm just going to follow WP:RS like I always have, and I will continue to expect that of every one else.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

It's the state of the current media, which is nothing like it was 4-5 years ago, much less a decade ago. All sense of objectivity has been thrown out the door so they can be bitter towards Trump and any right-leaning personalities and organizations. All that is required is to recognize that the media themselves cannot be considered unbiased in how they cover Trump and these areas, and thus to use appropriate grains or bags of salt to temper their assertions as required by NPOV. Unfortunately, and you're self-demonstrating this, too many editors are stanind on the fact these are RSes and must be true and nothing else in the world exists. I 100% agree we cannot pull in fringe sources (unless they are needed for self-stated opinions for key people involved), but that does not mean that we are required to presume the RSes are speaking facts all the time. That's not changing any policy, that's recognizing how current sources fail the standard tests our policy requires. --Masem (t) 16:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your personal opinion. Did you know that other people have other personal opinions? Get consensus to change WP:RS or there's no point to this discussion. Oh wait, you already tried and failed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, VM - here's a RS you can read if you don't like Masem's response. Oh, and here's another, and The Guardian. Need more? ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

1.) Interesting data, but so what? It doesn't really make the point you think it does. 2.) An opinion piece from an editor at the Washington Examiner? Seriously? 3.) Another anecdotal opinion piece. If you're looking for agreement that you can google literally anything and find a supporting statement published somewhere by someone, you'll get no argument from me. Hence why it's necessary that we follow the alphabet soup of policies that you like to throw around, namely we document what the preponderance of trusted, reliable sources document... not what manages to get published in the opinion sections of this vast animal we call the internet. 172.56.20.36 (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

No change to RS is needed; this is all covered in WP:BIASED. What is needed is to understand that most news sources today (from about 3-so years ago), when reporting on Trump or anything on the right, fall into existing BIASED language. This doesn't make them unreliable, it just triggers certain methods of writing our topics per NPOV for us to present a politically-charged topic in an academically-neutral manner. That follows policy. What that leaves on the table is coming to grips about how to accept the current state of the media, and that's where we have a issue of significant debate.

(And I do recognize that outside of people like Astme, there are armies of novice editors/IPs that want to include fringe sources. That's not going to happen, the policies protect that). --Masem (t) 17:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

This stuff about "news sources today" is your own idiosyncratic opinion. It has no more weight than anyone else's opinion, and indeed, because it contradicts WP:RS, less. You can fight your battles against "mainstream media" and reliable sources somewhere else on the internet.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Did you mean "outside of" or "in addition to"? These articles are bleeding good editors who have better uses of our time -- for what? To play along and humor a few obstinate obstructionists? SPECIFICO talk 17:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that editors on that talk page are grouping people like Astme into the same body as the "army" of new/IP editors trying to force a viewpoint. I just looked at the page history, and fully agree there's problems with this outside brigading and meat puppetry that is going to wear on editors, but that is no excuse to ignore valid concerns raised by Astme and on this board; from what Astme's written, they certainly do not seem like a Trump-shrill, but instead focused on how WP should stay neutral in a difficult topic. I've been there, I know exactly what it feels like to be hounded by editors for trying to remain steadfast to core policy (both in sourcing and neutrality) on a topic not being covered objectively in the media. It's not an easy answer, but shutting down discussion by claiming it is wasting time is BS. I would say that Astme's may be in the area of WP:TE, I found myself there too, and taking a break from the area helped, but this is also a highly visible topic with BLP implications, and the complete shutout of hearing any of these concerns is worrying. --Masem (t) 17:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I know Atsme goes around to people's talk pages and gives them cookies and barnstars and chit chats and all that, but at the end of the day, Atsme is an editor who does not agree with our fundamental policies on reliable sources because "evil mainstream media" and no amount of buttering up other editors changes the fact that Atsme is simply WP:NOTHERE. So grouping Atsme in with armies of new/IP editors trying to force a viewpoint is not at all problematic. Have you actually interacted with Atsme? Half their statements are simply incomprehensible, half advocate for violating Wikipedia policies and half are word salads jumbles of irrelevant Wikipedia policies. Discussion is impossible. And their suggestions are the opposite of "focusing on neutrality", they're straight up WP:ADVOCACY.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, really? Are you implying something Volunteer Marek? Yes, I notice the work of other editors, and yes, I am involved in NPP, AfC, OTRS, and various projects - not just politics - and I happen to be appreciative of the editors who contribute their time for FREE. Your allegations deserve scrutiny by admins because quite frankly, they are very problematic. If you have a problem with me communicating in a collegial manner with other editors I've been collaborating with and/or respect on this project, spit it out now, because the allegations you're making about me are adding up to a potential ARBCOM case, and I do not appreciate it. Stay focused on the content of the article and mind your own p's and q's rather than trying to paint a picture of me that simply is not true. Reel it in. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Masem's the one who brought it up. And the fact that you're WP:NOTHERE when it comes to political articles is pretty transparent. You've repeatedly stated that you don't like the sources that Wikipedia considers RS and you've proposed several times using sketchy, conspiracy or fringe, sources instead.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Keep digging, VM. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying Atsme is a model editor. I do agree there's a bit of canvassing and TE going on, and that's a caution that Atsme might need to take a break from the area. But NOTHERE doesn't seem valid, they seem to have a non-POV vested interested, which unfortunately because it goes against the rub of what the mainstream media insist is true and what the entrenched editors there say must be presented, Atsme is being lumped into the Trump-shrill group. That's very much against the proper conduct we expect editors to have on WP. Some of this is on Atsme's behavior, they are partially responsible for why we're here, but that's not the sole reason. --Masem (t) 18:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Masem, I can't remember what drew my attention to that particular article - I try to stay away from the political arena - it could have been in the NPP queue. FYI - I've made a total of 2 edits to the article itself - hardly tendentious editing - I've made 189 edits on the TP (10.24% of the total edits made to the page) trying to gain consensus from other editors based on common sense reasoning but all I get are accusations and grief. I've kept track because I've been down similar railroad tracks before - live and learn - and can recognize when the urban express is coming at me on the same track full speed ahead. Call it seasoning, but not the kind we tend to use on food to enhance its palatability. In retrospect, I would have been much happier sitting in a dentist's chair getting a root canal. If I've stepped out of line, I apologize - perhaps someone hit a nerve and I reacted - but I can't pinpoint a particular situation that I did so. It's not important at this point because it only diverts attention from the real issue; i.e., NPOV. We never stop learning so if there is indeed a basis to criticize my conduct, other than my concerns over NPOV and drawing attention to issues in a highly contentious article, I am always open to correction and modification. If WP policy is to ignore NPOV noncompliance, I will adjust to fit that agenda, but the aspersions against me, the claims that I've done anything unreasonable, should be accompanied by diffs so that I can apologize for such behavior and correct it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

" I try to stay away from the political arena" - no, no you don't. You're all up in it. What is the point of making this false claim when it can be so easily disproven??? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Tread carefully, VM - your claims can be easily debunked. I have been the same editor for over 6 years - my ID outed so there is no question that I am who I am for the whole frigging world to see - can you say the same? ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I really can't believe that you can claim that you stay away from political articles with the straight face. You're all over anything to do with Trump.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

While this is the wrong forum to engage in complaints about other editors, I will say this: I contend without reservation that the problems in AmPol are due almost entirely to the editors. The editors on both sides of the political divide. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Or... it's because of the editors who enable certain other, problem, editors, in their quest to portray themselves as uber neutral white knights.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Casting aspirations on editors is not a solution, which is also happening here and has happened before. Focus on the message they are trying to present. I don't consider myself "neutral" in the political matter, I certainly do not agree with much of what Trump says or does, but I recognize we're an academic work and we have to put personal feelings and opinions aside to write something that is neutral. (it is really really really REALLY easy to hate on Trump and use numerous sources to back that up, but that's just not how we write an encyclopedia). As MPants points out, that's not happening on either side of the debate in nearly any AmPol article. --Masem (t) 18:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

That sounds to me like you're confusing "cops and robbers" vs. "cowobys and indians" where there are "very fine people on both sides." -- This is cops and robbers. It's a matter of record that the robbers have tried to cite all kinds of non-RS sources like Daily Caller, Fox and Breitbart. Whereas the cops are trying their best to conform text to the explicit statements of RS references. SPECIFICO talk 18:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

That there are a lot of new/IP trying to inject the Daily Caller is an issue, but you cannot classify anyone that disagrees with your stance as a "robber". And again, I don't see what's being asked for here as trying to use anything but RSes but recognizing the failings of RSes in their bias on the issue of Trump and to use their words with careful attribution. --Masem (t) 20:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Please stop making this ridiculous claim that reliable sources are biased against Trump. If you think it's true, conduct an RfC for each source that you want to impugn. Otherwise, just stop making this claim as if it's a widely-accepted fact. It's not.- Mr X 🖋 20:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Except that the bias is backed by research from Pew for example. --Masem (t) 20:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

That article pretty much says THE OPPOSITE of what you're claiming!!!!. Just freakin' stop with this nonsense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The section of the study, Compared with past administrations, coverage of Trump's early days focused less on policy and was more negative overall (p. 11), examines the extent to which news media's stories made positive or negative assessments of Trump. This is compared to the extent to which news media made positive or negative assessments of the previous 3 Presidents (Obama, Bush, Clinton).
The contrast is striking:- President:positive/neutral/negative -> Clinton:27%/44%/28%, Bush:22%/49%/28%, Obama:42%/38%/20%, Trump:5%/33%/62%. Striking not only in the vastly higher proportion of negative assessments, but also in the lower proportion of neutral assessments. The study also finds that media is much less focused on policy and more focused on character than for the corresponding periods of the previous 3 presidencies:- President:%policy stories -> Clinton:58%, Bush:65%, Obama:50%, Trump:31%
Masem is correct to state that this section of the study is indicative of both a bias against Trump and of greater polarisation in the media. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 03:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

How sad. Masem has exercised incredible restraint, good judgment, politeness, neutrality, common sense, and yet he is still being criticized. I find that appalling behavior because it appears to stem from a misconception of our PAGs and what NPOV actually represents. The aspersions, the allegations, the criticisms - call it what you will - are not accompanied by diffs because there are none to support the claims. Perhaps that speaks volumes as to how this particular article has been written. Step back, editors - take a long hard look at what's happening here...it's a situation where no one wins and the project loses. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

in

Masem, I am very disappointed at your claim, which actually is worse than a claim -- it's an aspersion (as defined) -- that I have ever "classied anyone that disagrees with you..." What a horrendous crock of nonsense. I am telling you that our dear friend Atsme has brought Daily Caller as a source and I will tell you further that the best thing you could do to try to help her is to sternly advise her to stop pulling that kind of malarky before we all lose our patience. SPECIFICO talk 20:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Squeezing this in to address the repeated misrepresentation of the Daily Caller. Masem, please see my one and only reference to the DC. To begin, my reference was made as a suggestion in a TP discussion. The published article was an on-camera interview with Shelby Steele. Imagine that...a Robert J. and Marion E. Oster Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution in the Daily Caller? How dare they! A highly respected black conservative academic, author of 5 books, who specializes in the study of race relations, multiculturalism, and affirmative action commenting about Trump's views and saying negative things about liberalism. OMG! Keep that damn interview away from our Trump Coatrack! C'mon, let's get those feet back on the floor, please. VM attempted to discredit me by claiming my suggestions are straight-up WP:ADVOCACY, and that "Half their statements are simply incomprehensible, half advocate for violating Wikipedia policies and half are word salads jumbles of irrelevant Wikipedia policies. Discussion is impossible.. It's sad that such a gawd-awful PA was ignored by admins who are supposed to be monitoring this noticeboard, if any actually are, who knows? MastCell's conclusion above that the "problem seems obvious: a relatively small subset of editors can't seem to handle reliably sourced material that reflects negatively on Donald Trump, and they come up with increasingly tortured interpretations of policy to try to exclude this material" missed the intended target, but make a slight correction so that it reads, "that reflects positively on Donald Trump" and it's a bullseye. It's hard to make a correct determination after a discussion has been hijacked, and uninvolved editors are not given a fair opportunity to express their views, which is not unlike the article TP. When editors start making shit up, they should at least try to make it convincing if the goal is to get me topic banned for drawing attention to the NPOV issues at the article. All the BS claims and pile ons against me are what should be raising 🚩🚩🚩 as an obvious attempt at WP:POV railroad especially when it's all aspersions and no DIFFS. Perhaps WP:ADVOCATE is involved here, but the wrong editor is being blamed. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Masem, did you actually read the analysis you linked to? It doesn't say what you insinuate it does, and in fact carefully steps around identifying anything causal. If anything, its strongest contention is that sources with right-leaning audiences are outliers in terms of what/how they cover the Presidency. I would invite everyone take a look... It IS illuminating, but not in the way Masem thinks it is. 172.56.21.142 (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Yup. Exactly right. He just linked an article and hoped that nobody would actually check whether or not it supported it his claims. It doesn't. And this kind of "mistake" is not something that just happens by accident.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Masem: No it isn't. If anything, the study shows that right-leaning media have given Trump a pass for the first 100 days of his presidency. It say nothing of the veracity of the coverage or the fact that Trump is by far the most controversial president since Nixon, and is on a fast track to exceed even him.- Mr X 🖋 20:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The assertion that there is a bias is incontrovertible if one accepts the Pew data: see [6] and [7]. The only question is whether that bias is a result of matters internal or external to the media outlets considered. In other words, whether they are biased because of Trump or because of themselves. It's obviously the former (see [8] and [9]), but nothing about that invalidates the claim of bias. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, since Masem is making a claim about the source of bias belonging internally to the media sources, it does refute his claim. I appreciate that you drew a distinction, though, and while bias usually refers to an unfair prejudice, I think you were referring to the fact that it doesn't technically need to be unfair to be accurately prejudicial and thus perceived as biased. It's an important editorial concept. 172.56.21.142 (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

This is also right. That's not bias (i.e. "prejudice"). If the Cleveland Browns lose all their freakin' games in a season, then if a source writes "the Cleveland Browns had the worst seasons ever", that's not bias, that's accuracy. You just can't blame "the evil mainstream media" for the fact that Trump is the most unpopular, and in many ways dysfunctional, president we've ever had. But that's neither the sources' problem, nor is it ours.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

That analogy isn't even close to what either Masem or I have suggested. Speaking for myself, my assertion is that the amount of negative coverage of Trump is disproportionately large compared to his actual foibles, while the amount of positive coverage is disproportionately small compared to his few laudable actions. No-one is suggesting that Trump is a good president, or even not a racist shitbag. My position is more like "can we please just stop shit talking him and actually get down to explaining why there's so much shit talking of him going on?!"

To frame that in terms of your analogy, it's more like a source spent five chapters on the Browns' losing season, while covering their other seasons at 5 to a chapter. Sure, everything accurate enough, but there's still a pretty obvious bias there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Then you also don't understand the Pew analysis. Sometimes I want to wake up in a world where being being the 1:5 outlier on facts means everyone else is wrong, but that's not the way it works. You're using a chart that illustrates media outlets with a right-wing viewership tend to break from the majority of other coverage to... suggest something is wrong sum total of other coverage? You're right on the edge of committing a balance fallacy. 172.56.21.142 (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Strident disagreement?

Done.

Personal attack?

Done.

Hyperbolic ruminations on the ruination of the rest of the world?

Done.

Knocking down a strawman?

Done.

Actual refutation of anything I said?

Not done. I didn't use the chart about how right-wing sources cover Trump to claim that left-wing sources are suspect, I used it to evince the (politically opposite but logically consistent) point that the left-wing sources probably aren't inaccurate per se. You and VM are bost assuming that a bias is inevitably a bad thing. No, it's not. Skeptical Inquirer is one of the most biased magazines I've ever read, but their bias is towards demonstrable claims of fact, so they manage to be incredibly accurate as a direct result of that bias. Unfortunately, politics are much less subject to empirical testing, so we have to be more careful about political bias, which is my and Masem's ultimate point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

"You and VM are bost assuming that a bias is inevitably a bad thing" - going by the standard colloquial definition of "bias" ("prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair"), then it is indeed a "bad thing". And Masem and Atsme are using the word "bias" as essentially a proxy for "unreliable" (they can't use the word "unreliable" because then the fact they're full of it would be transparent) it seems they too think of it as a "bad thing". I think you're on your own here Pants.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

1) The definition does not evince your claim that it's a bad thing. It just rephrases the same concept. It takes logic, not semantics to prove a logical claim. 2) You're straw manning Masem again. You may be right about Atsme, but I have no doubt whatsoever that you are misrepresenting what Masem has said. 3) No, I'm not, judging by what's being said by those two. And I don't require a constant stream of canvassing emails to find supporting arguments, either. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

1) Most people would consider "prejudice" to be a "bad thing" (the antonym of "prejudice" is "fairness", which is a "good thing"). And this is indeed semantics - a discussion on the meaning of words. Of course it's also logic, since "semantics" is a subset of logic, so I'm not sure what you're going on about with that one. (And just to be clear, even though sometimes it's used in a negative sense, "semantics" is neither a bad or a good thing - when the word is used in a negative way, what the speaker is saying is that it is irrelevant). 2) Nah, Masem is just covering the switcharoo better than Atsme. At the end of the day, the practical implications of what he and Atsme want to do are the same - violate policy by either removing reliable sources according to their WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT or insert a bunch of "analysis", or "temper the sources", i.e. do a bunch of POV'd original research to misrepresent sources. 3) No idea what the reference to "stream of canvassing emails" is referring to.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure. So let's be fair. Since you want to play with words instead of discussing meaning, you should probably be aware that "fair" is synonymous with "equality".

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

05:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you being sarcastic? Because, you know, it's not. Neither on Wikipedia in GEVAL nor in common day usage, nor in precise "semantic" usage.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

And, um, discussing semantics and discussing meaning of words, is the same thing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Who said semantics isn't about meaning? I know I didn't; I said you were playing with words. The only thing I contrasted semantics with was logic, a point you've completely ignored (I'll add it to the list). Oh, and regarding "equal" being a synonym of "fair"; oh yes it fucking is. Did you even bother to check a thesaurus before responding? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

"Playing with words" is discussing words, though when you make assertions such as "prejudice is not a "bad thing"", you're the one actually playing with words. You're also not getting the part about semantics and logic. Semantics IS logic, or at least a branch of it. So I'm not ignoring anything - right above I explain it to you Of course it's also logic, since "semantics" is a subset of logic" - you just have no clue as to what you're talking about. Same for "fair" vs "equal". I didn't check a thesaurus because I actually already know the meaning of words. Hell, I've taught classes (not courses, just a few lectures in a course) on the distinction between "fair" and "equal". Under some circumstances - not the ones here - they could be the same. But in general they're not. If you work 40 hours a week and make 5000$, and I spent the whole week sitting on my couch playing minecraft and make 0$, well, we don't have an "equal" income. But arguably we both got what was "fair". If someone conducts themselves with dignity and, um, in a "presidential manner" and the sources cover that, and if someone else posts insane tweets, insults random people, and behaves like a half witted boor, and the sources cover that, that may not be "equal" but it is "fair".Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm just commenting here that I've not bothered to read your response because you've made it clear that you don't give a shit about any opinion except your own, and that you will lie through your teeth to defend it. Congrats on convincing someone who used to respect you not to do so, anymore. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Name one damn thing I "lied through my teeth" about or go the fuck away.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to speak for myself here, and go back to what I have said throughout: we should not have this article yet, as long as it presently remains a list of every incident that the media or someone calls Trump's statements/views racist/racial. The timing is far too close while he is in the presidential spotlight, and a good chunk of the media is in a war of words with him, making them non-objective (not all of our RSes, but enough to throw caution there). We can't write anything "neutral" at this time, at least as how I see neutrality implied by policy and guidelines. In 5-10 years after he's no longer in the spotlight, and tempers have cooled down from RSes, then we probably can. That's all aligning with NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM. We still can say in some pages that the media and public, in general, think Trump has racial-based views, but I don't think we should have this standalone page yet until we have 20/20 hindsight on the matter.

But I know that that view is in the minority in terms of keeping this a standalone page from past AFD, and I'll respect that. That's fine, but that page still must conform to policy, including BLP and NPOV. The sticky aspect is "what is neutrality" and that leads to questions on MPants' essay, not necessary to readdress here, but I will stress one element in that I think far too many editors want to hang their hat on "neutrality defined by UNDUE", in that if we have a mass of sources saying something, we must include it. This is fine when the content is factual (it's why we call the earth round and dismiss flat-earthers as fringes), but when you get to subjective material, including labels, that changes everything. We must be careful to not have WP speaking in the subjective voice just because everyone else is. We still need to be neutral, dispassionate, and impartial on our writing, and so that's where we need to temper things - thats why YESPOV and LABEL exist, and why "neutrality defined by UNDUE" is not the neutral we actually work towards. It is not about eliminating sources claiming they are suddenly no longer RSes, only that we recognize opinions are being the focal of these sources, not facts, and write these as opinions. To that end, that also suggests that not every single racially-charged incident on this is appropriate if they're just random claims by a small number of sources, and we should remove them. None of this is OR - or at least the type of OR that NOR warns against. Evaluating the nature of sources and how to present this is a normal practice for WP editors and necessary "original research" as part of our summary jobs. What I see on push back from this all over the place are editors that seem to have clear dislike of Trump (which is completely fine, I don't like him too, but I'm not asking ppl to love the guy), wanting to push Trump-hating media pieces as fact; this happens in the alt/far-right figurehead articles too. As an academic reference work, we should not be doing that at all; our personal opinions must be set aside, review the situation well beyond the RS bubble, and see what's going on the be able to write a highly contested article - still using the same RSes but making sure to attribute claims and not write their opinions as facts. That might change how the overall tone of this article is written but that's a necessary element. We're still respecting all policy include UNDUE/WEIGHT, not bringing in non-RS sources that otherwise wouldn't be used, or the like, it just takes WP away from the controversy. --Masem (t) 03:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Masem, As an academic reference work... WP is not one of those. And tagging, I presume, the NYTimes, WaPo, et al "Trump-hating media" is denial of all our Wikipedia policies and guidelines about Reliable Sources. It doesn't even progress to the case-by-case application of due weight. SPECIFICO talk 15:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

How else would you describe WP? We're supposed to be a reference work. Also, there is nothing against any policy recognizing that RSes can be biased, that's why WP:BIASED exists. It's also recognizing when RSes publish opinions rather than facts (WP:YESPOV). It's the assumption that non op-ed pieces from works like NYTimes must be taken as factual and infallible is the problem here, and no policy requires us to accept that; policy instead does ask editors to consider sources and articles on case-by-case bases for opinions and bias; nowhere does it ask for blind faith, which tends to be what happens in Trump-related articles. --Masem (t) 16:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I have been very careful to identify that a biased RS does not cause that RS to no longer be an RS; it is just how we temper their wording per NPOV, recognizing things should be presented as opinions and not factual (in WP's voice) statements. That might trigger UNDUE in that we shouldn't overload articles with every possible opinion out there, but that's not the same as saying the sources are unreliable and cannot be used, period. --Masem (t) 22:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

You claimed that there are "failings of RSes in their bias on the issue of Trump" and you implied in a previous comment that editors are hating on Trump. The Pew research does not show either of those two things to be true, so we are back to you making assertions that are phrased as if they are accepted fact, when actually they are merely your's and Atsme's opinions.- Mr X 🖋 22:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

On this talk page alone, there are lots of editors throwing around assertions as fact. That happens all the time everywhere on talk pages fof WP; it's how we debate (though it is a bad practice). But as long as I'm not arguing to state that language directly in a WP article as fact, there's no harm nor is anyone else doing harm unless it turns into a personal attack. What is necessary is to understand this big picture; staying to a very narrow cut of what are deemed RSes and assuming they are perfect and infallible (which is a very comforting position to take if one is inclined to dislike Trump) is not helpful, nor is the assumption they are evil and lying and thus wholly unreliable (amenable if one is a Trump supporter). Our policies are written assuming no source is perfectly reliable all the time, that bias can and will happen, and when it does, we take appropriate steps to make sure opinions are stated rather than facts. I maintain I'm arguing for the middle ground, staying to the RSes but simply acknowledging these as statements of opinion , at this time. --Masem (t) 22:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Masem, but this made me literally laugh out loud. The "middle ground" (according to the Pew analysis you posted) is probably something close to what we have, since media outlets that use essentially neutral phrasing regarding Trump are still 5x more likely to report on his (and we're going to use the weak wording here) "false statements". 208.54.70.175 (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

There's no problem that sources deemed to be using neutral phrasing are more likely to report about Trump; what is the problem is that editors here tend to want to focus on the non-neutral attack language that focus on Trump or the like. Eg, this page of discussion being about what they claim are racially-charged incidents. MPants noted this above: we aren't going to hide the fact that people as a whole really dislike Trump, but our goal should be to try to establish why that is, rather than join in with the dislike against Trump. The Pew report still points out that we don't have much in terms of good objective coverage of Trump to really do this well, but we have to try our best. --Masem (t) 14:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Masem, folks have told you you're misrepresenting the Pew study. Have you gone back for a reality check? It's not about "objective" -- and I suggest you not hang your hat on MPants' work in progress until he gets the kinks out of it. WP policy is very clear and it's a puzzlement to see it denied and disputed on NPOV/N. SPECIFICO talk 15:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, I am not arguing anything against existing policy. Existing policy covers this situation, as long as there is consensus that the media is biased in some manner in this particular topic area. Once that bias is accepted per BIASED, then other parts of policy come into play to guide us how to write around that bias (like YESPOV). Unfortunately, there are editors steadfast that the media is not biased, shutting down any discussion of this. I agree the Pew study is not the definitive result, but it provides enough data and sources that the questions must be asked and discussed. I personally believe its clearly obvious when one steps away from the picture, but there's more than just the Pew study that describe the situation with the media today to bring their bias into question and how that applies under NPOV. So no, there's not a single question of changing policy here. --Masem (t) 15:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

" I agree the Pew study is not the definitive result, but it provides enough data and sources" - Oh PLEASE! It's not just that "the Pew study is not the definitive result", it's that you posted this study to support a claim you made, while the study actually CONTRADICTS your claim. Nobody here is saying it's a definitive study. What they are saying is that it says opposite of what you claimed. And you can't even admit that - constructing this "definitive study" strawman - and pretend that you weren't completely wrong.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Masem, the Pew study is not even intended to address the concern you've specified. It's not looking at that. But at any rate, what it does say, right on the first page, is that a quantitative survey determined that so-called left-leaning and centrist media base their reporting on multiple credible sources and fact-checking, whereas "right-leaning" sources tend to present general narratives and speculations based on their constituencies' prior beliefs rather than facts and sources. That seems to explain pretty well why the former approach is consistent with Wikipedia's sourcing and neutrality requirements and why the right-leaning media do not meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines. SPECIFICO talk 22:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

What text from the study supports the assertion what it does say, right on the first page, is that a quantitative survey determined that so-called left-leaning and centrist media base their reporting on multiple credible sources and fact-checking, whereas "right-leaning" sources tend to present general narratives and speculations based on their constituencies' prior beliefs rather than facts and sources. I ask because I could not find the text string credib (covering credible, credibly, etc), and the only instances of fact check are in the explanatory notes on "Refutations": The news media can play a fact checking role in its coverage of politics and, in the course of that fact checking, can sometimes indicate that a statement is inaccurate or a misrepresentation. Accordingly, this measure identifies any instance in which the journalist directly challenges a statement made by Trump or a member of his administration, by saying it is incorrect. The text string specul (covering speculations etc) is also not found, and the only uses of the string narrative are in Overall, journalists structured their narratives far more around President Trump’s leadership and character than his policy agenda (74% vs. 26%, respectively) and the explanatory for "Frame": When reporting a story about a specific topic, there are various frames that journalists can use to orient the narrative. None of these speak about differences in quality or reliability between media sources with left or right leaning audiences.
It is difficult, therefore, to consider the assertion above as other than deeply misrepresentative or deeply misunderstanding of the Pew study. In the context of a comment chiding another editor for their understanding of the study, the optics for this are not good. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

MP: Maybe your mercurial attitude towards definitions serves you well with a different audience, but it won't serve you well here (that is not a personal attack, and it does in fact address the meat of any argument you're trying to make). In your analogy, you make it clear that you view the coverage of Trump as textbook bias, implying a level of unfairness: "it's more like a source spent five chapters on the Browns' losing season, while covering their other seasons at 5 to a chapter. Sure, everything accurate enough, but there's still a pretty obvious bias there" ..... But then you try to liken your definition of bias to encompass one of the most stridently factual publications in existence? You can't use the "b" definition of bias to define the outer edge of skepticism immediately after unconvincingly using the "a" definition of bias to draw erroneous conclusions about the state of the media without being called out for it. 208.54.70.175 (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Masem, that Pew paper shows nothing to support your POV. In fact what it shows is that "right-leaning" folks who watch "right-leaning" cable TV are being fed a bunch of unsourced incomplete nonsense. And when it's dressed up with well-coiffed broadcasters and fancy stage sets, it leads their viewers to adopt a lot of fringe nonsense. What the Pew study does is give some real depth to the WP policy that requires RS references to adhere to standards of integrity, diligence and fact-checking. SPECIFICO talk 21:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The above demonstrates exactly what NPOV editors have attempted to demonstrate here and at the TP regarding POV issues and why it has become a serious issue at the article. The pile-on attacks against NPOV editors, the unsupported claims, and on and on. You can make claims all day long and denigrate admins who are trying to explain why your position is not supported by NPOV, and you can attempt to make your POV dominate consensus, but the bottomline is still the same - what you're defending is not compliant with policy and it is not supported by verifiable evidence...it's still the OPINION of Trump detractors. I hope to hell more admins are taking notice of this discussion because it speaks volumes. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

What the holy fuck is an NPOV editor?- Mr X 🖋 22:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Opposite a POV editor, MrX. It wasn't meant to be derogatory to anyone but my having to consistently shield against unwarranted aspersions of advocacy are why I made the distinction. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

So stop doing it. You make constant attacks against other editors. I’ve lost count of how many times you have asked editors with whom you disagree to leave. You’ve beaten to death a stable of horses. You don’t accept RS, even claiming the NYTimes and WaPo spread gossip. All, and I mean all, of your edits push one POV. This is absolutely not true of most of the editors with whom you have conflicts. O3000 (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Your aspersions against me have made an impressive collection, O3000 - the timeline and chronology are very telling as is the evidence that your claims are BS. You'd be wise to cease and desist. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

And here's the problem with Atsme in a nutshell. Atsme constantly accuses others of "being POV editors" or similar while at the same time pushing fringe sources and fringe POV, and if you call them out on it - the constant attacks, the unending WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and complete inability to follow Wikipedia policies - she starts threatening folks with ArbCom or such. This is classic WP:NOTHERE disruptive and WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I will not take your bait, VM. I have always tried to be polite despite the hurtful and unkind things you've said to/about me. This noticeboard is not an RfA, it's not ANI, or AE so cool your heels. Editors including admins see through your facade, and know full well your anger stems from the fact that we disagree with your POV - yes, it is a POV and as the discussions here have indicated, it is not a NPOV. Try to keep the discussion focused on article content and please stop your unwarranted PAs against me and other editors. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, you seriously need to consider that you are the editor that has been pushing a POV. And, you should take your own advice about unwarranted PAs against many editors. You could start by not adding "sigh" to edits and edit summaries and not asking editors to leave discussions. O3000 (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Nah, it's just classic WP:CPUSH. The "make attacks on others than play victim"... I mean, that's like CPUSH101.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Masem:, could you please stop throwing around the term "academic" or "academic neutrality" or whatnot. I presume you picked that up from MPants' work in progress essay,[10] but it's really a meaningless term here and it just seems to be groping for gravitas, to add weight to an altogether confused and self-contradictory interpretation of WP policy. This alternative-universe "neutrality" just makes things more confused. Better to stick to the nuts and bolts of what V and NPOV policy actually state. SPECIFICO talk 23:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Did you presume that after I explicitly told you that for the fifth time, then? For the sixth time, it's a descriptive term, not a formal term. If you can't puzzle out what Masem might be referring to in using it, then I'm afraid you've got bigger problems that Masen's verbiage choices. Or were you merely pretending to not understand again? I know you do love a good chewbacca defense. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll take that with a grain of salt. SPECIFICO talk 23:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

It would be to the benefit of all to take what MPants said with far more consideration than a grain of salt...it was more like a 10# weight. And what Masem has demonstrated deserves equal or more consideration. Throw me to the wolves if you will...I'm willing to do whatever I need to do if that's what it takes to bring NPOV to the forefront. This entire discussion speaks volumes regarding what is or isn't "statement of fact" vs "journalistic opinion" in an ever-changing news environment. The quality of this encyclopedia is of the utmost importance to me - and my comments at NPP, and wherever else I've expressed my views will validate my position. I believe that whatever happens here will have a long lasting effect (once the PAs stop and the focus returns to WP:PAG), hopefully in a positive way, depending on what side of the isle you stand. The goal should be that both sides feel positive about the outcome. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

" And what Masem has demonstrated" - you mean the part where he made a false claim then linked to a source which DISPROVED the very claim he was making? That's what's suppose to "deserve equal or more consideration"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

A tremendous waste of time indeed. I've requested a close at WP:ANRFC. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Anti-Punjabi activity

Sock blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

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

It has come to my attention that GSS-1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been participating in anti-Punjabi activity on Wikipedia. Removing the term Punjabi from articles and deleting Punjabi pages. This sort of editing is disruptive and bias against Punjabis. I request this users activities be reviewed and necessary steps be taken to stop this type of behavior. JassiDosanjh (talk) 10:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Looking through GSS-1987’s contributions, I am not detecting any anti-Punjabi pattern in the behavior. Blueboar (talk) 10:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@JassiDosanjh: Can you please stop personal attacks and socking around. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 10:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Blueboar: Why has GSS-1987 recently deleted List of highest-grossing Punjabi films and redirected the page to List of highest-grossing Indian films?

Why has GSS-1987 recently deleted:

Why has GSS-1987 recently removed Punjabi from the lead of:

I sense a bias against Punjabis and disruptive editing.

JassiDosanjh (talk) 11:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@GSS-1987:Personal attack? Where?

Sock? How? These are serious allegations, please explain. JassiDosanjh (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@JassiDosanjh: has raised some good questions. There is not much in the edit summary neither. @GSS-1987: what is the reason for deleting the lists and other editing? 144.202.98.240 (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Why is a "new" editor advocating for the edits of a blocked sockpuppet? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I have not checked all the above evidence but List of Punjabi films of 1978 was not even deleted by GSS-1987. D4iNa4 (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@D4iNa4: from GSS-1987's contribution log: 08:35, 13 March 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+105)‎ . . User:GSS-1987/CSD log ‎ (Logging speedy deletion nomination of List of Punjabi films of 1978. (TW)) JassiDosanjh (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: [11], [12] JassiDosanjh (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Anthony Appleyard deleted one of them. Give me a moment and I'll sort this out, JassiDosanjh's another sock. Doug Weller talk —Preceding undated comment added 13:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Can you please check your mail? GSS (talk|c|em) 13:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, JassiDosanjh, NeilN, and D4iNa4: Which file is "one of them"? I can undelete it if needed. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: I think you're fine. The OP is another sock (now blocked). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

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

RFCs on Third Party inclusion in the election infobox

FYI, there are two RFCs asking about third party inclusion in election infoboxes. Aspects of these issues touch on NPOV and may be of interest to editors here. Please join the discussion at the project talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Topic of Polish collaboration during WW2 - Content forking

Forum shopping. Go to the AfD if you have anything to add. 03:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to voice my significant concerns as to what's going on with the topic of Polish collaboration in WW2 on Wikipedia. In this case, I keep thinking about Criticism of Wikipedia, and how this problem translates to the topic of Polish collaboration. Perhaps admins should look into the issue and assess if Wikipedia's neutrality is not being affected.

At this point we have three LONG texts on Wikipedia regarding this subject matter:

Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany - 1,600 words
Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II#Poland - 1,200 words
History of Poland (1939–1945)#Collaboration with the occupiers - 1,000 words

Yet, only one or two editors voiced reservations when on 14 March, 18 [13] a new article was created Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany, on top of the already long texts on this subject in two other articles. This happened exactly when due to a heated content dispute [14] on Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II#Poland, the admins blocked the article [15]. I'd also like to point out no other country has so much text on this subject raising the issue of Content forking in regards to Poland. This creates unchecked issues of UNDUE WIEGHT, BALANCING ASPECTS, and EQUAL VALIDITY which are ignored by a group of editors and dismissed as irrelevant — instead you just hear a numbing mob call that this is a VALID TOPIC by several editors who for whatever reason think that more content is needed on this.--E-960 (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you will find that most of the arguments were of the "very contentious issue needs its own article, so as not to clog up other articles" rather then "WE NEED MORE STUFF". Another of our rules is AGF, which is not helped by misrepresenting other users positions.Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, very simple... QUALITY over QUANTITY, this is nothing more then Content forking, instead of improving the two text that already existed some editors though the problem will be solved by creating a new article on this subject, or perhaps in bad faith they just wanted to give this subject matter undue weight. --E-960 (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

No it is not, as has been explained. The collaboration article had become a battle ground because the argument was being made we should not give more weight to Poland then any other nation. So to avoid this another article was created to discus what is a complex and contentious issue, Your argument was "we should not have too much information on Poland here as Undue and Weighty" and now it is " we cannot have a seperate article as undue and weighty". Also lets see [[16]], [[17]], [[18]], [[19]][[20]][[21]][[22]][[23]], are all articles that talk about some form of Russian collaboration (for all I know there may well be more).Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

No, no no... sorry, but only two of these items cover specifically the broad topic of "Russian collaboration", Russian_collaborationism_with_the_Axis_powers and Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II#Soviet_Union, the others pages cover individual collaborationist organizations. See, again this is how this issue is being blurred and misrepresented. --E-960 (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

So would you rather then we we did this with Poland, and had separate articles on separate aspects of collaboration?Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

We have those already: Blue Police, Jewish Ghetto Police, Żagiew, Group 13, Volksdeutsche, etc. The point is how many repeating duplicate articles/sections are we gonna have about 'Poland' collaboration. --E-960 (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

As many as we have for many others? Now you have a point that many of those sections are too long, now we have an article that covers the topic. But that is separate from whether those articles should exist at all. As I said you objected to the length of the Polish section in Collaboration with the Nazis, so a new article was created to have that material. Now what do you want, one article that holds it all or have it split off?Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Might be best to let others chip in before I reply again.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor here. If there are multiple pages which are more specific elements of a larger subject, then it is appropriate to have a "main" or "overview" article to cover the matter briefly and link to the specific articles via the main template. For example, see the article on World War I. There are multiple more specific articles about certain topics, and most of those are linked via use of the main template (in fact, there's hardly any section/subsection title which doesn't have such a link.

Of course, the article about WWI is massive (270 kb) and invovles a very complex subject, so it's natural that is be split. The articles about Polish collaborationism are smaller. However, having all information about a specific topic grouped in a certain place is very useful (and good practice). Therefore, IMHO, the "overview" article should be kept, and material from other articles should be merged or briefly summarised and combined with a Template:Main link. WP:NPOV also explicitly states that it's okay to treat "minority viewpoints" (in this case, it's a cold hard fact which happens to have been the action of only a minority, but I digress: it happened and is covered in reliable sources) with separate articles. Example: Evolution (accepted science) and Creationism (scientifically, that is utter bollocks) both exist as articles since they are notable. Hell, there's even an article about the controversy (given it has became a matter of debate (to the detriment of other, probably more important topics), at least in some spheres of American politics). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

In light of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany, this appears to be forum shopping. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Realphi is pushing POVs

The user is making strong POV edits again and again even after repeated reminders. Mainly, he is pushing sectarian RPOV, that the Kanji Panth ideology he believes in is the rightest thing out there which needs to be pushed on all pages and templates related to Digambara sect of Jainism. -Nimit (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

The user also appears to be a candidate for topic ban per WP:CIR. User’s talk page is full of warnings and notices. [User’s contributions] aren’t constructive and articles created by him are characterised by fanciful content and unreliable sources. -Nimit (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. It's amazing sometimes how much patience we have with tendentious, uncommunicative, policy-violating editors here. They may be unblocked if they start communicating on their talkpage, and pay some attention to the warnings, especially against copyright violations. Bishonen | talk 13:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC).

Apparitions

Is it necessary to qualify an individual apparition of Mary, e.g. 1988 Lubbock apparition of Mary as a "reported" or "alleged" apparition, as in this edit? If an apparition is defined as a claimed sighting or experience, then this seems a bit redundant bordering on pedantic or critical. Marian apparition had a similar change made in 2016. And Our Lady of Zeitoun also changed in 2017. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is appropriate to add the "reported" language to make sure Wikivoice is not saying they factually saw something. "Apparition" doesn't need to be claimed or not, so its not redundant but necessary for clarity. --Masem (t) 15:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

In common usage, to say an apparition was witnessed would likely imply an endorsement of a supernatural phenomenon. My edits regarding that are an attempt to avoid that. I agree with Masem above about this. Best wishes. Hoktiwe (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Paul Erickson

Caroline456 and I could use some eyes on the new article Paul Erickson, where we've run into a whole bunch of neutrality-related issues. This is an article about a South Dakota Republican operative who's received a lot of news coverage recently in connection with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

User:31.154.71.87 and Israel-related edits.

This IP, which can be traced to Israel, might not be adhering to NPOV, at least it seems to me. All these edits take place in the last month. 90% of their edits have been on Israel related pages. User unironically cites NPOV in many edit summaries but respective edits themselves are misleading or disruptive. I have left messages on the user's talk page, but there has been no response, and editing pattern is continuing.

1. Unrecognized city status: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knesset&diff=prev&oldid=830972380&diffmode=source. User claims that the correct information is not NPOV, removes it, also saying it's "unecessary." East Jerusalem has never been recognised as part of Israel in the international community at large (they annexed it in 1980).

2. Inaccurate edit and misleading summary. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Church_of_the_Nativity&diff=prev&oldid=831948510&diffmode=source. User says "per NPOV, better leave this empty." This is a blatantly misleading edit. Not only is the Church of the Nativity commonly known to be in Palestine, but the cited link to the UNESCO.org page even says "Palestine" as it's location.

3. Removing "Palestine" / replacing it with "Israel." Here in these next 7 edits ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hani_al-Hassan&diff=prev&oldid=832261745&diffmode=source , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edmond_Bonan&diff=prev&oldid=832261774&diffmode=source , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yehoram_Gaon&diff=prev&oldid=832261790&diffmode=source , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shlomo_Aronson&diff=prev&oldid=832261927&diffmode=sourceedits , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A._B._Yehoshua&diff=prev&oldid=832261945&diffmode=source , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yaakov_Ades&diff=prev&oldid=832261959&diffmode=source, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moshe_Safdie&diff=prev&oldid=832261977&diffmode=source ) the user removes "Palestine" from the infoboxes of articles, or other sections, even though it is historically appropriate. "Palestine" is replaced with "Israel" in many instances, even though the State of Israel did not come into being until 1948. User offers no edit summaries for any of the edits.

4. Addition of weasel word (WP:ALLEGED): In these two edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ireland%E2%80%93Israel_relations&diff=prev&oldid=832807663&diffmode=source & https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ireland%E2%80%93Israel_relations&diff=832813508&oldid=832810111&diffmode=source , User continually adds "alleged," a commonly used WP:weasel word to the sentence: Prior to that, Ireland had refused to establish relations due to Israel's <<alleged>> violations of UN Resolutions. This is common knowledge. Israel has a long history of ignoring the UN and many times has been condemned for violating resolutions. R9tgokunks ✡ 02:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Violation of UN resolution is disputed - it should be alleged. With some of the figures in question (3)- stating that this was in the Palestinian territories (a term that came into being following 1967) is incorrect - in [24] - placing Haifa in the Palestinian territories?! It should be Mandatory Palestine - or blank.Icewhiz (talk) 06:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

You are joking right? That's basic historical ignorance and I'm unsure if you're being serious or not. We even have a Wikipedia article about this. Also, It's unencyclopedic to add weasel words, per WP policy. I think it's maybe telling that you are trying to defend these disruptive edits. R9tgokunks ✡ 18:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

No, I am not. Placing Haifa in the Palestinian territories?! That was in one of ~~your~~ edits. Haifa was in Mandatory Palestine - it is not part of the West Bank and Gaza. I did not go over all of your examples, but tthe ones I did - e.g. the location of Haifa in Han al-Hassan, the IP was correcting an error (not perfectly).Icewhiz (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Struck your, as it was in Cakerzing's edit that the IP reverted.Icewhiz (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Take this to ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Christ myth theory

Christ myth theory and Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Fringe_theory Christ myth theory

This is a fringe theory article and falls under theory guidelines, however, in taking full advantage of some of the leeway Wikipedia generously allows, it has failed to live up to Wikipedia guidelines in these ways:

(1) "Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is." The manner in which this article is written presents the theory from the point of view of its proponents--without including responses to those views--making it seem these ideas are not seriously challenged. Majority view is given a token mention only.
(2) "a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight"; the small amount and absent detail of the majority view in approximately 80% of the article, along with the absence of any real critique of this theory, makes it seem as though this is a more notable theory than most academics in the field consider it to be.
(3) "reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." Most of the sources used are dubious. For example, there are no peer reviews available for Richard Carrier's book because it was not seen as worthy of reviewing by academics in the field. Yet Carrier is referenced repeatedly. Massey, even Wells, and more--they are all proponents of the theory. Not a one of them is critiqued.
(4) "Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight.
(5) Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources." This article does state this is a fringe theory in the intro and overview--then it fails to proportionately demonstrate or explain--or mention--that in the rest of the body.
(6) "Inclusion and exclusion of content related to fringe theories and criticism of fringe theories may be done by means of a rough parity of sources." There is no parity.
(7) "In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal. ...By parity of sources, critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from reliable websites and books that are not peer reviewed. ...Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals." The views of the group are shown clearly and thoroughly--without criticism.
(8) claims may contain or be followed by qualifiers to maintain neutrality – e.g. "Although Halbronn possibly knows more about the texts and associated archives than almost anybody else alive (he helped dig out and research many of them), most other specialists in the field reject this view." The few qualifiers in this article are applied primarily to the mainstream view.
(9) "Fringe theories should be discussed in context; uncontroversial ideas may need to be referred to in relation to fringe theories. Discussion of mainstream ideas should be sourced from reliable mainstream sources. Links to non-fringe articles in fringe articles can also help aid the reader in understanding and remove the threat of creating a [walled garden]." This is a prime example of a fringe theory that is not discussed in context.

In short, this article is misleading, imbalanced and non-neutral. The authors of this article have made it clear they are believers in this theory and as a result, it is more like a personal blog from a proponent than a Wikipedia article. Approximately 80% of the article never mentions majority view. What mention there is of the "Traditional view" is highly qualified, has little detail, with no direct critiques of the theory or responses anywhere. This article includes no serious challenges to this theory--and they exist. I've talked and talked and gotten nowhere. We need a neutral assessment of these issues. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The Christ myth theory article has been discussed multiple times... both here and at WP:FTN. Has anything changed since the last discussion? Blueboar (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 made their first contribution to the talk page of this article on 24 March and their first edit to the article itself the next day. Basically s/he (sorry I don't know whether they are male or female) immediately demanded that the article be re-written. As someone who has watched this article, argued about it and made desperate attempts to keep it neutral for at least five years rather than five days, I think this is being unrealistic and rather impatient. What basically happens now in the article is that there is a definition arrived at after years of wrangling about it, then the mainstream view is stated, then for the majority of the article, yes, about 80% as Jenhawk says, the myth theory proponents are allowed to make their case. Then near the end of the article, in a section "Scholarly reception" it is made clear that the idea that Jesus did not exist " finds virtually no support from scholars."Jenhawk says there are "no direct critiques of the theory or responses anywhere" but this is not the case, in the following section "Lack of support for mythicism" there are a number of quotes from historians (most of which I put in and had to fight to keep in over various periods) which say why no historian takes this idea seriously and that is that there is actually much more evidence for Jesus than there is for most other personages from antiquity, for instance "Graeme Clarke, Emeritus Professor of Classical Ancient History and Archaeology at Australian National University has stated: "Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ—the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming". Jenhawk seems to want to go through the body of the article, the 80% s/he doesn't like, and refute every point made by the "mythicists" as it goes along. This would make the article far too long, apart from anything else and virtually unreadable. I think this discussion should be taking place on the article talk page rather than here and I recommend Jenhawk slow down a little and try to do a little bit at a time rather than re-write the article all at once.Smeat75 (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Smeat75 is correct. There is a huge lack of support for the CMT. It's not just fringe, many sources see it as not even worthy of debating. It's like "asking a professional astronomer to debate with the authors of a book claiming the moon was made of green cheese". Others are even more harsh. I can provide abundant sources should the need arise. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Totally agree with Smeat75. Jenhawk777 has been abundantly replied in the talkpage-section, where it has been explained that the article has a fringe-theory as its subject. That talkpage-tread started with a discussion about Stout, presented as a writer who has a mainstream view, yet turned out to be an author who explicitly questions a mainstream view, while promoting Evangelical Christian views. Not exactly what we need, when someone argues that the mainstream-view is underpresented.
Regarding the policy-citations above:

1 - this applies to 'regular' articles; nevertheless, the Cmt-article makes it very clear that the Cmt is not just seriously challenged, it is outright rejected by virtally all scholars.
2 - this article is about the Cmt.
3 - Cmt is not related to 'the quest for the historical Jesus'?
4 - yep. So, the Cmt does not receive undue weight at articles on Jesus.
5 - how many times does one have to repeat that the Cmt is a fringe theory? One time should suffice, actually; the article mentions it in the lead and in a section on the scholarly reception, with explanation and explication; that's enough.
6 - again, this article is about the fronge theory; it's not a presentation of a fringe-theory in a 'standard' article.
7 - Doherty and Carrier are cited from websites, the ctitics are cited from printed sources - what's the point here?
8 - "Critics of the Christ myth theory question the competence of its supporters" - how strong a (dis)qualifier do you want to have?
9 - the article starts with a section on "Jesus and the origins of Christianity", which gives the main research questions, the mainstream view, and then the Cmt.

I think that Smeat75 is right, when he writes Jenhawk seems to want to go through the body of the article, the 80% s/he doesn't like, and refute every point made by the "mythicists" as it goes along. This would make the article far too long, apart from anything else and virtually unreadable. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Smeat75: If you want to make a case for being the reasonable one, don't misquote people. Basically s/he ... immediately demanded that the article be re-written. Untrue. Find a dif where I said any such thing.

Please acknowledge dif: [Revision as of 04:41, 28 March 2018] which says:Please note I have not at any time disputed the validity of this article's existence. and There is also nothing wrong with the structure of the article in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with its representation of the CM theory. It does a very thorough and careful presentation of mythicist arguments. Please note--I have not requested that a single word be removed from this article--not even Massey. Because I believe it is well written, clear--and though not at all concise--I like it and think it is mostly a good article. I don't see anything wrong with the introductory section as it stands. It presents the CM view with clarity and in this article I find it appropriate. The problem I have is that there is nothing representing the mainstream view in the rest of the article--80% of the body. And what that produces is neither neutral nor balanced and as a result, the article is misleading as to what the views on this theory actually are.

You say, "Jenhawk seems to want to go through the body of the article, the 80% s/he doesn't like, and refute every point made by the "mythicists" as it goes along. This would make the article far too long, apart from anything else and virtually unreadable." Length is not a good reason for non-neutrality. That can be handled in many ways. I have no desire to refute every point, but I would like to see at least some of the specific refutations included in the same locations claims are made. You say "there are a number of quotes from historians" and your example is a good example of a general statement with no specifics: "Graeme Clarke, Emeritus Professor of Classical Ancient History and Archaeology at Australian National University has stated: "Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ—the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming". It doesn't actually address any specific claim or refute anything does it? It would be a problem if specific responses were presented disconnected from the arguments they refute--but it's even more of a problem that they are not there at all.

Instead of guessing what it "seems like I want" how about just asking--or better yet--actually responding to the specifics that I do remark upon? It is my suggestion that some counterpoints in the body would be sufficient--nothing that's already here needs changing. Really. It's a good article. I have no problem with what's in it--I only have a problem with what isn't. So let me fix that one issue. in that same dif.

@Joshua Jonathan: "Jenhawk777 has been abundantly replied in the talkpage-section". That is a true statement. Has any one of those replies--once--expressed a willingness to address my concerns? Repeatedly saying no isn't the spirit of consensus. "That talkpage-tread started with a discussion about Stout," also true. And how did I respond to your concern? I removed him. I responded to your observation with cooperation. Find me a dif where you did the same.

"it's not a presentation of a fringe-theory in a 'standard' article." That allows some extra leeway indeed--but it does not excuse or allow non-neutrality. "In an article on a fringe topic parity is still required. It is not present in this article as it stands.

Gentlemen, this comes down to a difference of opinion on what constitutes a "sufficient amount" of majority response in an article on a fringe view. Since there is virtually nothing but a few general comments, I say the majority view should actually be there for there to be enough of it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I have had a look at the article and the discussion above and I am unable to figure out exactly what it is that Jenhawk777 wants to do that they think would improve he article. It would be much better to be specific about some changes than to start putting in various principles in bold without specific proposals. If the idea is to write "he said she said" on every statement I would oppose that. It is made clear that the theory is fringe, we don't need people making it completely unreadable just because it is fringe. Wikipedia's primary purpose is to describe what is out there - not to fix the world's ills. We should make it clear that fringe is fringe but it should still be properly and readably described. Dmcq (talk) 07:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Dmcq:, I have articulated what I think the problem is. Line 215-223 Latest revision as of 07:13, 30 March 2018 there is not a single reference to the mainstream response--which was forceful--listed in the 18th-19th century section, or in the early twentieth century, or in modern proponents--which really should be modern views and include them all. There is virtually no mainstream view included in this article from the Gospels section on down. That looks like about 80% of the article. This leads any reader to the conclusion Imaginatorium has erroneously reached: that the argument "goes very quiet when it comes to producing actual evidence" and "the independent historical evidence consists of about three short paragraphs in Roman history books (Josephus et al), written a century after the event, and not actually very convincing. None of this makes CMT true, but it is a very weak counterargument." He has actually proven my point. That's exactly what this article conveys through omission. No one can dispute that surely when the authors themselves state it.

But I have not been able to get agreement that there is a problem--there seems little point in making detailed suggestions to solve a problem there is no agreement on. I have no desire to do a detailed he said-she said, but for parity to occur and for there to be some genuine substance to "due weight" there does need to be some detailed response somewhere--there is none. There are only a few general statements that "tradition doesn't like it." Even a single paragraph per section would be better than nothing--and might be entirely adequate.

It is made clear up front the theory is fringe. I agree. The length can be dealt with by making what's there more concise--but really--it's already so long, what difference will a few more paragraphs actually make? Imaginatorium's comment on line 213 is appropriate: I think the fact that this is a minority view should be reflected by a compact article; I agree it should be more compact than it is, but long or short, it should still be neutral.Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Dmcq, a suggestion was made by user [74.138.111.159] that a new article on the history of Cm be created. It would solve the problem of length here by moving the historical material and offer the opportunity for including a more comprehensive view elsewhere. See line 327 Revision as of 05:13, 29 March 2018. I did so. The response was negative. The article is too long--but that's solvable isn't it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

We hear you. Regarding Find me a dif where you did the same, see diff: added info to note; thanks, Jenhawk777! Regarding The problem I have is that there is nothing representing the mainstream view in the rest of the article - the mainstream view on Cmt, or the mainstream-view on the historicity of Jesus etc.? Both are clearly articulated. Regarding "difference of opinion," see WP:CONSENSUS ; see also WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:TRUTH, and WP:SHOUT. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, and I would add WP:BATTLEGROUND. Being active on the article for less than a week,immediately making numerous insistent demands at length, opening this discussion here and adding not one but two "neutrality disputed" tags to the article.Smeat75 (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

This is just more misrepresentation. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

You thanked me once at the start? That's your evidence of cooperation? Really? You know I agreed this is not an article on the historicity of Jesus: Latest revision as of 07:13, 30 March 2018. Are editors allowed to reach consensus on neutrality? Isn't it correct that there are some issues where consensus is not the only thing relevant and Wiki policy takes priority? I think it is. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Keeping Barnett's quote is good. Thank you. See--we can cooperate. diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

You're right, that is one. I should have included that. I stand corrected. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Could you learn how to put your reference to a diff into your reply properly please. A long and incoherent argument with broken references is not a good start for getting your point across. Dmcq (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for my carelessness. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Line 335 [25] Line 215-223 [26] It was past my bedtime. :-) Sorry. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Jenhawk above quotes editor Imaginatorium: "the independent historical evidence consists of about three short paragraphs in Roman history books (Josephus et al), written a century after the event, and not actually very convincing". As I responded to this comment on the talk page, the fact is that this three times more evidence than there is for almost any other "ordinary" person (ie not a king or empress or military leader) from antiquity and although a lot of people who know nothing about ancient history may not find it convincing it convinces every historian on earth. There are Christian, Roman and Jewish sources that confirm the existence of Jesus and the crucifixion and multiple independent attestation of an event from antiquity is exceedingly rare. That is the reason why no historian takes this idea seriously and it is really quite simple.(Editor Imaginatorium is not an "author" of the article by the way). Jenhawk also says the problem is "a difference of opinion on what constitutes a "sufficient amount" of majority response in an article on a fringe view... there is virtually nothing but a few general comments" but in fact what constitutes the "overwhelming documentary evidence" referred to by the classics professor I already quoted is stated over and over in the article - Bart D. Ehrman..states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by the Romans is attested to by a wide range of sources including Josephus and Tacitus.....There are three non-Christian sources which are typically used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus—two mentions in Josephus and one mention in the Roman source Tacitus...... According to John Dominic Crossan: That [Jesus] was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact. How many times can you say it? If believers in the Christ myth don't find that convincing or don't want to find that convincing there is not much we can do about it.Smeat75 (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I apologize, but I can't find that comment from you. Could you send the link to that dif so I can figure out why I can't find it myself? What people believe is not the issue in my mind. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

[27] "three short paragraphs in Roman history books" is three times as much evidence for a person's existence than we have for hundreds of personages from antiquity"Smeat75 (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

No wonder I couldn't find it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

very unprofessional text under the Afro-Bolivian page under History.

Am a new person and this is my first time ever using the noticeboards so please forgive any mistakes.

I noticed while reading a page this paragraph under the History tab of the Afro-Bolivian page:

"Okay, there is a flaw in this. bogota was really far away from the coast so why the heck would people transport slaves all the way across that land? there is a damn flaw to your logic. [2]"

the source was just a link to google maps. regardless of whether the person had a point, I really think this type of text violates wikipedia's neutral dialog policy.

Thank you for your time, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.40.138.152 (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@209.40.138.152: The addition of that sentence was indeed inappropriate in content, tone, and sourcing, and I have reverted it. Also note that you could have done so yourself, but thank you for bringing it to our attention here. --Finngall ^talk 20:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

'Moribund' as WP:POV

I think that:

Development status Moribund

in the infobox at Apache OpenOffice should be removed or changed per WP:POV and WP:LABEL.

There has been recent talk-page engagement at Talk:Apache_OpenOffice#"Moribund"_status. There has been older talk-page engagement at Talk:Apache_OpenOffice#"Dormant"_status and Talk:Apache_OpenOffice#1-2-3-4._If_you_detect_an_edit_war.... There are opinions that consider the term perfectly adjusted and valid, and others that consider it not neutral or biased. I think we need external feedback. This is my first time ever using the noticeboards so please forgive any mistakes. --Entalpia2 (talk) 11:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

'Imposing' as WP:WEASEL

I find the following should be changed:

Memorial Hall, immediately north of Harvard Yard in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is an imposing^[1]^[2]^[3] High Victorian Gothic building honoring the sacrifices made by Harvard men in defense of the Union during the American Civil War‍—‌"a symbol of Boston's commitment to the Unionist cause and the abolitionist movement in America."^[4]

to

Memorial Hall, immediately north of Harvard Yard in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is a large^[1]^[2]^[3] High Victorian Gothic building honoring the sacrifices made by Harvard men in defense of the Union during the American Civil War‍—‌"a symbol of Boston's commitment to the Unionist cause and the abolitionist movement in America."^[4]

References

^ ^a ^b King, M. (1884). Harvard and Its Surroundings. Moses King. p. 41. Retrieved 2017-01-29.
^ ^a ^b American Architect and Architecture. Vol. 25. American Architect. 1889. Retrieved 2017-01-29.
^ ^a ^b The Dublin University Magazine: A Literary and Political Journal. Vol. 92. W. Curry, jun., and Company. 1878. p. 503. Retrieved 2017-01-29.
^ ^a ^b Shand-Tucci, D.; Cheek, R. (2001). Harvard University: An Architectural Tour. Princeton Architectural Press. p. 158. ISBN 9781568982809. Retrieved 2017-01-29.

per WP:WEASEL and WP:PUFFERY.

There has been no talk-page engagement despite my efforts at Talk:Memorial Hall (Harvard University)#Imposing_is_WP:WEASEL. Carl Fredrik^talk 20:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Architectural examples are literally used by the dictionary entry for the term. The word is used by the 3 cited sources, which are describing the building in greater terms than its physical size. The suggestion to replace it with "large" cheapens the text, and the article. TheValeyard (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The alternative is cheapening Wikipedia, which I find considerably worse. This is about neutrality and avoiding puffery, not whether certain adjectives are used when expressing subjective judgement. Carl Fredrik^talk 00:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

As the first sentence of the article, it is definitely falling into Peacock territory - we don't want to be subjective in that sentence. It is fine to later say that the building is considered "imposing" by those sources, when there's more space to explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talk • contribs) 20:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Exactly what I said. Carl Fredrik^talk 00:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Most university halls are large, even imposing, particularly those at large universities, particularly those that merit their own Wikipedia articles. The infobox image pretty much screams "imposing", and |alt= could be added for benefit of the vision-impaired. I don't see much value in or need for any adjective there. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I cannot see the problem with "imposing". It is in common use as a purely descriptive term for a building designed to impress by its scale, and it could as easily be taken to be negative as to be positive. As such it is not a peacock term, and it certainly has nothing to do with weasel words. To change it to "large" shows a cloth ear for the nuances of English. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I also see no problem with a term that is commonly used for such things and is appropriate. And in this case I completely agree with the immediately preceding comment about the use of the word. We are supposed to say what is said about topics. There is no need to avoid such adjectives. The comment before that 'I don't see much value in or need for any adjective there' when they have just said the picture pretty much screams imposing is some relative to political correctness to an absurd degree applied to the guideline about peacock or weasel terms. Dmcq (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

And by the way I think 'large' is yuseless in such circumstances as there is no comparison with anything. Whereas imposing as supported by the citations is a clear and well supported description. Dmcq (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Shooting of Stephon Clark

Several issues have arisen on the article talk page, leading to a number of confused threads about content and sourcing. The article concerns the recent killing of a young man in Sacramento by police who shot him in the back while responding to a call about petty vandalism in a residential neighborhood. More experienced participation on that page would be helpful. SPECIFICO talk 14:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes it would. Anyone care to explain what SYNTH and original research are? It would be very helpful if we were at least talking about the same thing, because not everyone seems to be...using words correctly. GMG ^talk 14:22, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality issues in Bangladesh article.

Some users are repeatedly reverting constructive and sourced edits to the top section of Bangladesh article pushing a POV of denial of the significance of other Bengali-Assamese people other than Bengalis in Bangladesh such as Sylhetis, Chittagonian people and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manipulateus (talk • contribs) 16:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Both involved users broke 3RR and were warned. One continued, was taken to 3RR, and is now blocked for socking. Meters (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

article Jovan Jelovac

In the current state, the article Jovan Jelovac is not neutral. The article seems to be praising the subject (a living person). I believe the creator, and the only contributor of the article is acting in good faith. I tried to work on the tone of the article, but I couldnt do anything. Help with editing, or suggestions are requested. Kindly ping while replying. Thanks a lot, —usernamekiran(talk) 18:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC notice

An RfC has been opened on whether Colt AR-15 should mention the Port Arthur massacre. 20:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Meetup

My name is Kristin Hodgson and I work at Meetup. Recently the Meetup page has gone through some unusual changes. For example, for a time the page said Meetup’s #resist political groups were contrary to Meetup’s mission, citing only Meetup’s own mission statement (diff). The page has also made editorialized statements like “In late 2016 Meetup put the future of the company on the line . . .” (diff)

The last paragraph of the History section in the current version of the page says stuff like “after years of declining usage” (citing an archived Alexa chart showing 3 months of decline) and “lacking the cash needed to update systems to current standards” (citing a bunch of sources that do not support the text).

I know I am not allowed to boldly edit criticisms about the company, so I was hoping this post might attract one or two disinterested watchlisters/participants. Kristin hodgson at meetup (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Kristin hodgson at meetup, thank you for posting. I think I have addressed your two concerns about the current version, so if you could take a look again that would be great. Alex Shih (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Alex Shih:. I was more concerned about the ongoing issue than a specific piece of article-text. However, I did take another look after your changes. A few comments:

I don’t think the Alexa citation supports the article-text that Meetup was sold “in response to” declining usage

I was also surprised to see a non-secondary source (Alexa) used in the body of the article like that. Unlike other social media companies, Meetup’s goal is to get people offline. We actually prefer to see less internet traffic and more in-person meetups.

The See Also section seems like a list of plugs for competitors. Is this normal?

I only see one citation that supports the 10% layoff reference. The article says the 10% layoff was alleged by anonymous former employees and that Meetup said no such layoff took place. This article is an outlier in having such a negative tone about the acquisition.

Kristin hodgson at meetup (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Please see the 2010 posting on Meetup's talk page, here. Apparently there is a years-long history of POV-controlling by Meetup Corporate, including having been flagged as an advertisement/promotion. Chromedomemalone (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Can we state that these theories and references are false in Wikipedia's voice?

Knights Templar (Freemasonry) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) where this edit by Besillica (talk · contribs) changed "Below are accounts of some of these theories and references" to "Below are accounts of some of these false theories and references" with the edit summary "Perhaps wikipedia has a voice however masonic authoritatives and otherwise disclaim those theories. I thought would be to clarify unless fiction writing s are fact?". Doug Weller talk 18:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

WP voice cannot state that, but we can say that such theories/etc. are debunked by sources and attribute or reference those sources. For example, the first item on that list "American Masonic youth organizations, such as the Order of DeMolay for young men, are named after the last Grand Master Templar Jacques de Molay, who was executed in the final suppression of the Templar order in the early 14th century." (which is not sources) should also state what the reality is if that is considered a debunked theory or conclusion. (Which, reading on both de Molay and on the Order of DeMolay, actually doesn't seem "false" or otherwise. That section is really badly presented overall. --Masem (t) 18:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh I agree it's a mess. We still shouldn't state 'false' without independent reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 18:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

RM notice at Islamic terrorism

The discussion can be found here:

Talk:Islamic_terrorism#Requested_move_10_April_2018

--K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Biased Point of View on American Airlines

American Airlines page reads like an informational Advertisement and includes no record or history of any negative coverage of or incidents within the company — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.10.127.169 (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

[pbs-20170822-1] Desjardins, Lisa (August 22, 2017). "Every moment in Trump's charged relationship with race". PBS Newshour. Retrieved January 13, 2018.

[2] "'There's no other word but racist': Trump's global rebuke for 'shithole' remark". The Guardian. January 13, 2018. Retrieved January 13, 2018.

[3] Raymond, Adam K. (November 30, 2017). "British MPs Condemn 'Racist,' 'Incompetent' Trump for Endorsing 'Vile Fascist' Group". New York. Retrieved January 13, 2018.

[4] Salama, Vivian (January 12, 2018). "Trump's history of breaking decorum with remarks on race, ethnicity". NBC News. Retrieved January 13, 2018.

[5] Nichols, Laura (June 29, 2017). "Poll: Majority of Trump Voters Say His Political Correctness Is 'About Right'". Morning Consult. Retrieved January 13, 2018.

[6] "Trump's 'shithole' comment is his new rock bottom". CNN. January 12, 2018. Retrieved January 13, 2018.

[nation-20170508-7] Cite error: The named reference nation-20170508 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[google-8] King, M. (1884). Harvard and Its Surroundings. Moses King. p. 41. Retrieved 2017-01-29.

[google2-9] American Architect and Architecture. Vol. 25. American Architect. 1889. Retrieved 2017-01-29.

[google3-10] The Dublin University Magazine: A Literary and Political Journal. Vol. 92. W. Curry, jun., and Company. 1878. p. 503. Retrieved 2017-01-29.

[google4-11] Shand-Tucci, D.; Cheek, R. (2001). Harvard University: An Architectural Tour. Princeton Architectural Press. p. 158. ISBN 9781568982809. Retrieved 2017-01-29.

[1]