The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article was nominated for deletion on 15 January 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.
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 sourcedmust 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 within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Donald Trump on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must follow the
bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message
Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
In the article it implies that Trump still supports the convictions. Actually Trump refused to apologize for running his full page ad. And he thinks the city should not have settled the wrongful prosecution lawsuit. It should be pointed out that the lawsuit was not settled until de Blasio was elected. Were they innocent of course but at the time you had five confessions and yes they were improperly obtained confessions but that doesn't mean Trump should apologize for an ad requesting that the death penalty brought back. Regardless of how you feel about Trump the current wording seems to make it seem that he supported their convictions. He didn't support their convictions he supported the fact that he didn't feel he should apologize for an ad he took out based on his knowledge at the time. Hold him accountable for that don't imply that he still thought they were guilty without at least a quote to that specific fact. 2604:CA00:10A:C036:0:0:1068:F01E (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No support for this comment / Debate
(Section 1)
Trump continued to state, as late as 2019,[12][13] that a group of black and Hispanic teenagers were guilty of the 1989 rape of a white woman in the Central Park jogger case, despite the five males having been officially exonerated in 2002
Nowhere in the supporting documents can I find a statement where Trump said they were guilty he did say they weren't angels. A group of 30 teenagers another young adults enter the park that night to commit various assaults and robberies. The Central Park five were part of that group. While they didn't rape the jogger they we're part of that large group.
That's the thing Trump is referring to about them not being innocent. It wasn't meant to convey that they weren't innocent of the rape it was that they weren't innocent of other wrongdoing that night. Everyone just happens to forget about this because the only case that mattered was the rape case. 2604:CA00:10A:C036:0:0:1068:F01E (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Section 1) According to those twosources, citations 12 and 13, when Trump was asked about it in 2019, he said "Why do you bring that question up now? It's an interesting time to bring it up. You have people on both sides of that. They admitted their guilt. If you look at Linda Fairstein and you look at some of the prosecutors, they think that the city should never have settled that case, so we'll leave it at that." That's pretty clearly him refusing to change his previous statements. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After the first appeal, Appellate court judge Vito Titone said in an interview, "I was concerned about a criminal justice system that would tolerate the conduct of the prosecutor, Linda Fairstein, who deliberately engineered the 15-year-old's confession. ... Fairstein wanted to make a name. She didn't care. She wasn't a human."[1]
That article was 21 years ago. We don't know her opinion now. Nor does it matter as the court eventually ruled otherwise. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well she still keeps her opinion in a 2019 WSJ article written 9 days before Trump opinion of on the case on the 19th please note the article is paywalled and only have the wiki description to go after. 47.202.50.36 (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also the Victim and some Medical doctors disagree with the notion of Meyes testimony of him being the only attacker as recently as 2019 with different injuries from his testimony being reported and different hand print sizes and comsidering that Meyes testimony and semen DNA was what got them out prison and now that if investigators were to go do an investigation their would be public outcry so I would think it would fair to remove is from this page because racism is not the full picture
Sorry I am not use to the rules, I was pointing out your linked quote "Why do you bring that question up now? It's an interesting time to bring it up. You have people on both sides of that. They admitted their guilt. If you look at Linda Fairstein and you look at some of the prosecutors, they think that the city should never have settled that case, so we'll leave it at that." that Trump was listening to the other opinions of the Victim, Doctors, and Feinstein. I was being impartial to their other side of their story I am being an impartial researcher and backed my evidence with sources to understand the full context of the quote 47.202.50.36 (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for repeating Trump's horrific statement. None of the five confessed to rape. The confessions they made did not agree with each other or the crime scene and were retracted shortly after they got out of the hands of the interrogators. False confessions are not unusual, particularly after hours of interrogation of teenagers with no lawyer or parent present. [2] Neither the victim or the doctors identified any of the CP Five. A forensic pathologist who testified at the 1990 trial and the New York City's chief medical examiner in 2002 said it was not possible to say how many people were involved. DAs and prosecutors rarely admit error. The only physical evidence was the semen of Mr. Reyes, not the CP5. The court ruled and the case was not retried. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
to be fare the Victim couldn't remember via her quote 'I know I have no memory but I wanted people to know the condition that I had been in.'" Don't forget she had intense brain damage from unknown assailant. And the police officer was interviewed years later and his perspective and testimony with an interview with the Daily Mail during June 28 2019 and brought up counterpoints and supposed evidence not refuted at and their interviews are online and all 37 boys were interviewed https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7176075/amp/How-Netflix-filled-lies-claims-lead-cop-Central-Park-Five-case.html
Note I know the Daily Mail may not be allowed as a source but this an interview.
I also note this interview was just primarily for the Netflix adaptation of it but contains details of the case as well
Final note I am not concluding that they are guilty but rather the point that their are people with perspectives that state that their are still possible evidence but its is still up in the air and the lack of parent / lawyer was terrible decision via the police 47.202.50.36 (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And also a pubic hair of Reyes was found on the victims sock as well 47.202.50.36 (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the statics of false confession of juveniles without parent or lawyer are high so that's almost fair point quoted 47.202.50.36 (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also the Victim and some Medical doctors disagree with the notion of Meyes testimony of him being the only attacker as recently as 2019 with different injuries from his testimony being reported and different hand print sizes and comsidering that Meyes testimony and semen DNA was what got them out prison and now that if investigators were to go do an investigation their would be public outcry so I would think it would fair to move this section from Racial views to 47.202.50.36 (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the article you sourced is almost 21 years ago as and the person behind the statement has been dead for 18 years so its unknown what perspective he would have today 47.202.50.36 (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, this article downplays the significance of Trump's conduct in this incident. He already had established himself as the NYC tabloid jester-of-the-moment, so he had lots of attention. But this was when respected commentary noted that he was not an ordinary clown, but rather that he had a nasty rotten core. SPECIFICOtalk 18:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
please stop personal opinions I'm just talking about facts 47.202.50.36 (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I just stated facts that appear to be unfamiliar to you. Read half a dozen books about Trump and you will see what I mean. SPECIFICOtalk 13:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well validated or not I just care about facts not opinion 47.202.50.36 (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
that person probably cant read. Im 63, and trumps been a public figure for at least 50 years. I remember trump warmly greeting Oprah, Whoopie, Mike Tyson and Michael Jackson(back when MJ was still black) a fun charismatic guy. Back when trump was a democrat, wealthy black americans loved trump. They didnt start in on this racism bullshit until after trump came down the escalaror announcing his candidacy for the republican party. Overnight the view of the left switched from friendly to hostile, with ceveral centrists like Mike Tyson criticized for not calling out trump. I also remember Kamala Harris lying that she grew up poor. Her mother is in americas top 10% and her father was top 5%, but she called Biden a racist on the campaign, then was best friends as Vice President.
Actually, I'm 74 and have lived in the same voting district as Trump when he came down that escalator for decades. Yes, he hung out with celebrities. But, the opinion of NYers was always negative toward him. However, our opinions and experiences are completely irrelevant here. And, do not post things like "that person probably can't read."
WP:NOTFORUM (Somebody is welcome to remove or hat both our posts.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Revision
you need to remove / edit the "When Mexico" part because it is out of context because it didn't include the statement after it "But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people." Quote Time https://time.com/3923128/donald-trump-announcement-speechGreggrag (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the reliable source that Mexico has "sent" anyone? Who are these border guards, and why we would care what an anonymous or even named border guard says? O3000, Ret. (talk) O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First im just finishing the rest of the quote that most people haven't heard about secondly guard is plural meaning 2 or more guards have seen or heard about the statistics thirdly not being named could be just because of privacy fourthly the amount of gangs in Mexico is quite large and a lot have ties to the various crimes. 47.202.50.36 (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If "most people haven't heard" the rest of the quote, how is it
WP:DUE to include it? People can recite the "they're not sending us their best ... and some, I assume, are good people" part from memory. The WaPo article isn't relevant to this page as it contains no info on Trump's racial views. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry for the confusion just replying to the other guy 47.202.50.36 (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well some times people misremeber look at the "Luke I am your father" and the WAPO has some very bias journalists so of course they will quote mine 47.202.50.36 (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
which people can quoted it though, I linked the full transcript and you are showing bias right now and not accepting though breaking WP:DUE, a retired wiki editor is being more engaged then you right now such a shame here is more evidence/sources https://www.p2016.org/trump/trump061615sp.html47.202.50.36 (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the article mentions a CIA report the Mexican cartels control 20 percent of Mexico 47.202.50.36 (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would belong on a different Wikipedia page. Trump is not related to these cartels. SPECIFICOtalk 20:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
well that ties back to another comment from RET 03000 so sorry for the confusion 47.202.50.36 (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen any reliable source say that Mexico has sent a single immigrant to the US. They come from many countries on their own for many reasons. That's part of why this statement by Trump is in this article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that would be like saying the Americans send swarms to Disney World. SPECIFICOtalk 20:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly Disney World is very over-rated, Secondly politics are very complex and intricate so its could be for a multitude of reasons 47.202.50.36 (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, most immigrants crossing the Southern border are from Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Cuba, Venezuela, Haiti, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Colombia -- not Mexico. Most must cross through Mexico. Nowhere does your article claim Mexico is "sending" people to the US. The last time I can think of where a country did so was the Mariel boatlift from Cuba in 1980. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well they did assist illegal immigration with the pamphlets and during the time of the article illegal immigration among Mexicans were higher than this year not to mention the LA bestia train and the lack of Mexico's response during the most the of the 21 century 47.202.50.36 (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is one view. Another is that we are supposed to allow these people into the US to claim asylum and the US is violating its own laws. But, that is not relevant to this article and this is
Well the point is I debunked the whole statement of Trump's racism during that whole escapade of his racism by bringing out the whole transcript which led to this giant debate / forum which I answered each of your counter arguments 47.202.50.36 (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cheung quote
Neutrality I prefer the longer quote because Cheung says it's not merely "normal" but pervasive every day and anyone who doesn't know that is crazy. It's gaslighting to normalize what is definitely not normal, at least not from a former and prospective president. soibangla (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you as a normative matter, but as a stylistic and practical matter, if we include the longer quote, we would likely need to include some sort of rebuttal of the "normal" point, and that would length the article. Do we need to get to that level of detail? Neutralitytalk 16:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
doesn't the last sentence serve as a rebuttal, at least obliquely? soibangla (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To make clear that it is a rebuttal, I would suggest to put the Hitler bit before Greenblatt's statement. Then I would include the longer quote. SPECIFICOtalk 17:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to yield to your preferences. Neutralitytalk 18:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}