Well, you quoted an exact phrasing and said it was routine.
All of the things you mention on the Trump page are appear to be links to expanded parts of the article that go into greater detail (including, crucially, references). It's not a violation of WP:WEASEL which I wouldn't expect any how on such a high profile article.
You're of course right that weaselly language exists on Wikipedia, otherwise there wouldn't be a need for an editorial policy. It's a process.
>Well, you quoted an exact phrasing and said it was routine.
You're being overly literal in a way that's too common on the Internet. Whether the exact words are common is irrelevant. Things that are substantively like it are common.
>All of the things you mention on the Trump page are appear to be links to expanded parts of the article that go into greater detail (including, crucially, references).
It is, of course, true that many people have characterized Trump's statements as racist. Providing references for that is easy, and meaningless. What makes it weasel wording is that Wikipedia is trying to imply that the characterizations are true. But there are no references that establish that definitively, in a way that can't be disputed, so Wikipedia resorts to suggesting and implying it by using this language.
>It's not a violation of WP:WEASEL which I wouldn't expect any how on such a high profile article.
You just said that using such language is against Wikipedia policy. Now you admit it isn't.
All of the things you mention on the Trump page are appear to be links to expanded parts of the article that go into greater detail (including, crucially, references). It's not a violation of WP:WEASEL which I wouldn't expect any how on such a high profile article.
You're of course right that weaselly language exists on Wikipedia, otherwise there wouldn't be a need for an editorial policy. It's a process.