Talk:Serge F. Kovaleski

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Serge F. Kovaleski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151208094652/http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/8331 to http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/8331
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151208173739/http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/8332 to http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/8332

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

No evidence that Trump "bent his wrist severely", nor any proof that he intended to mock Kovaleski's disability.

I removed the unsubstantiated claim that Trump "bent his wrist severely", implying that he intended to mock Kovaleski's disability. Once again, antifa disciple Grayfell has moved quickly to restore the fake news. Will Jimmy Wales need to be alerted to this politically biased censorship by one of his editors yet again? 16stumps (talk) 08:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Uh huh. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. Random Youtube uploads are WP:UGC, which are not reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Then why were the references to Fox News article (with included video of Trump) removed from the section on the controversy? In order to eliminate bias from the Wikipedia article, all major sides of the controversy must be reported. It would be biased only to report criticism of then-candidate Trump without also reporting the evidence tending to refute the criticism. I do not edit very often, but I am fairly certain that Wikipedia operates under a principle of even-handedness to eliminate apparent bias. Can we reinstate the Fox News article? It is not a "random YouTube upload". Milkchaser (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

This source was not cited or being discussed at the time I posted the comment you are responding to, which is why it's usually best to post new comments at the bottom of a section. Grayfell (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Fine, then I'll just delete the section about Trump "bending his wrist severely" as it amounts to unsourced opinion. I'm happy that you won't have any complaint therein. 16stumps (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I have added several reliable sources, which were trivially easy to locate. Grayfell (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

It's notable that you've ignored the exculpatory examples which prove the gesture is common from Trump when he simply wishes to portray someone as flustered. Does your support for the hate group "antifa" in any way affect the manner in which you censor edits on this site? Perhaps Jimmy Wales needs to made aware of your one-sided abuse like he was on the UTR page. You'd better hurry up and ban my account before the truth about you gets out! You're becoming quite well known on Twitter. 16stumps (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

As I said, Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, which you have not provided. Grayfell (talk) 00:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

And I'll ask for a second time: Which reliable source are you citing to support the "bent wrist" allegation? That's important, because the clear implication is that Trump intended to mock his disability. 16stumps (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

As I already said, I have added several sources for this statement. Grayfell (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, do you ever expend effort to maintain edits which *favor* President Trump, or is all your energy devoted to damaging him? Your reputation seems to indicate the latter, so maybe you can elucidate. 16stumps (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

No reply. Interesting. 16stumps (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

16stumps I think it is important to presume good faith on the part of editors. Grayfell's political bias is not in evidence and should not be made an issue.

That said, there might be a way to not only report on the criticism of Trump's mocking behavior but on the defense of this behavior as well, in order to remove possible bias from the article. Fox News (a reliable source) has published video [1] of two other times when Trump mocked a person in a similar way (including text to put it in context of the Kovaleski controversy). The viewer of the video could be trusted to judge how similar the mocking gestures are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkchaser (talk • contribs) 16:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Unsure if you've read the full edit history Milkchaser, but I've cited both the FNC video and article twice now. Grayfell and Binksternet have removed both of them. 16stumps (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The added wording was editorializing for several reasons. "Others have called attention to the fact that..." presumes that this is a "fact", which isn't accepted even by the Fox news source (it puts the word "evidence" in scare quotes, for example). This edit also failed to explain who these "others" are, which is a WP:WEASEL wording. Opinions would need to be presented with context and attribution. Reliable sources state, as a fact, that Trump mocked the reporter, whether or not this was based on his physical disability is, I suppose, debatable, but the mockery itself is not in question. If this was standard behavior for how he mocks many people... so what? We would need to explain why that's significant according to reliable sources, and we would need to present unreliable opinions, such as the catholics4trump.com (which now appears to be a dead link) as the opinions of... Who, exactly? Someone who put up a website? Presenting this as a credible rebuttal without any of this context is inappropriate, because it's false equivalence between one or two unreliable sources and many, many reliable ones. The alternative is to presenting this with all of this context, but this risks undue weight. Not every sourced factoid belongs, especially when dealing with election-cycle political gossip. So far, the arguments from catholics4trump have not, from what's been presented here, had any sort of lasting impact on Serge F. Kovaleski as an encyclopedia topic, so it's not clear why this belongs here. Grayfell (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

While this might end up getting bogged down in procedural and attempted gotchas, I had not removed the Fox news source until my most recent edit. This source was previously included, but was removed back in October. Obviously I support that removal, but the goal is still (and always) to summarize reliable sources in proportion to WP:DUE. So again, does this source add clarity to the article? If even the Fox News source treats this website with some skepticism and quotes fact-checkers who dispute its claims, and the site's about page says absolutely nothing about them, it's hard to treat this source seriously. If we cannot explain why this anonymous website's perspective is significant, we shouldn't bother mentioning it at all. Grayfell (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

As someone who rarely comments or edits, it's hard for me to understand how video of Trump is deemed unreliable.

The comment from Meryl Streep would seem to be out of place then, since she is obviously editorializing - the point being to criticize Trump. The collation of examples of Trump mocking others with gestures quite similar to that which he used to mock Kovaleski tends to refute the gist of her criticism, namely, that he was not mocking him for his disability ("imitated a disabled reporter"). Was he continuing to imitate that same reporter when he mocked Ted Cruz or the General? No. He was not. This raises the possibility that his gestures may have been contemptuous of the person and not his disability.

So leaving the Streep quote in place injects bias, especially when not presenting a contrary opinion that was contemporaneously published in a reliable source.

I do not see why it matters that the original editor of the video works for Fox News or not. Fox News published it and cited the source that was available at the time. That establishes that the video existed at that time. The Catholic website's video editor has no more nor less standing to editorialize than Meryl Streep, right?

It seems to me that the choice is either to remove the Streep quote or to also include the Fox News report of contemporaneous editorial comment presenting a contrary view. Otherwise, there is bias in the article.

Moreover, the article should only state that Trump mocked Kovaleski, not that he mocked his disability, which is a controversial and unproven opinion/interpretation - not a fact. It should not matter that this interpretation of Trump's gestures is widespread (and reported as such in RS) as this only informs the reader that the opinion is popular, thus serving to further popularizes the opinion (something I think wikipedia is not supposed to do - it would be a departure from mere reporting of fact). The article should report, not bolster one interpretation, right? Milkchaser (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Readers know who Meryl Streep is, or they can easily find out. They can judge her opinion in that context. We do not provide any way for readers to find out who or what Catholics 4 Trump was. Noting the existence of an opinion isn't editorializing. WP:EDITORIALIZING is when we, as Wikipedia editors, inject our opinions as fact, or when we misrepresent sources to imply that other opinions are plain fact.

I've looked for better sources, but I simply don't see any which support this as significant. There are countless news sources covering this incident, but I have found only a few mention the Catholics 4 Trump clips, and of those, even fewer accept the clips as valid. The Fox news one which, as I've said, doesn't seem particularly weighty in context and is tepid. Breitbart (via Ann Coulter) and Daily Mail mention it, but those are so unreliable I believe they have been blacklisted on Wikipedia due to past abuse. I think Washington Times mentioned this? That outlet is either borderline or flatly unreliable depending on who you ask. Independent Journal Review has slightly rehabilitated their reputation, but in 2016 when they published this they were still pretty shady and their articles read like clickbait. VDare mentions it, but there is no way in hell we are citing that in a BLP, and if sites like that are not a red flag I don't know what to tell you.

One possible source is this one from Washington Post. It's yet another election-cycle political gossip column, but it's a reliable source. It specifically disputes the claims made by Coulter about the Catholics 4 Trump video. If were's mentioning that "others" have said the videos support one perspective, we should also mention that other analysis, who have just as much expertise or more than Coulter and the anonymous website, specifically dispute this perspective. To me this seems completely undue in an article about Kovaleski.

So the problem isn't the existence of the videos, it's drawing a conclusion from those videos and presenting it here as factual. We need reliable sources to do that for us, and so far they do not. Grayfell (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

We're not using the Fox News article because they are not neutral or accurate regarding Trump topics. They habitually slant their reportage in favor of Trump. The Fox link that I removed last October is exactly the kind of non-neutral stuff that is unreliable. Binksternet (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

OK Binksternet - you just outed yourself as having anti-Trump bias. That comment is not responsive to the gist of my statement either.

Is there a neutral arbitrator to which we can appeal this blatant anti-Trump bias? The Fox News article is a reliable source. Milkchaser (talk) 04:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Having just read up on WP:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias_in_sources, it seems to me that the smear against Fox News is a clear example of editor's preference in excluding a source he or she finds biased. But the guideline advises against this. In fact, this particular Fox News article is quite balanced and presents source material (preserving the video collated by Catholics 4 Trump) as well as links to opinions that support the notion that Trump was intentionally mocking Kovaleski. It is really an excellent example of presenting both sides of the controversy and its deletion as a source challenges the fairness of this section of Kovaleski's bio. Milkchaser (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Grayfell Thanks for drawing the distinction between editorializing by Wikipedia editors and the expression of opinion by a public person. So if someone of Meryl Streep's notoriety states an opinion, it can be quoted as such (alongside actual facts). So if, for example, I were to get a quote from Scott Adams commenting on the video, that would be quotable as well. I think he just tweeted about this. I hope you see where I'm going with this. It should not matter if a lesser-known person edits a video that shows the actual and well-known Donald Trump because we know who Donald Trump is and can recognize him in the video. The credibility of Catholics 4 Trump is really not the issue. The question is whether that video, as published by Fox News, portrays Donald Trump making mocking gestures toward non-disabled people in campaign events nearly contemporaneous to the Kovaleski comments. Do you seriously doubt that this is not video of Donald Trump? That strains belief.

The fact that these lesser-known examples of Trump mocking people with spasmodic gestures were not published as voluminously does not indicate that the events never occurred. Right? Behavior that is deemed scandalous is more likely to be reported on - that does not justify further amplifying the false narrative.

You keep calling this the Catholics 4 Trump clip, but they are not the news event, they are mere collators of video of Trump from other contemporaneous events. If we could find the original source of video of those clips (e.g. from C-SPAN) then could we not cite the events to disprove the false narrative being spread by "countless news sources".

As for the unreliability of Breitbart, Daily Mail and Washington Times, (a) I think this betrays a kind of fallacy - that just because they have made mistakes, we cannot cite them. It's the "stopped clock is right twice a day" phenomenon, that is, just because they have been wrong does not mean that they are wrong in this instance. (b) What really matters is not the collator of the Trump clips, but whether the clips are indeed recognizable as Trump. (c) If other "news sources" refuse to publicize factual material that contradicts a popular narrative (or in this case, a hoax), that raises the issue of whether those "news sources" are themselves biased. Examples abound of the possibility of left-wing bias in formerly reputable media sources and the most glaring recent example was the two-year narrative that Donald Trump was in thrall to the Russian gov't - the evidence for which has proven elusive, but for which you can find "countless news sources" claiming it as likely fact. (e) It would be a shame if Wikipedia fell into the trap that these other news sources have fallen.

This is why I am taking pains to assume that the editors of this article are acting in good faith - something that we are asked to do as fellow wiki editors. I hope that you can see that I am also trying to erase bias from the article.

"drawing a conclusion from those videos and presenting it here as factual. We need reliable sources to do that for us" - I find that to be an astonishing statement. "We need reliable sources to draw a conclusion" instead of merely pointing us to video of Trump and allowing the viewer to draw his or her own conclusions? That is the very definition of bias. And how the heck does a critic of Ann Coulter have more expertise at analyzing the video than Ann Coulter? The very fact that she presented the examples and someone refuted her makes her controversial opinion on the matter just as weighty as Meryl Streep (whose primary area of expertise is not political analysis, as is Coulter's). Millions of people buy Coulter's books precisely because of her compelling analysis. I don't think Streep has sold that many books showing Coulter's level of research and analysis.

The fact that the reporting by Fox News in the article describing the video of Trump mocking Cruz and the General is actually a sign of a lack of bias on the part of the reporter - not a sign that their conclusion is "tepid" because it does not attempt to draw a conclusion for the reader and instead let's the reader watch the video and decide for himself.

tl;dr Either the Streep comment should be excised or the reporting by Fox News of contrary opinions on the issue should be included (and that would make more sense to me). Milkchaser (talk) 04:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The Wikipedia guideline on Neutral point of view states, "This page in a nutshell: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias." This particular Fox News article, the one that keeps getting deleted by editors of this article, is a fine example of not taking sides, but explaining both in relevant detail. Milkchaser (talk) 05:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

tl;dr indeed. If reliable, independent sources cover Adam's tweet, for some strange reason, let's see them. Many reliable, independent sources discuss Streep's comments, which where made at a high-profile event. The difference is obvious, and false equivalence between them is absurd. See false balance and WP:FALSEBALANCE. We do not assume that every side is significant just because it can be sourced, and an anonymous website is WP:UGC and WP:FRINGE.

Your comments about what makes a WP:RS are, to be blunt, simplistic and not productive here. Having individual editors Interpret an unreliable source, such as the clips compiled by Catholic 4 Trump, is WP:OR. We need to present what reliable sources say about it, not our own personal opinions. Breitbart has not only a documented negative reputation for accuracy and fact checking, it is consistently defined by this reputation by experts in media and journalism. Coulter's reputation is similarly questionable, regardless of her popularity. This has already been discussed on Wikipedia countless times. So often that we have a shortcut for it: WP:BREITBART.

Your comments about assuming good faith are contradicted by your comments about "anti-Trump bias", because that's not how any of this works. Neither editors nor sources are expected to pretend to have no biases or opinions, because that's insulting the reader's intelligence. Wikipedia isn't the place to right great wrongs. Perhaps the "mainstream media" has a leftist bias, but that doesn't change Wikipedia's status as a tertiary source. A hypothetical truly objective position must concede that that having a "bias" isn't necessarily a problem, right? Being biased doesn't make something factually incorrect, and recognizing a bias in someone else is neither quick nor easy anyway. Sometimes (usually) the word "bias" is a pejorative way of saying that something has a point of view. So what? Who cares that some of us oppose Trump? How far do you think you're going to get presenting that as if it were an accusation? Per Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor. There are plenty of better places to discover why people oppose Trump, and why only some of us are "Antifa disciples" (whatever that means), but this isn't relevant here, and truth isn't a popularity contest. If you have reliable sources supporting that Trump didn't mock Kovaleski's disability, let's see it.

If you don't have a reliable source, move along, please. Grayfell (talk) 05:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the difference. That makes sense to me. Please bear in mind the guideline to be kind to newbies. Milkchaser (talk) 05:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but this is not Breitbart. This is Fox News and it is a balanced article that not only cites Catholics 4 Trump (thus reporting on the controversy) but also articles refuting that notion. So let's not tar Fox News with the Breitbart brush. Milkchaser (talk) 05:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The Fox News article is a reliable source that does link to the video of Trump. What is defective about that source? It reports on the controversy. It was contemporaneous. All that can be reliably stated is that Trump mocked Kovaleski - not necessarily his disability.

The refusal to use a Fox News as a reliable source does not seem appropriate to me. That is my point.

You found the Washington Post article discussing Ann Coulter. That strikes me as similar to the reporting on Streep. But my point is not to defend her, merely to point out that when it comes to opinions by celebrities on whether Trump did one thing or not, how is it that Streep outranks Coulter when both are being quoted by RS?

The facts are that Trump mocked Kovaleski with his gesture. The claim (not an obvious fact) is that Trump was specifically mocking him for his disability. And evidence has been presented from a reliable source (Fox News) that links to video of Trump mocking others who do not have a disability with this same gesture. Milkchaser (talk) 06:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Here is a link to the video on the Verified Fox News youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=10&v=CsaB3ynIZH4 So although the article is reporting on video collated by Catholics for Trump, the video of Trump himself is here hosted by Fox News. Milkchaser (talk) 07:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

"Being biased doesn't make something factually incorrect" So what is factually incorrect in the Fox News story and its link to the video of Trump?

"Per Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor." The refusal to cite Trump affects the bias of the content. That is what I meant by citing Binksternet's anti-Fox News bias - it has affected this article. The Fox News article itself is balanced and relevant (as relevant as the Streep quote, anyway) so to delete it injects anti-Trump bias into the article.

"Sometimes (usually) the word 'bias' is a pejorative way of saying that something has a point of view. So what? Who cares that some of us oppose Trump?" I thought that it would go without saying that the problem of personal bias is when it influences the editorial decision - in this case to refuse to include the link to the Fox News article - resulting in non-neutral viewpoint. Milkchaser (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

"We do not provide any way for readers to find out who or what Catholics 4 Trump was" They have a facebook page.

WP:EDITORIALIZING is when we, as Wikipedia editors, inject our opinions as fact, or when we misrepresent sources to imply that other opinions are plain fact. But that is exactly what is going on here. The notion that Trump was mocking Kovaleski's disability is now stated as fact in the article. That notion is clearly in dispute and evidence of the existing dispute has been documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkchaser (talk • contribs) 17:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Milkchaser, I have a bias against any news source that twists their coverage to prove a point and tramples the facts on the way there. In this case, the Fox source blandly presents the analysis from Catholics 4 Trump, a hateful reactionary blog, as if the blog is reliable, which of course it is not, as if the analysis is fair and accurate, which it is not. Fox has selected the slant they wish to convey to the viewer, the slant which gives Trump the benefit of the doubt. Cathlics 4 Trump is a Wordpress blog by Chris Jackson, a reactionary writer for The Remnant, a "traditionalist" Catholic newspaper that advocates rolling back the advances made in the early 1960s by the Second Vatican Council. A blog by a non-notable writer is not a reliable source, but Fox favors the findings of the blog, and they decided to feature it. Bad decisions all 'round. Binksternet (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Milkchaser: do not inject your comments into the middle of other people's comments, as you did here and here. This is a form of refactoring which is against WP:TPG. Talk pages are intended to be a record of the discussion, and your behavior makes this needlessly confusing for other readers, who can no longer easily determine who you are responding to.

As for Coulter, if you found reliable sources discussing her opinion, and you felt that they were proportionate to coverage of Kovaleski specifically (instead of Trump) then you could propose an edit along those lines. We judge all sources in context.

Expecting readers to go to some rando's Facebook page isn't a solution! We need to provide readers with context, Readers should have a reliable way to determine who this person is and why their selectively edited videos in support of a specific opinion about someone other than the topic of the article are being mentioned. Nobody is disputing that these videos were made, but verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion. Based solely on reliable sources, I am completely unpersuaded that Catholics 4 Trump, as a person or group or blog, is encylopedically significant to Kovaleski. The Fox News blurb makes no difference either way in this case.

Trump's mockery of Kovaleski is presented this way because a large number of reliable sources present it this way. When a large number of reliable sources state something as a fact, we follow. If this is disputed by a significant minority, it should be possible to find reliable sources for it, but even the Fox news source treats this skeptically, and as barely worth mentioning, so... Grayfell (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I had never heard of The Remnant (newspaper) before. What a weird rabbit hole that is. So this was:

• First published by a columnist who writes for a hate group
• He publishes this on a website which he presents as a group effort, and doesn't put his or anyone else's name on it.
• The video selectively shows a handful of video clips of Trump out of thousands of hours of available interviews spanning decades.
• This video compilation is presented as a rebuttal to an accusation which is otherwise supported by dozens of experts who've met both Trump and Kovaleski and say otherwise
• This video was mentioned by Fox News, who tepidly disputes the accuracy of the claim by quoting a fact-checker's dismissal.
• At least one other reliable sources comes along after the fact and points out specific flaws in the video compilation.

Including any of this in the article would require such a massive amount of context to be neutral that it would exceed WP:DUE a dozen times over. Grayfell (talk) 23:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting me on the WP:TPG. It's good to learn the correct way to comment.

I think I am beginning to see the problem. It's not clear that the minority opinion, although covered by a reliable source, is prominent enough to wend its way into that portion of an article that is devoted to explaining Kovaleski's notoriety in the wake of Trump mocking him. If the article were focused on disputed narratives about Trump, then perhaps it would have a place.

Since the Fox News article will not be included, let me make the moot point that the two editors Binksternet and Grayfell contradict each other on the slant of the article. Grayfell makes the point that the article is skeptical of Catholics4Trump. This is part of what makes it a reliable news source in this case (i.e. it is not carrying water for either side). But Binksternet has a more critical take believing that Fox News "twists coverage and tramples the facts". But it is false that, in this article, Fox News has slanted the article in favor of Trump since they present a balanced portion of the article to the contrary point of view. It seems Binksternet is offended that Catholics4Trump got any publicity at all. I completely disagree that the article is factually compromised in any way. Moreover, the notion that Catholics4Trump is "hateful" or "reactionary" is, aside from being controversial and entirely subjective, quite irrelevant to the discussion. It is helpful that Grayfell was able to more clearly separate his personal biases from the editorial decision and explain the rationale in a way that is almost completely respectful of the minority opinion (the only blemish being the snarky reference to being a "rando" -- friends, in this vale of tears, we are all nothing but randos).

• As I am confident you are aware, the SPLC has recently become discredited due to high-level corruption there. Twitter has abandoned it as a reliable source of what is or is not a hate group. You are entitled to retain confidence in their judgment, but I do not - hence, I find it discouraging to read the author tarred with so broad a brush merely because he has written for a publication that has been defamed by a troubled and highly partisan organization.
• I was disturbed as well by the lack of attribution on the Catholics4Trump website. I think that could be useful feedback for him. But bear in mind that the entire Wikipedia editor force goes by odd usernames (milkchaser being a prime example). Still, that lack of transparency inadvertently diminishes his credibility.
• The selectiveness of the video is pointed - that is what makes it effective. The flailing hand imitation is one of Trump's comic personae. It only makes sense to show him when using it and the point is that he does not use it exclusively to mock the disabled.
• If the video effectively proves the point, it does not matter if dozens of so-called experts deny that point. That is giving undue weight to those who buy ink by the barrel.
• You reference the reliable source that alleges flaws in the video compilation but do not cite the source. Were you referring to the WaPo article that you mentioned earlier or was there another that you had in mind? I am interested in reading or watching criticism of the video.

I conclude by thanking you for your attention to the matter and for explaining the rationale behind the exclusion of the Fox News article. Milkchaser (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

It's funny how often the word "discredited" is used on Wikipedia talk pages by people who who dislike the SPLC. The accompanying examples of 'corruption' are not as persuasive as the organization's opponents make them out to be, at least in my opinion. My opinion doesn't matter, but outside of op-ed pages and similar, this is perspective is not widely shared, and it seems myopic to compare this to the organization's decades of history and relatively strong record of issuing retractions and apologies for its mistakes. Even if you do not accept that it's a bad sign, it's surely not a good sign, and it's also something many readers would want to know when evaluating a source.

I, Grayfell, am not a reliable source for Wikipedia content. Neither are you, Milkchaser. We don't pretend to be, right? That's basically my entire point. I don't know if the site's lack of information inadvertently diminishes credibility, or if it's an intentional dodge for whatever reason. It doesn't really matter. We cannot use unreliable sources to come to conclusions. We have to use reliable sources for that. Our disagreement on this issue is a prime example of why we use sources. You say the video "proves the point", but we still need a reliable source to explain why this matters.

I don't accept that this is proof of anything all that important. For one thing, even if he also uses these mannerisms for other people, that doesn't mean he's not mocking Kovaleski's condition. Occasionally (rarely) using broadly similar mannerisms to mock other people isn't a valid defense for mocking Kovaleski, unless reliable sources explains why. I don't see what it would be, so... Why would it be?

If Trump likes to mock his opponents, which he does, how often does he use this 'persona', and how often does he use some other persona? As the Washington Post column points out, the mockery of Cruz came after this incident, which makes that particular 'sample' unusable. If Trump created this 'persona' based on times he met Kovaleski (or other people with disabilities), and then applied this 'persona' to non-disabled people would that justify his behavior? The chronology seems to indicate this is a possibility, but again, we would need a reliable source for that. These are just some of the reasons we would need context from reliable sources to evaluate these selective clips. Grayfell (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Coat rack

The Trump section is grossly disproportion to this article about a man who received a Pulitzer Prize, and it appears to primarily discuss Trump and his actions rather than the subject of this article. I have no objection to including a reference to this incident, but let's keep it in proportion. See also: wp:undue Rklawton (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Kovaleski's long list of career achievements could be expanded to overtake the Trump section. That would be another solution. Binksternet (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Re-reading the section, it strikes me that the Streep quote is clearly more about Trump and only about Kovaleski by implication (he is not explicitly named). It is piling on. While I would agree that her criticism is eloquent, it clearly demonizes Trump. One gets the impression that she detests Trump - is that really relevant? Worse, it gives her opinion undue weight given that she is the only one being quoted and the decision was made not to allow a Trump defense (other than from Trump himself). The controversy is completely covered without including this quote. Milkchaser (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The Streep quote should be removed altogether. It is not relevant. This page is growing into a Trump page. If it remains, then there should also be speeches and quotes from people who counter Streep's narrative in order to bring a balance. Otherwise, this entire article appears to be nothing but an anti-Trump political opinion page. This does not reflect Wikipedia editing standards. Natasjlp (talk) 03:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Have those other speeches been covered by reliable, independent sources? If not, this wouldn't be balance, it would be false balance. If those speeches have been covered by sources, let's see them. If you know of any other relevant reliable sources, such as ones about Kovaleski's distinguished career, those would also be helpful for balance. Grayfell (talk) 03:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

That is a fair request. I will gather together some reliable sources here for discussion before directly editing the article. And, will also add more information for Kovaleski as well. I agree, he clearly deserves to have more info about him in his own article, than info of Trump or Streep. Natasjlp (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Right now it appears we are not maintaining proper balancing aspects in this article. Natasjlp (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The next step is still WP:RS, though. Grayfell (talk) 05:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Criticism of Trump

Current sentence in questions is "Trump was sharply criticized for mocking Kovaleski's disability.". This reads as Trump was mocking Kovaleski's "disability", not that Trump was mocking Kovaleski. I agree, his critics believe he did, and have 'criticized' him for mocking his disability. But just because someone criticizes someone, does not make the accusation true. Perhaps, we should say 'critics accused Trump of...' This is clearer, more neutral, and does not infer Trump's personal intentions, as defined by others who are clearly critical of him in the first place.

Not everyone believes he was mocking his disability, but was mocking Kovaleski who happens to be disabled. Critics of Trump clearly believe he was specifically criticizing his disability. However, there are numerous articles pointing out that this was not the case. Also, Trump himself denies he was specifically mocking his disability, and has a history of mocking people in the same exact jerking-like manner. Trump mocks a lot of people. You don't have to like it or him, but for the purpose of being neutral, there is a distinction and clarity that should be made. Especially, when it is criticism of a living person per Wikipedia's editing standards . Can we agree on this or work towards a compromise?

How would you go about making an edit for this type of this objective distinction? For example, if this were another article on a topic you wished to make a similar edit. Such as a teacher from a school that you were familiar with, who was receiving 'criticism' for making fun of a student because they were Mexican, or Jewish, or whatever. But perhaps the teacher would have acted the same to any student, because the student wore an ugly pink colored shirt, and they hate pink. Would you say 'The teacher was sharply criticized for mocking the student's nationality. The student is Mexican.' Or would you say 'The teacher was accused of mocking the student because of their nationality. The student is Mexican.' You could also add, 'The student wore a pink t-shirt that day, and the teacher is known for mocking students who wear pink colored shirts.' Which is more neutral? Natasjlp (talk) 04:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

There are some problems with this proposal which might not be obvious at first. By phrasing it as "critics of trump..." we are placing them in a single group of "critics" before we explain what they are criticizing. This is not what sources are telling us. Some people (analysts, voters, celebrities, coal miners, etc.) saw his behavior, and then criticized it, as a response. Some were likely Trump supporters before this incident, so they were not rightly called critics. In other words, Trump's actions created the "critics". They were not all united as critics before this, so by presenting it as a unified group, we are subtly implying that they were just looking for any reason to attack him. Some surely were, but we cannot say all of them, because many were not, or were not paying close attention prior to this.

You say there are numerous articles pointing out that this was not the case, but from past discussions, I haven't seen any that were WP:RS. If you think they are usable, please present them here for discussion. Currently, however, we have many reliable source which explain why people were criticizing him, and we have other sources which say that Trump knew Kovaleski personally, and we have Trump's team's insistence that it wasn't an insult to his disability. All of these things are, to my eyes, fairly well-summarized in the article as it is. Grayfell (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree, that makes sense. it would not be proper to phrase it as "critics of Trump..." because that appears to say that only 'critics of Trump' criticized him over this event. Many criticized him justly or not, whether or not they were even familiar with Trump. Be they an existing Trump critic at the time or otherwise.

I will go through my research and present some usable WP:RS articles and sources here for discussion. Some points for consideration, from the citations in this article, I did not see any sources that show Trump has a history of mocking disabled people, nor mocking people's disabilities. Trump is known for mocking his critics and/or anyone who criticizes him, regardless of who they are. The many times he has criticized other people in a similar 'jerky' motion, none of them were disabled. It does appear they did have some level of a short working relationship and perhaps as acquaintances many years ago. Trump ultimately said he did not remember him. Not sure if that is true or not, but it is likely Trump does not remember a lot of people.

If we are to maintain a neutral point of view while editing this article, it seems more proper to write something closer to "Trump was accused of mocking Kovaleski's disability." Instead of allowing the sentence to infer his personal intention, regardless of what people who criticized him are properly sourced as saying. People have a right to criticize anything about anyone, be it true or not. But as editors, we should be presenting the neutral point of view. I think it's perfectly reasonable and neutral not to assume his intentions, as anything other than what he has consistently and publicly stated. That he was not mocking his disability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natasjlp (talk • contribs) 06:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

"Accused" is a difficult word in this case, because it's not really an accusation, at least not simply. Instead, here's my personal attempt at a plain description of his actions: He mocked Kovaleski in a way which is specifically similar to his physical appearance and relatively few other people. He was criticized for both his behavior and also for his perceived motives. We know his behavior very clearly, and we can never fully know his motives. Some people accept that this was an unfortunate coincidence...

So... why would it matter if it were a coincidence? Do any sources explain this? Whether or not he has used similar gestures or mannerisms in the past is not necessarily relevant unless reliable sources explain why it's relevant.

To put this another way, even if he has mocked other people with similar mannerisms, that still doesn't say anything about his intentions when he mocked Kovaleski. Nor, importantly, does it change how people saw his behavior. His job, as businessman and president, is to communicate clearly, isn't it? If I mocked someone by implying that they were physically handicapped, would it be better, or worse, if they actually were handicapped? Would it be better or worse if the audience knew that person? I hope it's obvious these are rhetorical questions. Grayfell (talk) 07:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Fox News source

Should the article include this source, which casts doubt on Trump allegedly mocking Kovaleski's disability? THE DIAZ ^{userpage • talk • contribs} 00:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes The Fox News article is a reliable secondary source that strongly supports its assertions with video evidence. It also belongs in the Wikipedia article because it casts doubt on whether Trump truly "mocked" Kovaleski's disability, which is a huge factor of his notablity. WP:YESPOV THE DIAZ ^{userpage • talk • contribs} 00:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)