| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Raj Shah article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comments
edit“Certain Washington politicians choose to fight for foreign countries, but President Trump will always fight for the American people,” said Raj Shah, because those are 'shithole countries' as the president said himself. By that very definition, India is also a shithole country. How daft can you be?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42656433
Reverts by these Republican users, bias confirmed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Corkythehornetfan, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jpgordon
It's now been quoted by BBC as well. 69.158.179.57 (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- What, specifically (as in text) do you propose adding to the article? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- A 'controversy' section, in line with Wiki policies, as the comment is properly sourced and attributed. Although I'm not sure how to word it, as I don't have the time right now, so I'll leave it here in case anyone is up to this task. Possibly a mention of wilful ignorance, complacency, enabling POTUS, sycophancy; duplicity even. Although those may seem extreme or 'subjective' to some demographics, they represent the facts of this matter. For now however, a talk page reference will suffice. 65.92.116.110 (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV will come into play here. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 04:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- A 'controversy' section, in line with Wiki policies, as the comment is properly sourced and attributed. Although I'm not sure how to word it, as I don't have the time right now, so I'll leave it here in case anyone is up to this task. Possibly a mention of wilful ignorance, complacency, enabling POTUS, sycophancy; duplicity even. Although those may seem extreme or 'subjective' to some demographics, they represent the facts of this matter. For now however, a talk page reference will suffice. 65.92.116.110 (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- I understand that. It was a bit of sarcasm. However, those statements are not 'biased', they represent obvious facts about 'his refusal to directly address the question' (there ought not to be a problem with this statement in the slightest). But, I still don't think any of the previous statements are editorial either, they simply state the obvious. 'NPOV' does not mean 'without criticism', it simply requires a stating of the facts as evident from the context; that's not 'editorial', it's factual. 184.146.142.6 (talk) 04:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)