Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump/Archive 1

Racist motivations of supporters (or something like that)
A few sources to play with:


 * Racism motivated Trump voters more than authoritarianism
 * Survey: the poor white working class was, if anything, more likely than the rich to vote for Clinton. It wasn’t the economy, but racism and xenophobia, that explains Trump’s rise.
 * Economic Anxiety Didn’t Make People Vote Trump, Racism Did
 * In Context: Hillary Clinton and the 'basket of deplorables'
 * "Clinton said that Trump’s supporters were "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic.""


 * Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” is real. Almost half of Donald Trump’s supporters hold racist views of African Americans
 * Polls show many — even most — Trump supporters really are deeply hostile to Muslims and nonwhites. Hillary Clinton said, “You could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the ‘basket of deplorables.’” Is she right?

A subsection could be devoted to Clinton's "Basket of deplorables" comment and reactions. I suspect there are good sources and content there which can be used here.

Xenophobia and Islamophobia are important concepts relevant to this article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I was talking about that above - should this article be broadened to all bigoted statements? Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What would we call such an article? How broad would it be in scope? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Overview section
Not sure exactly what's planned there, but the lead is the overview. Just sayin... Unless something special belongs there, that section should be removed or retitled. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was going to comment on that. But that does bring up another point - need some good overview sources Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, as sections get developed, summarize them and include that in the lead. If we do this carefully, we shouldn't need any refs in the lead. If very controversial content in the lead keeps getting attacked, then include a ref to appease attackers. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I was vacillating between Background and Overview. This is such a complicated subject that I though we might need a section beyond the lead to give readers an overview of the subject, but maybe we don't need it at all. What do you think?- MrX 15:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. It is pretty complicated. Doesn't matter for now anyhow, we'll eventually see if there is something to write there or not.Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I took it out for now.- MrX 16:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

AE note
As this is a new article, some back and forth editing is to be expected so the WP:1RR and consensus required restrictions are not in effect yet. Standard WP:3RR applies and please edit carefully and collaboratively. --Neil N  talk to me 16:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Search: "Donald Trump" race racism racist racial
A goldmine:


 * "Donald Trump" race racism racist racial

BullRangifer (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Other bigotry
Should this article include other descriptions of other bigotry, like that of Islamophobia - if not how should it be represented - another article? Also relevant for Donald Trump as will need to be included there along with racial views thing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In a Venn diagram, there would be a lot of overlap between Trump, racism, and Islamophobia. The challenge will be to keep it relevant and focused. I'm not sure how best that could be done.- MrX 16:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I was thinking of. I guess keep out the sources that just say his statements are islamophobic etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galobtter (talk • contribs)
 * This would obviously takeaway the racial undertones, but we could have a somewhat broader article of controversial statements of Donald Trump. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We should include those which tie the two together. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Pocahontas
There's also the "pocahontas" stuff..e.g Warren fired back at Trump’s dig on MSNBC, saying, "It is deeply unfortunate that the president of the United States cannot make it through a ceremony honoring these heroes without throwing out a racial slur." Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. I suspect List of nicknames used by Donald Trump includes some racially-charged ones. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Good starting list
I think that https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/every-moment-donald-trumps-long-complicated-history-race is a good starting list. It is more of a list than an actual reference, but I think it could be a useful piece to look at. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Another interesting list https://www.snopes.com/so-you-think-you-know-donald-trump/ as this is from Snopes they debunk nonsense but they have listed some true facts. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * http://www.jpost.com/US-Elections/Donald-Trump/Pride-and-affirmative-prejudice-The-complex-history-of-Donald-Trump-and-the-Jews-468120
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/us/politics/donald-trump-housing-race.html
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/opinion/sunday/is-donald-trump-a-racist.html

Some more sources that look good. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Good book source essentially on trump's denials - https://books.google.co.in/books?id=QQglDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA222#v=onepage&q&f=false Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * This might be useful. I think the New York Times just published this on the web, "Just Say It: Trump Is a Racist". It is an opinion piece but it has useful factual information - if we don't have it already. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

"black guys" and "short guys wearing yarmulkas"
There was also the comment: " Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys wearing yarmulkes" -. In fact that article has lots of stuff in it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Central Park jogger case
The section entitled "Central Park jogger case" really needs to be cut down a lot (imho). It's just too detailed. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was just copied from that article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why I put the excessive detail tag there. I copied the relevant sections from the main article. Please though, when removing material, fix any orphaned named references.- MrX 17:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Galobtter and MrX, this is an example of a "backwards" spinoff situation. Normally one creates an article and a section gets so bloated that it creates an undue weight situation. To honor WP:PRESERVE, that content is not deleted or pared down, but is spun off into a sub-article, leaving a nice section and "main" article link.
 * Here content from an existing article is being put into this one. A good way to do this is to use the lead from that article. If written properly, that lead should summarize the article and be very usable here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much what I did, plus I added sections specific to Trump, then someone trimmed it, then I trimmed it some more.- MrX 03:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead sentence needs rewrite
I removed the part about making racially charged actions. Also, should this be in wikipedia's voice or it should it be he has been accused of this??--Malerooster (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)ps, I also notified the BLP board since folks there can be a voice of reason. --Malerooster (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I added two solid sources. The fact that Trump has a history of making racially-charged remarks and actions is both well documented, and uncontroversial as far as I know. Yes, it should be in Wikipedia's voice.- MrX 00:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * uncontroversial...you made me blow milk out my nose on that one MrX, thanks :) --Malerooster (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Milk. It does a body good. XD- MrX 00:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah The Nation is a pretty bad source in this situation, Fortune is probably okay but feels odd that it is from their real estate section. As far as uncontroversial, that is highly debatable. PackMecEng (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do you think The Nation is a bad source? I'm not very familiar with it but I believe it has a long-running print edition.- MrX 00:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is generally considered a RS from what I can tell and has been around for awhile. But they are an openly progressive source and for such a statement it would be better to find one that is more neutral. PackMecEng (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * PackMecEng, you need to review NPOV and sourcing. Biased sources are expressly allowed (neutral ones are rather uninteresting):
 * "While Wikipedia is required to present a neutral point of view, sources on the other hand are not expected to be neutral."
 * Therefore, content bias must remain evident and unaffected by editors. They must include content bias, must preserve it, and must remain neutral in how they do it.
 * BTW, The Nation is the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in the United States, and the most widely read weekly journal of progressive political and cultural news, opinion, and analysis. They have an excellent reputation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For more on this topic, see my essay: WP:NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes they are completely allowed, as I noted above, while allowed it would be better to find a more neutral one. A good reference for you would WP:BIASED which says similar. Recommending in-text attribution for example. Or if you wish to go to policy instead of guideline I would recommend Bias in source, which states "This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether". Which as you might notice is in contrast to "They must include content bias, must preserve it" Though thanks for your personal take on the subject. Also in regards to the explanation on The Nation, that is basically what me and MrX were agreed on, but not the actual issue being discussed. PackMecEng (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * They have only been around for 152 years. Damn new media!- MrX 00:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I know right! Predate the USA or nothing! PackMecEng (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There are significantly more remarks than actions, but purchasing the Central Park jogger ad was an action, and it's mentioned in the article and has a subsection. We shouldn't say in my opinion that the remarks/actions are racially charged as he would never admit that, but "remarks and actions believed to be" is better phrasing especially for the opening sentence.  WikiVirus  C (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Housing discrimination is also an action, as is pardoning Joe Arpaio.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the actions are documented in the history section, so I think it's fair to say that he has a history of racially-motivated actions (or at least actions that were perceived as racially-motivated). I have made another edit to the lead to address Malerooster's concerns. If there's a better way to word it, perhaps we can discuss it here rather than going back and forth in the article.- MrX 01:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Title
Should we title this "Donald Trump racial views" or "Racial views of Donald Trump"? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Racial views of donald trump seems more grammaticallly correct - it should be Donald Trump's racial views otherwise.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with changing the title to be more grammatical as long as we leave the existing title as a redirect. First though we should make sure that there's not a better title. On the DT talk page, I suggested Donald Trump racial provocations as an alternative. - MrX 16:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Donald Trump and racism -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't just about "his" views, but even more about others' views of him and racism. It goes both ways. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * One possibility that would be consistent with WP:CRITERIA is Donald Trump and racism.- MrX 17:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Donald Trump and racism works better.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Donald Trump and race would be broader and better. Note to anyone unaware: there is a survey below.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

"Alleged comments on traits of blacks"
@Galobtter, I think that Trump's comments, alleged and documented, in this paragraph also show his understanding of "traits of blacks". I'm (just mildly) objecting to separating it out because I think that if every instance has its own discrete heading there'll be dozens of two-line entries. I think this paragraph fits comfortably under the original heading. Reconsider? Fishlandia (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We might need to think of better organization then. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh - never mind, "Alleged comments" title has been replaced for now. Thank you though. Fishlandia (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Two questions

 * 1) Any objection to removing the line feeds in the citation templates so that they word wrap which is by far the most common format?
 * 2) Any objection to rearranging the existing content and adding an outline that we can then tweak and fill in?- MrX 13:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah the line feeds should be removed; I already rearranged the headings; I'll also see about doing some outlining. I think bold editing is the way to go here.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * YES! All on one line is better. Also name every ref and use only the short form in the lead, keeping the full ref in the body. That respects the fact that the body determines content in the lead, and that there should be no content or ref in the lead which is not first in the body. It also makes the lead nice and clean to edit. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Very sensible. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Definitely named refs.- MrX

I don't think the pardon is too far removed - see articles like Jorge Ramos: Trump’s Arpaio Pardon Is a Defense of Racism Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm fine with it then.- MrX 15:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe a whole section dealing with his racist friends and allies. RS have mentioned this many times. WE don't identify them as racists, but RS do. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

or, when refering to citation templates {in the first above question) - what are line feeds? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * New lines - for every parameter. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

David Duke Unite the Right comments
I added David Duke's comments at the rally and relevant tweets supportive and critical of Trump to the Charlottesville subsection. But since all the subsections are to do with direct Trump statements and actions, maybe the Duke stuff would better fit in an "Influence"-type section when there is if there will be one. (Or would such a section be WP:SYNTH?) Should I take it out? Fishlandia (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There should be some mention of Duke, but the two paragraphs in the 'Charlottesville Unite the Right rally' section are too much in my opinion. I also don't think we should quote him. Duke also popped up during the campaign if I recall correction. I don't remember the specifics.- MrX 12:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

OK. I'll just take it out but if it's ever needed, it's retrievable. Fishlandia (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

former Republican National Committee chairman's comments
"the evidence (that Trump is a racist) is incontrovertible".Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That should definitely be in the article somewhere, since it's been noted by quite a few major sources. Maybe we should have a section under 'Analysis and reaction' that lists notable people (Richard Durbin, Jim Acosta, Michael Steele, Don Lemon, etc). who have outright referred to Trump as racist, and/or their comments.- MrX 12:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems like one of the better potential sources for this. Also John Heilemann is matter-of-factly saying the same on his leftie-cable gig.  SPECIFICO talk 19:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Birther
The birther section is a stretch and probably not appropriate. Trump has made enough truly racist comments to easily fill the article. Questioning where someone was born, which is citizenship, is not racism and to be clear, he questioned Cruz's citizenship also. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you take a look at the bottom of this section you can see how in general this theory has been criticized as racist; though it is true that five more things he said could replace that. Maybe remove from lead but keep the section in the body. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Trump made his name politically on this, it would be wrong to leave it out of the lead. zzz (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Trump made his name politically during the NYC debt crisis in the 70s 71.136.189.245 (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed! It should be mentioned. The section can be enlarged. There are several references and content in the main article which connect Trump's birtherism with racism. We could add them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would certainly support an expansion of how to get from A to Z with the inclusion of an actual quote.71.136.189.245 (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is one of his most widespread and most repeated claims. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the birther lies were obviously racially motivated (and reported as such). Also, there's the intersection with Joe Arpaio, a racial profiler.- MrX 12:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Joe is a Birther and Joe is a racist. Donny is a Birther, therefore Donny is a racist is a logic fail. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a logic fail if you read the sources and understand the connection from several years ago. They worked hand in hand.- MrX 13:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a perfectly formed logical fallacy. If you don't understand, I am not going to argue with you. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the IP is questioning whether it is a claim that is a racial views or not. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I will state again, Trump has made enough truly racist comments to easily fill the article. It minimizes the point when editors throw everything they can in the fish barrel to create a large volume of evidence. In this case, I think it takes away from the point of the article because it is obviously a stretch compared to outright and overt racist comments that he has actually made that take no reading between the lines or pundit commentary to use as the tie to racism because it is not in the quote. Questioning citizenship is not necessarily racism. Some readers will see this as not encyclopedic and as a taint to the argument. He also questioned Cruz's nationality as he was born in Canada and he implied questions about McCain's citizenship as he was born on a military base in Panama, yet these are not in the article. It seems Trump likes to question people's citizenship regardless of race. I am not a political editor of WP, people want to keep it, keep it and not a big deal to me other than I don't like WP seeming like it has an agenda. If you were to post each of Trump's comments about the Birther issue, very few people would see them as racist. In fact, that would be a good compromise. Why not put one of his birther quotes about Obama in the article? All the other sections have quotes of what he actually said, this one doesn't. Why is that? With the quote in the article a reader could make his own decision, which is the definition of neutral tone. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 06:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The short answer is because this article is about his comments and his actions. As they say, actions speak louder than words. I think we should take the minor incidents (Pretty Korean lady, John O'Donnell, Elizabeth Warren) and combine them into an 'Other remarks' section. The birtherism section is too short. It's missing some important context, like the fact that Trump grudgingly admitted Obama was born in the U.S. in 2016. I also don't think we should quote Vox simply because they used the R word.- MrX 12:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That is a non-answer. If you don't quote Trump himself and you just use the Vox quote, where is the balance and neutrality. It is like you are intentionally hiding information from the reader. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is an answer. His words and actions as it pertains to Obama's birth are widely-, and I do mean widely, regarded as racially motivated. I can't believe I have to explain this in such remedial terms. Read the sources!.- MrX 20:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no prose in the article to get from Birther to racism. If you say "well it is in the sources" then you expect the casual reader to also be a mind reader, as they have not read all of the sources you have read. As it reads now, it looks POVish. Please add more context as to how someone gets to racism from questioning citizenship in the article. I have not been antagonistic to the articles' premise, I have added quotes and additional background to some of the sections. I want a great article and this section needs help.71.136.189.245 (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Obama's brother, a Trump supporter, is also a birther. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * He must be a racist. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

POV tag

 * Please don't add a POV tag to the article again. This has been discussed, and apparently only you think material is still missing. No one is stopping anyone from adding material that meets WP:V and WP:DUEWEIGHT.- MrX 01:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: the tag has been challenged several times via reversion and should not be re-added without consensus.- MrX 01:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's funny, earlier you were agreeing with me that some stuff was missing from the article. None of that stuff has been added, but now "apparently only you think material is still missing." FallingGravity 18:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agreed that some of the material could be added. I have no idea why you didn't add it. I did not agree that the article had NPOV issues. Roll up your sleeves if you want to help.- MrX 18:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've decided to wait until the AfD has concluded. You seem convinced the article is NPOV, though I notice others seem to disagree. FallingGravity 19:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Fallout from Trump's remarks
I think we should have a section that includes the harmful results that Trump's racist remarks have caused. For example, some months ago I tried to work on our Somalis in Maine article (it was all deleted before I even had a chance to improve my wording). History of the Somalis and Bantus in Maine Here's part of what I tried to add.

Impact of the 2016 presidential election of Donald Trump

In 2015, Lewiston's high school soccer team won Lewiston's first state championship with a starting lineup of black immigrants. The team's coach, Mike McGraw, said that the win brought both the students and the community closer together: “What they displayed on the field, and off the field, was a togetherness and unity that grownups needed to see. They really want to be accepted. Winning a championship allowed them to say, ‘Look. We can do good things.’”[16] However, following the 2016 election of Donald Trump McGraw saw "a new emotional undercurrent in Lewiston" that he had not seen in years. He was deeply troubled when one of his Somali players asked him if he would still be allowed to be in school. Mc Graw said, “My team has done so much good for the community, and then after this election it is like we have gone backwards. The attitude toward the travel ban and Muslims has opened the door to people who are narrow-minded.”[17] Gandydancer (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Undue - however we can include more general stuff rather than anecdotes Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I did not mean that we should include the incident in our article. I used it as an example to show that the Trump presidency has caused racial hatred and discrimination to increase in the US.  This is well documented.  I live in Maine and I included a personal experience of how the president has affected our country.  Gandydancer (talk) 05:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You did say that was part of what you added. I don't disagree; I'll see about adding statistics analysis etc sort of stuff if it is found relevant to "Trump's racial views". Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I wonder if there is any scholarly analysis about this available. That would be worth including, provided it comes from secondary sources. I agree that anecdotes are not really encyclopedic and will only fan the POVBLPBBQ.- MrX 13:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources, yes. Unbiased and fact- (as well as data-) based would be preferable.  If the article lives, that is.  -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 18:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Unbiased" is in the eye of the beholder, which is why it makes for such a poor argument. I would be very surprised if this article is deleted, if for no other reason than that your AfD batting average is not so good:- MrX 18:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware nominating articles for deletion was supposed to be a game or about scoring points or a popularity contest. I've always done it because I felt the article's presence was a violation of policy.  Silly me. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 18:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not, but I think editors are expected to learn from past mistakes.- MrX 19:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So, you're saying that if one nominates an article for deletion because they believe it's the right thing to do, and the article they nominated isn't deleted, then it was a mistake to do what they believe is the right thing? What you're saying flies directly into the face of the memory of the great man for whom this day has been named:
 * "Cowardice asks the question - is it safe? Expediency asks the question - is it politic?  Vanity asks the question - is it popular?  But conscience asks the question - is it right?  And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it because it is right." -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
 * I will continue to do what I believe is right, regardless of what is safe, politic, popular. And in so doing, I will never consider that action a mistake.  -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 01:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

If we add such a section, I wonder what a good name for it might be? Gandydancer (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Possibly 'Impact'.- MrX 20:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Influence". "Fallout" is good "Effects" Fishlandia (talk) 06:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Too early to be in article space
Far too early. Even a new article must start out NPOV and balanced. This move also opens us up for an AfD. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, need to keep it short but well-written and balanced. Add material later - but right now just keep the good bits IMO Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This article is much better shape than about 80% of new articles and it is properly sourced. Let it go to AfD. It easily meets WP:N and there was a resounding consensus at talk:Donald Trump to create it. - MrX 17:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyhow, getting a lot of editing so should be good in a few hours I think. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's going to be the best. Everyone says so. Believe me.- MrX 17:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Did you know that I have the best "racial views" article - crooked hillary does not have one" Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "This is the least racial article you will ever read" :)    >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 15:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I've tagged the article for POV problems. My biggest concern is that it doesn't include Trump's response to accusations of racism, which I remember him repeating on the campaign trail. There could be other problems, but I'm too busy at the moment to closely read the article. FallingGravity 21:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there a specific section you have in mind? I will look for sources that discuss his rebuttals, but what is the context in which his comments occurred? Was it the Mexican-American judge incident? By the way, we need to also include any widely-covered defense of Trump, most of which I assume would come from Republican politicians.- MrX 21:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a specific section, though I think it could be resolved in the "Reactions" section, though they could be integrated in individual sections. Some of the examples I could find is when Trump defended himself from Clinton's accusations, reached out to black voters , and disavowed the alt-right . FallingGravity 22:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm sure that at least some of those could be woven into the article.- MrX 22:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Where is this "consensus" that the article is NPOV? FallingGravity 07:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Where is the actual explanation for what the POV problems are suppose to be? "The article is too early" and "I'm too busy to read it" don't quite cut it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Like I said, "my biggest concern is that it doesn't include Trump's response to accusations of racism". No mention of Trump's defenses against accusations of racism makes this article one-sided and POV. FallingGravity 07:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Then it's up to you to find the sources and include them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, and until then the article has serious POV problems, and not just in the "Immigration" section. FallingGravity 18:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Falling, it's good you're noticing these things. That's why it's good to have editors with different backgrounds and POV. So, the right thing to do is to just fix it. You noticed it, so you have the burden to start fixing it. If done properly, editors of all POV should help you. Go for it! -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The burden is on those wishing to remove the POV template to get consensus that all problems have been addressed. So far this hasn't happened, so I'm reinstating the template. Right now I'm working on a section dedicated to Trump and the alt-right, though it might take a while. FallingGravity 00:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the burden is on those who wish to add the template, to explain why they are adding it. Which you STILL, after being asked several times, have failed to do.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In addition, a new section "Immigration" conflates religious persecution with racism when the two are completely different topics. I believe a POV tag is warranted until the article matures. The Immigration and Birther sections, as written, are problematic. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You are arguing that religious persecution and racism are NOT two different topics? 71.136.189.245 (talk) 07:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, what I - and others as they explain below - argue is that different kinds of bigotry correlate and that one can serve as a cover or a substitute for the other. To a racist person there might actually not be much difference between "Muslim" and "brown skinned person from Middle East". Racism is not about what the world as it is, it's about the perceptions of that world. A "Muslim ban" is not just about religious persecution but also about racism because of how racist view Muslims.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would like to see a clearer connection between the section of immigration with Trump's racial views. The only connection that I can see is this from a NYT source:
 * The religious persecution material should go in my opinion. It's not really relevant. By the way, one POV tag on the article is enough. I've left the section tag.- MrX 12:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A connection has already been made as quoted in this article and as sourced by the relevant reference: pertaining to Trump's Muslim ban, which included religious persecution, "The American Civil Liberties Union described it as a 'euphemism for discriminating against Muslims'" - it's right there in black and white. Add to this MrX's quote from the NYT just above, and it seems pretty complete. These actions are seen as an "immigration agenda [that] is motivated by racism. " So, I think the religious persecution should stay in. Thanks ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Steve. Gandydancer (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I could shorten that paragraph to say something like - President Trump's January 2017 travel ban, including the religious test, aimed at seven Muslim countries was described as "[a] euphemism for discriminating against Muslims", caused by undertones of racism, and implemented "an aggressive strategy of trying to reverse the demographic changes underway in America.", . Something like that. Would this be better? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No that is Synth garbage, it should go. He specifically said he was only blocking "Muslim" travelers and he went as far as to say he would prioritize Christians from the same country (who are the same race, HELLO!). This article doesn't have an issue with POV material, it seems to be an issue with POV pushing editors. It is obvious this should section not be staying. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 19:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's not synth garbage. I also left out this Muslim ban was supposed to resolve a perceived threat to white people or white culture. All covered by the sources. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course, resolving the perceived threat to white (people or culture) is probably covered in the quote, "an aggressive strategy of trying to reverse the demographic changes underway in America." I think it's pretty clear what's happening here. Thanks again. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, let's put this in context. His attitude toward Muslims is a defining aspect of his political career, beginning with the birther thing, and then, "Trump devoted enough rhetoric during the campaign to his insistence on banning all Muslims from entering the United States that several federal courts have now ruled his attempt to implement versions of the ban once in office was an unconstitutional infringement on the First Amendment."; "In November 2015, he told Sean Hannity that the United States has 'absolutely no choice' but to close some mosques in response to terrorist attacks in Paris that month. A few days later, during a campaign rally in Alabama...Trump suggested that law enforcement should monitor Islamic houses of worship across the United States: 'I want surveillance of certain mosques, if that’s okay.' The crowd cheered. He kept at that theme all through 2016, including telling Fox News that 'we have to be very strong in terms of looking at the mosques' across the country. If surveillance of our religious institutions didn’t go far enough, Trump also declared all Muslims should have to register with the government. 'I would certainly implement that,' he said, referring to a national database of Muslims..." ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "'One has to wonder what Donald Trump will say next as he ramps up his anti-Muslim bigotry,' - said Ibrahim Hooper, national communications director at the Council on American-Islamic Relations. 'Where is there left for him to go? Are we talking internment camps? ... I feel like I’m back in the 1930s.'  ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess your argument here is that anti-Muslim sentiment is a variety of Xenophobia. My very best wishes (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess your argument here is that anti-Muslim sentiment is a variety of Xenophobia. My very best wishes (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Allegedly
As I stated in the edit history - I removed two instances of "allegedly" from the article. These comments and the attitude that goes with it has been widely covered in reliable sources. It seems there has been a verification process in the press or it would not be so widely reported. I think we should discuss whether or not this belongs in the article because it seems there is no lack of clarity that the President did recently say these things.

In other words, the preponderance of coverage in reliable sources seems to far outweigh the need to say "allegedly." Also, to me, the source cited questioning Durbin's veracity seems ambiguous and does not clearly indicate that he dissembled at that time,. Nor does that source clearly indicate that Durbin dissembled on this matter. Also, to say "allegedly" based on only this argument, when the evidence seems inconclusive is not a strong position. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the reason it is allegedly is that Trump has denied making those comments and so have a few other senators. We'll have to examine sources to see if they say "according to people" or not - if the former, then allegedly is appropriate. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure the other senators "denied" it, rather, they "didn't remember", while others said something like it happened. --Malerooster (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, either way, needs to be clear that RS refer to these statements as being true consistently Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking at this WaPo article, which seems to have started the ball rolling (according to CNN ), Trump's comments seem to have been verified by a number of sources. Just because Durbin made a speech at one point does not make him the only source or point of contact for this story. To try to put all this on Durbin's comments to the press afterwards seems to be a misperception. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Other sources talked to CNN, and Jim Acosta (CNN) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Allegedly does not belong. The comments were corroborated and not denied by the people who claimed they didn't recall. Trump's denial is not credible given his well-documented history of making things up.- MrX 18:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems like atleast now there's denial - Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not very credible to me (the denials) - however have to see how RS report on it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is a counter argument to the source you just provided. It could very well be the deniers are playing word games. Please read this: . ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd already read the piece; anyhow it's not really as relevant as whether RS say he did say the comments or that he allegedly said the comments. It is kinda mixed - a guardian piece has Donald Trump has defended himself amid international outrage over offensive comments he is accused of making about some African, Central American and Caribbean countries. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's starting to look like more are saying he did not use those words. We already have Trump, Cotton, and Perdue flat saying he did not say them. With most sources I see keeping it from fully confirmed. Alleged is correct. PackMecEng (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, from what I see most sources don't seem to use alleged or a variant..it is mixed tho Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait. Cotton and Perdue said they didn't recall. Now, a couple of days later, they do recall? Which are we supposed to believe?- MrX 18:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well yes, that is what sources say. How you feel is not relevant. PackMecEng (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Relevant for what? That they're confused or fibbing?- MrX 19:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Relevant for inclusion. Sources are reporting they denied it, if you believe them or not does not matter. PackMecEng (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should add that Trump denied he made the shithole remarks. That's all.- MrX 19:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes that should be in there, that Trump denied the allegations along with Cotton and Perdue. As the sources say. PackMecEng (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

See WP:ALLEGED.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The comments were also confirmed by Lindsey Graham.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * From what I have seen he has stayed away from openly confirming it but did take a shot at the two, besides Trump, that said it did not happen. PackMecEng (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Giving equal weight to two senators who at first didn't remember, and then changed to denying said comments as compared to the verification processes of the mainstream press (reliable sources) seems to be undue. I think these senators and the President himself are a minority viewpoint, and to count their changed minds and later assertions as equal is WP:UNDUE. This does not seem to be a sufficient rationale for keeping in "allegedly". Also, allegedly is a WP:weasel word, as pointed out by VM above. I don't think it is strongly doubted that Trump expressed derogatory sentiments about non-white countries or populations at that meeting (I'm re-adding this source here ). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, first they couldn't remember, then they denied it, now they're playing semantic games over whether the word used was "shithole" vs. "shithouse" as a way of maintaining plausible deniability for the denial they made.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. That seems to be what's happening. They went on these Sunday talk shows and play these word games, which confuses the issue. Also, it may give more attention to their denials than is warranted. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we should leave Cotton and Perdue out. It takes us off the subject without giving any useful information to readers. They are simply not credible..- MrX 20:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * They have received a lot of coverage on this as well and are witnesses to the incident. There is no reason to leave them out at all, that is just silly. PackMecEng (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also as a side note. Really? You use a press release from Durbin to say his opponents are not credible? That boggles my mind. PackMecEng (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No one, including Trump himself, who said "The language used by me at the DACA meeting was tough, but this was not the language used", has denied that he made derogatory comments about Haiti and African countries, they are splitting hairs over whether he said "shithouse" or "shithole". If any qualifier needs to be there, it should be on that word only, not the issue of making derogatory comments at all.Smeat75 (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't have to include something simply because it received a lot of coverage. This is not the selective short term amnesia article. Perhaps put it in Tom Cotton's bio.- MrX 00:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * They are directly related to the event, giving notable accounts of the event with first hand knowledge that received a lot of RS coverage. What would be the reason not to leave it in the article exactly? PackMecEng (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Do tell. In their notable accounts, what was it they claim Trump said? Specific words please.- MrX 01:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * They refute what the sole person that was there said happened. Still did not answer my question though. PackMecEng (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If they refute what Durbin recalled was said, then they must know what was said. What was it?- MrX 01:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * MrX asks a very good question. Can they recount what was said? And they haven't. I was thinking the same thing about Trump. He said he did not say what has been circulating in press all over the world. Trump also said he used tough talk at the meeting. But what did he say? He hasn't recounted what he said, either. Just denials and finger pointing at Durbin by the senators, and tough talkin' Trump. For me this is very telling. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Eh who knows, it has no bearing on this situation and speculation is pointless for us. I ask for a third time though MrX, why would we not include it based on my argument above. PackMecEng (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * He already said - they have said nothing notable and they have done nothing notable. Please do not discount what I am saying as speculation, because this is a misrepresentation. Also, mischaracterizing the sources as press releases. Does this behavior work well for you? I agree with MrX - Cotton and Perdue have shown themselves to be not credible. The finger pointing gives no useful information. More likely the belated denials are following orders from the Senate Majority Leader (who probably wants unity).


 * It takes us off the subject, which is Trump's racist remarks, and is distracting. What have they said that is notable? Nothing. This just drama - "As the Stomach Turns". We should leave Cotton and Perdue out. Think about 100 years from now. How valuable will it be what Cotton and Perdue said? Having them in this article regarding this matter is ridiculous. And the sources provided by MrX are not press releases. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * If you want to pretend what is being said is not being heard or understood, be my guest. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * @PackMecEng: Because your argument is lacking in merit. You are suggesting wasting space in this article to the recollections of two people who can't get their story straight, and one person who is known for making false statements. That would be a disservice to our readers.- MrX 02:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes they are stories about his press release, that is plainly what they are. As MrX has pointed out, they have not stated exactly what he said instead of that phrase. So outside that it is speculation on what was said, motive, and truthfulness. The said and done nothing notable is absurd on the face of it. Just about every mention of this incident mentions all three of their denials and they are notable public figures that were actually there. If you want to talk about history of credibility, you should take a look at Durbin's history on misrepresenting private meetings. But again specualtion on motive and if someone is truthful is going in WP:OR and not helpful. All that matters if just about every source on this incident mentions those two additional denials. PackMecEng (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * MrX, sorry edit conflict there. The service to our readers is NPOV, following reliable sources, and not engaging in OR. Which is what I am purposing. PackMecEng (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * According to the source you provided Cotton says, Mr. Durbin “has a history of misrepresenting” such private meetings.... Then the source says, He was referring to the Obama administration contradicting Mr. Durbin’s account of a 2013 meeting in which he claimed then-House Republican leader Eric Cantor told President Obama, “I cannot even stand to look at you.”. So this is one time Mr. Durbin's account has been disputed. Where is the history of misrepresentations? There is no history here. A "history" should consist of multiple instances. This is word games. And the conclusion is ambiguous because Mr. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, never backed down from his account.. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What was actually said at the meeting is not the point. I'm surprised I have to say that. The point is rather than stating what was said, there is finger pointing, which is drama and not notable. There is a credibility problem with denying that Trump said - what he said, The credibilty gap does not include finger pointing at Durbin. Focusing on speculating what was said at the meeting, as if that is the issue, seems to be argumentative, rather than sticking with the facts. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The credibility problem stems from first not remembering, then flat out denials following day, because they are playing with semantics. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with you, what was actually said is not important. The question if the comments by the two others denying the statements are worth including sounds like something we need to get the wider community in on. It sounds like the three of us have hit a dead end in this discussion. PackMecEng (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I've noticed quite a few major sources still describe the comments as "alleged" or "reported". Maybe we should just follow what the reliable sources say. FallingGravity 03:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't hold your breath on that, Falling. This is Wikipedia, where editors are biased and exclude reliable sources that don't agree with their biases. They've concluded, based on exactly one person's -- a hostile senator -- account, that Trump absolutely, undeniably said this and that's what will forever be recorded on Wikipedia. 69.34.51.45 (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, Graham and Flake also confirmed it, and hell, Trump bragged about using the word before he realized (or before his handlers told him) how bad it looked.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Graham has not come out to confirm it, Tim Scott is alleging that Graham told him after the meeting it happened since Scott was not there. Flake is the same deal, but instead of a source saying who told him just an anonymous person that was there told him. Finally the Trump bragged about it is from Never Trumper Erick Erickson tweet, that friends of his told him that Trump bragged about it on a phone call. But if you want to base the whole article on hearsay I guess those ideas work. PackMecEng (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The entire episode is hearsay from our point of view, which is good reason to follow the preponderance of sources. The reaction sweeping across the planet is evidence that sources have lined up behind Durbin's account. That should not be a surprise, given Trump's reputation for lying. and making racist remarks.- MrX 🖋 15:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't believe we're even having a discussion about this. Unless a recording exists of what he said you have to use the word allegedly. It not up for us to decide here who's account of what was said is more credible. The fact is what he said is disputed not only by himself but other people. The only way to maintain a neutral viewpoint is to use the word allegedly. According to WP:ALLEGED "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined". That clearly is the case here. By omitting the word you are pushing a POV. --Rusf10 (talk) 07:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, not how it works. We use "alleged" only if most sources use alleged. Which they don't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Except most of the recent sources do use "alleged": FallingGravity 22:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. His comment has been verified both by members of his party and by Lindsey Graham. Given Trump's casual relationship with the truth, his denial is worthless. His defenders defended him with "we do not recall" with Perdue then changing his tune and saying affirmatively that Trump didn't say it. Most lawmakers have treated the remarks as having been said, although some were hedging ("I wasn't there but if"). I don't think that this is really a matter of debate. It's clear that he said it and since there is no audio he feels comfortable denying it.Avisnacks (talk) 07:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We know that sources variably use "alleged[ly]", "reported[ly]", and null, in the later case, stating the remarks as an established fact. Unless someone can show that "alleged[ly]" or "reported[ly]" are in majority of highly-reputable sources, I think we should not add such a qualifier as it would tend to cast doubt on the veracity of Durbin's clear, unwavering recollection. Ultimately, this comes down to editor discretion and consensus.- MrX 🖋 14:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The news sources that I have listened to, watched, and read all refer to the incident/words without qualifying them with an "allegedly". In fact, something until now one has seldom seen, reporters are openly mocking of the individuals that have denied what was said.  Gandydancer (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Every source we use in the section save two use alleged or a variation of that. PackMecEng (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well then that's not every source is it?- MrX 🖋 15:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No one said every source did they? Just the vast majority. PackMecEng (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Our practice has always been that when something is proven unequivocally true, we then drop the weasel words and start to say it in Wikipedia's voice. THIS is a time where "allegedly" is the type of weasel word we must not use because it deliberately, through an editorial decision, undermines the truth. NPOV forbids this type of editorial behavior.

Here are the reasons shown by conservative Jennifer Rubin that tell us that "allegedly" is no longer legitimate. She examines it in depth, so read the article: ""There cannot be serious doubt that President Trump in a meeting last Thursday with lawmakers made a comment about Haiti, El Salvador and African countries to the effect of: “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” No one in good faith can dispute that he then said that “we need more people from Norway,” a nearly all-white country. How do we know he said it — or something close?""

Here we have a description of why two Senators doubled down on lying about it (yes, the article calls it lying): "No serious person can possibly think in all honesty Trump didn’t say the word. First of all, Trump was reportedly bragging about it to friends that night. Second, How likely would Durbin be to tell an outright lie about words spoken by the President of the United States? No matter how much he may dislike a president, a senator just doesn’t do that. (Or, at least they didn’t. What Cotton and Perdue are doing now is how confidence in offices and institutions gets depleted.) There were a lot of senators who disliked Barack Obama too, but no one ever came out of a White House meeting about rural policy charging that Obama made a remark about “shithole” states."

It's time to drop "allegedly" whenever we can: (1) If a source is not using it, we must not add it; (2) When we speak, paraphrase, and summarize in Wikipedia's voice, we must not use it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Great two opinion articles that are not really usable for this article. The fact is most of the sources except two from what I can tell use it or a variation of it. We follow the sources which is alleged. PackMecEng (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you get the idea that opinion articles aren't usable. That's BS. They should be used with care, just like any other RS, but can be used to document the opinions of the authors, and we usually attribute the statements. Our job is to document the "sum total of human knowledge", and that includes opinions. You really need to get rid of that idea about opinion articles. Just learn to use them properly. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Good job, (above).
 * Let's face it - President Trump is known to have a potty mouth. This characteristic of his seems to have received more coverage than other Presidents, and this is only one year in office. I guess the best is advice for those around him - keep your head down. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * again, WP:ALLEGED "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined". It doesn't matter how many people have called him a liar or what there political affiliation is. Nobody knows with 100% certainty what he actually said (except those that were there). So it doesn't matter what for example Jennifer Rubin (who I've never heard of before) says because she wasn't there. And it doesn't matter that a certain number of media outlets aren't using the word alleged either. All that matters is we can't say with 100% certainly we know what he said (even if we think we know). The standard here should not be any different than when someone is accused of murder. There might even be multiple news report that says "the killer was arrested". Even if there is a mountain of evidence that makes the person appear guilty, we have to use the word alleged until it has been proven. To do otherwise would be a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Do I think he said the remarks or something similar? Probably, but neither my opinion, your opinion, nor that of some so-called media expert should used to establish facts in the article.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but Wikipedia has no such standard of 100% proof or 100% certainty. We follow sources, regardless of whether a few editors like what the.sources have written. - MrX 🖋 12:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you mean "don't like"? --Malerooster (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Two good sources
Here they are, with formatting as refs at the end:


 * Donald Trump's Racism: The Definitive List


 * Trump Is a Racist. Period.

BullRangifer (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Put suggested sources here?

Fishlandia (talk) 07:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * LeBron James: Trump gave racism 'an opportunity to be out'


 * I can't get either the NYT or The Washington Post. It's quite problematic for me as an editor.  It was brought up on Jimbo's page and he doesn't see it as a problem.  Not surprisingly,  all things considered.  It would not cost much for WP to buy entry for our editors/readers.  Gandydancer (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you open them in incognito mode they get past all the adblock and limited number of article junk. It is a pain but becoming more common these days. PackMecEng (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have the same problem, and usually the Internet Archive is helpful. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * In general opinion pieces are not RS, especially where there may be BLP issues. .Sir Joseph (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't confuse "bias" (or "perspective") with reliability or noteworthiness. Drmies (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not, but these are opinion pieces which are not usually included in an article, unless it's explicitly stated, that "XXX said...." Sir Joseph (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, but I'm going to assume that these sources, if they are reliable and from relevant authors, will be handled properly. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sir Joseph, I don't know where you get the idea that opinion articles aren't usable. That's BS. They should be used with care, just like any other RS, but can be used to document the opinions of the authors, and we usually attribute the statements. Our job is to document the "sum total of human knowledge", and that includes opinions. You really need to get rid of that idea about opinion articles. Just learn to use them properly. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Central Park Jogger case
What does this have to do with Trump's views on race? Literally, the only sentence that describes his views in this section is the last one: "Filmmaker Ken Burns, who directed the documentary The Central Park Five, called Trump's comments 'the height of vulgarity' and racist". This whole section may be a good start to another POV piece, perhaps called "Donald Trump's stance on the death penalty", but I found little to no connection between his take on the case and race aside from a film director's opinion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, not sure if copying and trimming was really the best solution - it really needs focusing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The case is cited in several of the establishing sources in the lead, and more available via search. If anyone has thoughts on what should be omitted from the material, let's discuss it. I trimmed it pretty heavily, but perhaps some additional detail should be trimmed.- MrX 🖋 19:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute that the case has been cited; but reorganization needs to be done - have to read paragraphs about the case before one gets the part about race. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * An extensive (and unnecessary) overview of the case is provided but no connection is ever made, establishing whether Trump's beliefs were fueled by his racial views. Granted, the current text does a great job at trying to steer a reader to such a conclusion but that is manipulative and benefits nobody. I'm not trying to defend Trump; unfortunately, however, this article is looking more and more like an attack page rather than a neutral attempt to describe his racial views.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Missing comparisons
This articles is missing some great historical commentary from some notable people regarding the comparison of Donald Trump to other historical racists, including George Wallace, Joseph Stalin, and Silvio Berlusconi, among others. Perhaps we could include some text describing relevant comparisons. 128.187.48.245 (talk) 07:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Only if the comparison is made by multiple, neutral, reliable sources that we can quote. We do not do original research here. --MelanieN (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What about the rise in sales of Sinclair Lewis' 1936 book, It Can't Happen Here that made it to on Amazon.com's list of bestselling books and who's play adaptation has been noted in piece in the NY Times . This would seem to hold more merit.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me. I've been meaning to get than on Kindle. However, I don't see an explicit connection to Trump's racial views.- MrX 🖋 20:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * About the same as Stalin or Berlusconi, nothing at all; that was my point. The discussion is all about misdirection and muddying the waters.  Sure George Wallace was a good orator, but comparisons to Trump???  Shall we stay with information that is well referenced and resourced and away from comparisons which are interpretive in nature.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree. George Wallace, maybe. Stalin and Berlusconi, not so much.- MrX 🖋 18:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Challenging 'Professions of unity'
I removed the newly added 'Professions of unity' section and reworked some of it's content into a more appropriate section. There are no sources that I've seen that say anything about professions of unity. Creating a major section consisting mostly of speech excerpts is WP:UNDUE. I'm happy to discuss it with anyone who thinks this content should remain in some form.- MrX 🖋 11:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If not called that by a source then it should not have a section with that title. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Sheriff Arpaio sources
What sources are there that support the following statements in this article (see diff here): ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) "The U.S. Department of Justice concluded that Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio oversaw the worst pattern of racial profiling in U.S. history;"
 * 2) "they subsequently filed suit against him for unlawful discriminatory police conduct"

This covers the second part:, , ,. Perhaps the second part should say something that paraphrases or quotes: " a pattern or practice of unlawful discriminatory police conduct--" ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I am having trouble finding coverage for the first part - and it seems we may be overdoing it with "oversaw the worst pattern of racial profiling in US history." ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * .Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, call me soft on crime but " During his 24-year tenure as sheriff, Arpaio proudly strove to implement white nationalism through a brutal assault on Maricopa County’s Latino population. His barbaric tactics included extreme racial profiling and sadistic punishments that involved the torture, humiliation, and degradation of Latino inmates" does not sound very good to me. Many of Arpaio’s worst abuses are documented in a 2011 Justice Department report on the sheriff’s office. At the time, a DOJ expert said that Arpaio oversaw the worst pattern of racial profiling he had ever seen.    Gandydancer (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The phoenixnews.com source seems to support it. Unless we're question their reliability (which we certainly can), I think adding that solves the issue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe that I added that source when I added the information. At any rate, two more have been added (NYT and Slates)  Gandydancer (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, but I stuck it in here. It looks good, now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes I see it now. Somehow it was stuck in my mind that I included the ref.  Thanks.  Gandydancer (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much everybody. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well Steve, just now looking over the entire exchange, including my little rant up there, I really should be embarrassed about it all. Perhaps I've blown a fuse or something from so much editing of late.  If the truth be known I'm a terrible writer and have to work really, really hard to come up with something that's concise, not a copy vio, punctuated at least half decently, and sounds encyclopedic.  Also, BTW, I want it known that I never mind having my work improved on - if I don't like it I can change it back, but it's almost always an improvement.  Thank you for being so nice about it all. Gandydancer (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't sweat it, politics tends to bring it out in people. Which is why they discourage discussing it in polite society. But we here at Wikipedia are anything but a polite society! Yay us! I guess...   ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  02:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't find it very clear how the Arpaio pardon represents Trumps racial views as the subsection is currently written. As written it may detract from the NPOV.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Arpaio is widely seen (and described in the RSes) as racist, and as pushing racism through his position. The crimes for which he was convicted were crimes of racism. Trump pardoning (and praising) him is completely germane to the subject of Trump's racial views. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  02:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Arpaio is a racist. That's cut and dry. Trumps action was pandering to his base. But the content requires that I carefully put it all together and borders on original research.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that we need to make the link between Trump's racial views and the pardoning more clear, or are you suggesting that the section is implying something that is not stated in the source? (I'm trying to understand what you're saying better, not asking a rhetorical question.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Informal move request to Donald Trump and racism
There was a suggestion upthread that Donald Trump and racism might be a better title for this article. Let's have a quick straw poll to see what everyone thinks.- MrX 00:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Sounds too leading and POV. PackMecEng (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - descriptive and neutral.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm on the fence between the proposal and the current title. The current title has its own issues, but "Donald Trump and racism" sounds ambiguous to my ears. It sounds like a study of Trump's presidency and how it affected racism in the U.S. While that's partly the case, the bigger story is the apparent pattern of racism evident over a 45 year period.- MrX 01:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * MrX, you actually point out a strength of the proposal. It's all-inclusive. Right now we have a narrowly defined task, allowing only HIS views, nothing else. The title and content should be in harmony with each other. See my support !vote below. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The current title doesn't preclude us from writing about reactions, responses, and impacts. Titles don't really constrain the subject. We can revisit this after the article is developed. Right now, it's little more than a list. It needs more something... cowbell maybe?- MrX 12:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - non-descriptive and non-neutral. --Malerooster (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How is that? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose I agree with Malerooster that this is not a neutral title. Lepricavark (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How is that? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I instead propose another title: Racial views of Donald Trump, which I believe is even better than both the current title and the proposed title (not to mention, it's grammatically correct). Sky  Warrior  02:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. As the original proposer, let me explain the rationale behind this title. We need an article that is open-ended and not limited to only one angle on the subject. This shouldn't be limited to "his views", which is the only topic allowed by the current title (ergo we have a lot of off-topic stuff here now). It should be a title which also allows "others' views" about his relationship to racism. The whole subject goes both ways. The suggested title is completely neutral and allows his views and the views of others about him. It's all-inclusive. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support based on BullRangifer's explanation and based on Volunteer Marek's and MrX's comment. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I'm actually not too crazy about it...it sounds rather like a psychological study/thesis of some sort. { Of course, it's not as though this is something we ever thought we would be trying to figure out. But I sure can't come up with anything better and per BullRangifer's explanation it makes more sense than what we've got.  Gandydancer (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Doesn't say that he is racist - but this article is indeed about Trump and how others see racism etc. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I would prefer "Donald Trump and race" which is a bit more broad.  I am not sure "Donald Trump and racism" would properly include a section on "Actions and statements supporting minorities", but "Donald Trump and race" could easily include such a section.  We need to avoid an attack page here.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd oppose Donald Trump and race - prefer current title over that. The supporting minorities part has gotten little coverage comparatively; only little should be there on it. NPOV doesn't mean that pages can't be entirely negative, if that is the coverage. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources don’t require this article to have a narrow scope rather than a broad scope. They only require us to divvy up this article according to weight in those sources.  If you make this “Trump and racism” then zero can ever go here about support for minorities, about his widely-reported opening of the Civil Rights museum in Mississippi, etc.  Zero.  Only 100% negative stuff about trump will ever go into this article.  With a title “trump and race”, maybe 95% will be negative.  95% should be enough for everyone.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per the above arguments, and also because it seems that from the other discussions on that this page that some people want to extend the scope of this to what they consider related issues such as allegations of Islamophobia and tying his birther views into racism. The scope of this article should be clearly defined before picking a new name. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Both titles are OK, but they cover two partly different subjects - as was noted by many participants. The suggested title seem to focus more precisely on this matter as it was covered in majority of RS. My very best wishes (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment- Imo the suggestion on this page above Racial views of Donald Trump is the best.Smeat75 (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Anyone who has read the comments at Articles for deletion/Donald Trump racial views will notice the many criticisms of our current title, or any title that includes the wording "racial views", will realize that we MUST change this, and quickly. The title does not describe the content properly, so we need to change it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Emir of Wikipedia. Also, unless I sink my teeth into the article, Donald Trump and racism would not tell me anything about what the article is about. In my view, it is too general and vague, and an attempt to deceive the reader (whether intentionally meant or not). It could be interpreted in a different way e.g. Donald trying to eradicate racism, Donald addressing issues relating to racism, etc. It is disingenuous. Donald Trump's racist views, Racist views of Donald Trump or even the article's current name tells us exactly what this article is about. On a side note, we should not be spending our entire lives trying to figure out another name for this article just because of that wonderful pillar of Wiki called NPV. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is probably a duck and we should call it as such. Wiki's wonderful NPV policy is a guideline that certainly should be respected. However, we must remember that it is merely a guideline just like all other guidelines, and there will come a time when you have to use your human brain and make a decision, as long as that decision is made rationally and in good faith. The neultrality should be within the article's content. We should not be spending our entire lives trying to figure out what to call this article (not to mention using names which may be disingenuous) in respect to NPV. If it is a duck, call it a duck, and exercise NPV in the content of the article.Senegambianamestudy (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments on Haiti, El Salvador, and Africa
The article says twice that Trump called Haiti and El Salvador "Shithole Countries". However Trump denies saying this and there is no video of him saying this so this is unproven. The article should be more neutral and say something like "according to sources, Trump referred to El Salvador and Haiti as "Shithole Countries", however Trump denies that he used those words". It also could be a BLP issue, as there is no proof Trump said that. I personally think he may have said that, but we all say things that we shouldn't and if he did say that it makes sense that he would not want to admit it, because he doesn't have anything against the people, just the corrupt governments.

In short, I think it is Unproven, poorly sourced, and possibly defamatory to Donald Trump.SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Right now, the sources are all writing about it as if he actually said it. Even though they may disclaim that it's only an allegation (albeit one made by a number of individuals), Trump and the white house have flip-flopped from disclaiming the phrase to refusing to say whether he actually used it or not. So we have to go with how the sources treat it, because other than that, we have only our own notions and biases to inform us. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * User:Spidersmilk - this is being discussed in the RFC Alleged above. Please contribute there. Markbassett (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * See above discussion. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Discrimination
Question: Shouldn't WikiProject Discrimination be added to this talk page? Senegambianamestudy (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure. Anyone can add a wikiproject banner and this article would certainly seem to be of interest to that project.- MrX 🖋 21:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Done ✅ Senegambianamestudy (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

not SYNTH
Re - actually, that's straight from the source: "As Trump pursued this crusade, there were no Republicans and few members of the media who called out his racism—or his nuttiness. In fact, Republicans and conservatives eagerly welcomed him into their circles.".Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There are issues with that material. First, it seems to be referencing the shithole remarks, but the passage in the MJ article article is talking about birtherism which happened years earlier. I'm not sure it's even accurate to say that no Republican has ever referred to Trump's comments as racist.
 * I added that ref, when I noticed the sentence There has been limited response from Republican lawmakers with comments such as unfortunate and indefensible, but no Republican has labeled the president's words as racist didn't have one. The relevant part of the ref is "But as with many of Trump’s excesses, GOP outrage was muted, at best." I.e. it doesn't specifically cover the second half of the sentence. zzz (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So I have restpred the first half of the sentence. zzz (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What also confused me was the random "unfortunate" and "indefensible" quotations thrown in which weren't supported by the MJ article. I've added an article from the NY Times which supports this. I've also removed the epithet "habitual" to describe his vocal defenders. FallingGravity 19:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Relatedly, we have overlap between the Reactions and Analysis sections. I'm not aware of Republican legislators or party leaders who have analyzed Trump's racially-provocative comments and racially-motivated actions. I think the Michael Steele material might be best under the Reactions section.- MrX 🖋 12:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * There is no Reactions section. There is a section for congressional response to the shithole episode which is where the "no rasism" comments were.  (Steele would not fit there.) Anyway, as a matter of fact, no Republican has called him a racist in their comments on the shithole incident. This was stated in a NYT article awhile ago, alas I am unable to get past their paywall.  Gandydancer (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm trying something - adding "pundits" to include Steele and get rid of that tiny section that most likely will not grow. See what you think...  Gandydancer (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was confused. I meant the 'Response from lawmakers' section, but given its scope, my comment about overlap is invalid. I do think we have too much detail under 'Comments on Haiti, El Salvador, and Africa', which tends to tip the scale toward recent events. - MrX 🖋 20:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. When for months almost nobody came out to specifically say that the emperor was not wearing clothes one would expect that once it came out that he was naked, something that everybody had known all along, you'd expect to see a huge amount of coverage. So that's what we report here, right? Gandydancer (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for putting that naked emperor image in my head. I'm gonna need a double dose of brain bleach! 🤮 - MrX 🖋 01:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Korean lady
The article has a section covering Trump's remark about a "Pretty Korean lady" during an intelligence briefing. This incident does not seem to have enduring notability, so I as a "slow news day" anecdote, and my esteemed colleague   because RS have covered it. My position is that we are facing a case of WP:NOT. Let's discuss. — JFG talk 15:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would not cry if this were removed. It's been bothering me too.- MrX 🖋 15:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * At one point I did question this inclusion as well, however doing research that I expected to show that it was not worthy of inclusion I actually found that it was mentioned in lists offered by several sources, such as the NYT, of incidents that show racism throughout Trump's career. So I changed my mind about this entry.  Gandydancer (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If there's a consensus to remove, that's fine by me. My full reason for the revert were:
 * The story was covered by multiple RSes, so WP:DUE seemed satisfied.
 * The rationale given for the removal was "Slow news day story" or something to that effect, which isn't a compelling argument at all.
 * But as I said, if there's some agreement here that the section is undue, I'll happily self-revert. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If we find consensus I would not object either as I always did find it iffy. However from my research I did find that it can be difficult to see his remarks as humiliating for us whitefolks.  But I'm willing to bet that if we had a fair amount of people of color posting here we'd hear a different story.  Actually they were blatantly racist...just hard for us white folks to see the truth in that...  IMO  Gandydancer (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with that, but that's all personal feelings. I think the most relevant point you raised was above, about the number of lists that included it as an example. I did do a quick google search, and found quite a few RSes among the hits for "Trump" in proximity to "racist" and "pretty Korean lady". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. Gandydancer (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "for us whitefolks"? Please do not make assumptions about the color of your fellow editors. That may be construed as… racist? — JFG talk 20:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to elaborate: The reason why this was covered in multiple places was because Trump was asking an Asian person 'where they were from' indicating he was making their race an issue - even after she had responded multiple times. If he had just described or made a passing comment about talking to a 'pretty Korean' then it would be non-news. Rather tasteless but not an issue as such. The problem in this case was that he interrupted to ask her repeatedly where she was from. That's entirely about making her race/nationality part of the conversation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think this should be removed from the article. It is a clear demonstration of Trump's racial views. According to RS, he was unable to comprehend that an Asian was actually from New York. It seems, from his line of questioning, she had to be from somewhere else, as if she didn't actually belong here. He made her race an issue - at an intelligence briefing. Most importantly, this is covered in multiple RS - and part of the picture according to RS. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No reason to remove this. We just need to verify that the sources describe his interaction as racist, not that we are characterizing it as editors. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 05:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Information from the lead removed
Information from the Southern Poverty Law Center that I added was removed calling it "discredited". I added:


 * Shortly after the election a survey of 10,000 K-12 educators showed that 90% of them said the results of the election are having a profoundly negative impact on schools and students with an increase in "verbal harassment, the use of slurs and derogatory language, and disturbing incidents involving swastikas, Nazi salutes and Confederate flags."[28][29]

This information has been included in numerous sources and I have not seen any claims that it has been discredited. I returned it to the lead. Gandydancer (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's undue for the lead IMO; should summarize the polls below, such as the proportion of people thinking of him as racist. Also a veering a little offtopic. Dunno about discredited. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't really be in the lead unless it is covered (or soon to be covered) as a significant point in the body of the article. Also, I would want to see about three strong sources that cite the SPLC to demonstrate WP:DUEWEIGHT.- MrX 🖋 16:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with MrX. It's okay in the body section about the student reaction, but too much in the lede. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, it has in no way been discredited to my knowledge. One needs a source for such a claim. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This 'survey' was nothing more than a survey of those who subscribe to the Southern Poverty Law Center's e-mails and who visit its website. It is therefore misleading to suggest that this is in any way representative of how teachers generally would respond if surveyed. As stated in the second source posted "The survey is not meant to represent the nation because respondents were not randomly picked. They are the center's email subscribers and visitors to its website, where the survey was published,.." Lin4671again (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinions. I have deleted my addition to the lead.  Gandydancer (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not what the SPLC says about the survey. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree that this partisan poll is UNDUE for the lede section. — JFG talk 20:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Partisan? WTF as they say in the States. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 05:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I added it and I support it but I feel that it could be said that it may be biased. Even at their site they admit that it is not a "scientific" poll.  That said, it has been widely quoted and the SPLC has an excellent reputation.  I would certainly fight the suggestion to remove it.  Gandydancer (talk) 05:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Palm beach clubs
I removed the "Palm Beach clubs" section. This is not independent coverage of Trump's racial views, and it is not sufficient coverage. He's quoted in less than one line in both articles as a rationale for not joining one specific club. Maintaining a prominent place in this article would be WP:UNDUE based on only these sources. Also, both articles use the exact same paragraph. So the sources are not independent of each other. Still, these are but passing mentions that quote Trump. Other independent sources are required to restore this section. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

For ease of understanding, here is the paragraph:"Trump would later say that what he really wanted was to turn Mar-a-Lago into a private club—and some insisted he was miffed at not being invited to join the Bath and Tennis Club. “Utter bullshit!” he told Marie Brenner in this magazine in 1990. “They kiss my ass in Palm Beach. Those phonies! That club [the Bath and Tennis] called me and asked me if they could have my consent to use part of my beach to expand the space for their cabanas! I said, ‘Of course!’ Do you think if I wanted to be a member they would have turned me down? I wouldn’t join that club, because they don’t take blacks and Jews.". Also notice, this material does not support the second assertion in that section - "Mar-a-Lago admitted blacks and Jews unlike the other private clubs in Palm Beach." This seems to be making up a conclusion that is not supported at all by the above material. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with the removal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * All/most of the other incidents here have received literally hundreds of news reports entirely on the subject. So definitely undue. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That conclusion was apparently from something like "he wanted a club that admitted everyone" somewhere else. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It has other sources --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Reasonable sources; the nytimes one talks about how it accepts everyone. I think support addition of a sentence. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I support the addition of one sentence saying Mar-a-lago accepts everyone using some of the the above sources. I don't think we can say other clubs exclude other races and religions without RS that says so. I'm thinking the practice should be outdated by now because it is the 21st century - but who knows?... ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Any suggestion on what the sentence should be? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there consensus to include something a sentence or two based on the other sources? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I suppose so Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 29 January 2018
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. It appears that there may be support for moving the page to another title, but this request will not be able to establish a consensus for any particular alternative. If necessary, I would suggest further discussion to select a single alternative before initiating another move request. Dekimasu よ! 03:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Racial views of Donald Trump → Racial comments by Donald Trump – According to the discussion above, and some comments in the recent AfD, this article does not deal with Trump's "racial views", but rather with a number of insensitive comments he made and was criticized for. The proposed title better reflects the article contents. — JFG talk 12:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * That doesn't work either, because it includes where he was sued/prosecuted for racist business practices. Which isn't a 'comment'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The article is about Donald Trump's history of racially-charged remarks and actions perceived as racist or racially-motivated. Those remarks and actions are indicative of his racial views which is why the current title is the most precise and concise for this subject. The article is not just about his comments..- MrX 🖋 12:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the article is 90% about Trump's comments. The only actions referenced are the pardon of Joe Arpaio and the 1973 discrimination case. In contrast, there's almost nothing about his "racial views": just other people's opinions and his denials. If we want to cast a broad net, we could use Donald Trump and racism, but this is discouraged by WP:AND. — JFG talk 13:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's 70% about his comments. The advertisements that he ran were also actions. If we want a short title that complies with WP:COMMONTERM and WP:RECOGNIZABLE we could use Donald Trump's racism . Perhaps we are being too politically correct here.- MrX 🖋 13:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Which is why I suggested 'Donald Trump's racial controversies' as while his alleged racism is in doubt (by a fringe minority at this point), the fact he has caused racial controversies is not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I do think that could be a good title. I'm just not sure it's better than what we currently have.- MrX 🖋 14:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The advertisements he ran are also comments, just through a different channel than a TV interview or an op-ed. The only potentially racist actions are the discrimination cases, which make up about 3% of the article contents (177/5568 words), even after I expanded this section. Even the Arpaio pardon is about Arpaio's racist actions, not Trump's. — JFG talk 14:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Even the Arpaio pardon is about Arpaio's racist actions, not Trump's. The RSes seem to disagree. The preponderance of them suggest that Racism on Trump's part motivated (at least in part) the pardon. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, touting guilt by association is an interesting pastime of armchair psychoanalysts. While there is no question that some of Arpaio's actions stinked (stank?) of racism, Trump's pardon was officially motivated by "more than fifty years of admirable service to our Nation". Aspersions of a racial motivation for Trump's move are just opinions. He possibly wanted to thank a staunch campaign supporter (and that's just an opinion too). — JFG talk 15:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Digressing, but well when that fifty years of service significantly involved those actions..Trump can't divorce those years of service from the racism. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, that's guilt by association. — JFG talk 17:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well no, he's choosing to pardon Joe Arpaio despite that..not just association but actions are linking...I'll go straight to godwins and say it wouldn't be guilt by association if Trump pardoned Hitler with a rationale of "years of service as chancellor" and that was called racist; then again it could just be Trump being Trump and pardoning a supporter no matter what it is. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * According to the wikilinked (but ill-sourced) guilt by association that presumably is being used to support the manifestly erroneous claim that MPants is promoting this fallacy: Guilt by association, as that linked article elegantly details in Polish Notation, would be if -- just because Trump pardoned Arpaio for his 50 years of history that included stink, therefore everyone who pardons Arpaio did so in respect of such history. Either that, or there's some other unlinked definition of the "guilt by association" intended for the curt dismissal of MPants' thougthful comment. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify it for you: Arpaio is guilty of racist acts, Trump pardons him, Arpaio's guilt does not become Trump's guilt. Neither should any presidential pardon be construed as the President condoning the guilty party's actions. By pardoning Marc Rich, Bill Clinton did not himself become guilty of money laundering and tax evasion. — JFG talk 20:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not "guilt by association". That would be if people accused Trump of being racist merely because he was friends with Arpaio. Arpaio was convicted of crimes involving racism. Trump expressed his disagreement with the notion that Arpaio deserved punishment for his racist acts by pardoning Arpaio. This isn't Arpaio's racism rubbing off on Trump, this is Trump saying "criminal racism shouldn't be punished." Something which you might recognize as racist. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not "guilt by association" and it's also not what your linked guilt by association article defines as such. At any rate it's a straw man that appears to overlook the core issue, which has been clearly explained here and which would need to be addressed in order to impeach that content. FYI the argument here is that it is a racist act and expresses a racist stance to endorse and reward a man for racist views and actions. And it would still be a straw man even if Arpaio were a woman.  <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support More neutral title, and we can't actually say anything directly about Trump's views on race except to quote his "least racist person" remarks with our tongues firmly planted in our cheeks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not neutral. It tells readers that Trump only makes racial comments, when in fact he takes actions that are regarded as racially-motivated. It also omits the fact that he has inspired others like David Duke and Richard Spencer, and their followers.- MrX 🖋 14:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It tells readers that Trump only makes racial comments, Well, yeah. We can't talk about what he believes, but only what he says or does.
 * when in fact he takes actions that are regarded as racially-motivated. Okay, fair point. I'm open to titles like Racial comments and actions of Donald Trump, or Racist comments and actions by Donald Trump (the latter is sufficiently sourced, but I bet it would cause an uproar among our pro-Trump editors). Or even Racial controversies of Donald Trump, which would encompass all of it, including the David Duke bit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind, sources discuss his racial (or racist) views extensively, which is what the current title attempts to reflect. Racist comments and actions by Donald Trump would probably violate WP:RACIST. I'm not sure about Racial comments and actions of Donald Trump, but it is better than the proposed title.- MrX 🖋 15:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Has anyone proposed Racial controversies of Donald Trump before? I'm not sure and I'm at work, so digging beyond clicking a link or Ctrl+Fing this page is something I can't really do until my lunch break. If not, what do you think of that one? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I see it has been mentioned before, though never formally proposed in an RfM. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * @ / : Well, yeah. We can't talk about what he believes, but only what he says or does. Would you say the same of the numerous other articles titled "Topic views of Individual"? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose The proposed move would weasel down the title to an undefined, meaningless, string of words that will be read differently by each of our millions of WP users. So for editors, it will lead to an eternal string of pointless talk page discussions as to what content fits such an amorphous title and for users searching for information, many will be misdirected and disappointed. This is a waste of time and should be withdrawn until discussion helps us narrow down the range of constructive improvements to the title. We should not leap to so flawed a binary choice. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Quite the opposite: "racial comments" by Trump are documented and precise, whereas his "racial views" are anybody's guess. — JFG talk 15:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with JFG on this: We really can't say anything about his views unless we're quoting him, or someone qualified to make statements about his views, such as his psychiatrist (who, of course, would never provide such a quote). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait, are you saying that journalists, legislators, and scholars are not qualified to conclude that Trump's views are racially provocative and motivated? It does not require a psychoanalysis. Perhaps you are conflating "views" (a general term) with "thoughts".- MrX 🖋 16:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I absolutely am conflating the two, because they are synonymous in this sense. Or more accurately, I am conflating "opinions" and "views" for the above reason. I'd be most interested to see any argument that a person's "racial views" are different than their "opinions on race" that doesn't rely on any sort of false dilemma or semantic switchceroos. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For the record: I do believe, based on the opinions of many such journalists, legislators and scholars as well as my own analysis that Trump is extremely racist. But I don't believe that any amount of claims about Trump being racist can be sufficient to satisfy WP:BLP in the face of the (far less, but still) numerous refutations of that claim published in RSes as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Additional addendum: I'm okay with changing "racial" to "racist" because I believe that 1) describing Trump as racist is a slightly more readily verifiable position as it refers equally to his words and actions as it does to his opinions and 2) doing so is not actually accusing Trump of being racist, but of doing and saying racist things. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose – The nominator is premising their argument on Trump's comments being unreflective of his views. I see no reason why such an assumption can be made here but not for the numerous other articles titled "Topic views of Individual". 142.161.81.20 (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't recall seeing RS describe POTUS's public speech as "comments". Seems rather a bit Edwardian. "Fine cup of tea she serves, what?" is a "comment". POTUS makes claims, insinuations, provocations, etc. usually described as such for the agitation they cause. Tally-ho! not. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 03:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The current title reflects what reliable sources are reporting and have been reporting. Sources discuss his "racist" views or views on people other than whites, and this has reared its ugly head over and over again throughout the years. We are not discussing only his comments. I have to agree that "Donald Trump's racism" might be an apt alternative title, reliable sources have no problem in naming his "racism" . ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Mild oppose - The title doesn't sum up what the article is about, unless its scope is severely limited to his "racial" comments. I do agree that "racial views" doesn't really match what the article covers. The article appears to cover accusations of racism against Trump for his various controversial comments and actions. Maybe something like Racism accusations against Donald Trump? FallingGravity 05:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Are those accusations not being made on the basis of assessments and interpretations of his racial views? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 05:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Aren't "assessments and interpretations" roughly equivalent to accusations? Only he knows what's in his head-I sure don't.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you say the same of the numerous other articles titled "Topic views of Individual"? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

AND ends with the sentence: Avoid the use of "and" to combine concepts that are not commonly combined in reliable sources. and I'm fairly certain that the concepts "Donald Trump" and "racism" are commonly combined in reliable sources. If necessary, I'll play my semi-annual WP:IAR card here. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This proposal changes the scope. Then again, this article includes plenty of stuff that falls out of "views" and would fall more under "comments". His birtherism was a view, his potshots at Elizabeth Warren were comments. His pardoning of Joe Arpaio was something else entirely. FallingGravity's proposal is an improvement but it seems we're trying to serve too many masters here.LM2000 (talk)
 * Oppose - Personally I'd say they were more views than they were comments. – Davey 2010 Talk 18:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Strange request. The first sentence of the article reads, Donald Trump, the President of the United States, has a history of making racially-charged remarks and taking actions perceived as racist or racially-motivated. Gandydancer (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article deals with comments as well as actions, as evidenced by the lead. Smartyllama (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment As a matter of fact, when our readers read these sorts of tags such as, It has been requested that the title of this article be changed to Racial comments by Donald Trump., they think that some sort of administrators from on-high have made this request, not aware that any Joe Blow may very well place this sort of tag on any article.   At any rate, no "Joe Blow" here for this article, but one would think that considering that only one editor finds agreement with this suggestion, the one that suggested it would close this discussion...unless they prefer to show disagreement right off the start of the readers of the article and place doubt in the minds of our readers.  Gandydancer (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - When we can't find a specific title that's accurate, the solution is to use a less-specific title, which is not a sin. Donald Trump and racism is sufficiently vague to serve as an umbrella for all the quasi-related issues that we need to include here, while being almost completely neutral (compare and contrast to Donald Trump's racism). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment added after BullRangifer's !vote below. I have belatedly read WP:AND and I disagree with its interpretation of the word "and", at least as applied to this case. Using its Islamic terrorism example, I think Media's coupling of Donald Trump and racism would be a bit ridiculous. The Islamic terrorism example is about the problem of associating IT with the entire religion of Islam, an unfortunate quirk of semantics that does not apply here.
 * Bingo! WP:AND is not an absolute. It just says to "avoid", which allows exceptions. Mandruss puts it very well. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think IAR is necessary. There is no "Trumpic racism" that needs to be disassociated from Donald Trump. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per Mandruss. I still feel that Donald Trump and racism is the best option. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2018
In the final paragraph of the lead, “a October” should read “an October”. In the second paragraph, “of” should be removed in “between violence used by … and of violence used by …”. 67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you, good eye. Become an established registered editor and you can fix this stuff yourself! Oh, I see you're an established unregistered editor, so I guess you already knew that. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  23:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ha, thanks for the thought! I prefer to stay out of this kind of mess. I stopped using my account so that I wouldn’t have the chance. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Accusing someone of 'talk, talk, talk...' is hardly racist!...unless someone can find a reliable source that says it is
What Trump said was definitely out of order but unless someone can find a reliable source that actually stated that Trump's comment was racist, this subsection should be deleted. Lin4671again (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Is anyone disagreeing with my point? If not I will remove the section in a few days. Lin4671again (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The name of the article is Racial views of Donald Trump. I believe that we have plenty of RS that affirms that a person such as Trump to have sent that twitter out to John Lewis is the height of racial insensitivity, to say the least.  Gandydancer (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with : this section has no indication of a racial view, and should be removed. Trump has accused politicians of all creeds, colors and parties to be "all talk, no action". People get outraged because John Lewis happens to be a black civil rights leader, but Trump is an "equal opportunity offender". Remember he publicly questioned birthright citizenship of Ted Cruz as well as Barack Obama's. — JFG talk 22:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well this article currently only has mention of the questioning of Obama, but should have no effect on whether we decide to include or remove the comment about John Lewis. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, I was just quoting another example of Trump unfairly criticizing his adversaries irrespective of race or political party. I can't infer from your comment whether you support inclusion of the John Lewis incident or would rather remove it? — JFG talk 23:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I oppose it with the current sourcing because as Lin4671again has stated that they don't state it was racist, but I am open to inclusion if someone presents a relevant source. No BLP violation or incorrect information is included though, it is just a question of whether it is in scope or not so I think it is best to preserve it until a consensus is reached. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. A couple sources were added recently, possibly to substantiate this discussion:
 * the first one cites Mark Anthony Neal, a Duke University professor stating that other presidents were "more sensitive to issues of race", even as they "may have imposed policies that hurt black communities".
 * the other one cites an opinion comment by Bill Kristol lamenting that Trump "treats Vladimir Putin with more respect than he does John Lewis", well that only shows that Mr. Kristol alludes that race plays a role in Trump's "respect" for people.
 * Neither source asserts that Trump's remark on Lewis was racially motivated, and they both mention that he was reacting to Lewis calling him "not a legitimate president." We have nothing more here than the usual Trump lambasting anyone questioning his legitimacy — he made no comment about Lewis' race, hence off-topic for this article. This incident is already mentioned in Lewis' article, that's where it belongs. — JFG talk 00:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have removed the section. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Belated support for removal, that was classic WP:SYNTH in my opinion. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Article
This article in itself seems racist, and ignorant. It seems to take a stab at calling our president racist, which is completely untrue. How original btw! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:4501:7D75:F130:2F4B:AFE4:607F (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Restored as per Village_pump_(policy). – Davey 2010 Talk 22:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

RFC: Alleged
Should we refer to story told by Dick Durbin in the "shithole countries" controversy as alleged? PackMecEng (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please refactor the RfC request in a NPOV manner.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support - All but two of the source in that section refer to the event as alleged or a variation of that. There are also 3 people that deny it even happened. Finally it is a "he said she said" event with no good way of knowing for sure what happened. PackMecEng (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * An analysis of good available sources would be more informative than simply looking at the sources cited in a section of the article.- MrX 🖋
 * Agreed and from what I can tell most of them back up my point. I choose to stick with the sources listed in the article already since that is what we have gave weight to include from. PackMecEng (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * PackMecEng - yes, WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE would say to use the source wording -- if it's not a prominent item or typical of the coverage then it shouldn't be a cite, but while it is a cite then it's "allegedly" should be included.  Markbassett (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:V Neutrality: If there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation." <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 12:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no substantive disagreement between sources. Most (reliable) sources factually state that the comment was made, and some sources note that a couple of people in attendance disputed that Trump referred to "shithole countries", but they could not recall what was actually said. Think about that for a moment...- MrX 🖋 12:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It depends on what sources you're reading - the disagreement is also in the cited sources wherein there are opposing views, and that is a fact. To handpick only the views that allege he said it without including the claims that claim he did not say it is noncompliant per WP:V and WP:NPOV. Fact - it is an allegation, and both views should be included per WP:V using intext attribution...unless wider consensus decides to change that policy. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 14:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If there are sources that state that Trump did not say "shithole countries", then please present them. No, we don't present "both views" when one view has been roundly discredited, including by a respected Senator in an oversight committee hearing. For the avoidance of doubt, when someone swears up and down that somebody did not say something, and then says that they don't recall" what was said, that person is lying.- MrX 🖋 16:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * MrX, with all due respect, you are mistaken. Here is one, “I did not hear that word used,” Nielsen said under oath, about “shithole.” VOX - "under oath". Pretty powerful statement, I'd say. And there's the statement by two highly respected Congressmen that was published in Huff: Perdue told ABC’s “This Week” that the press was offering a “gross misrepresentation” of the president’s comments. Cotton agreed with Perdue, releasing a joint statement saying they did not recall the vulgar language described by the press. Huffington Post publishing an ABC "This Week" report. To say the sources don't exist is incorrect. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 18:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The easiest place to found them is our own section on the topic. As noted before most of them do not state it as fact. PackMecEng (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Reject - There is too much evidence supporting it as factual, including initial FOX News reports. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Durbin's version has been disputed reputably by at least three individuals who were also there. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 02:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Durbin's account has been disputed, but can you show a few sources that say it's been "disputed reputably"? That seems the opposite of what almost ever source is saying and not at all compatible with the reality of the public testimony and cross examination of Kirstjen Nielsen in which she quite plainly lied under oath.. Also, Cotton and Perdue.- MrX 🖋 14:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want to bully and WP: BLUDGEON, try it with someone else who might take the bait. Or comment where you place your own !vote.  I'm not interested in arguing endlessly with you or anyone over this.  <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 14:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Umm... I was merely asking if you could back up your comments. You're free not to answer it if you can't or if you don't want to. Sorry if you interpreted my question as bludgeoning or bullying. 😕 - MrX 🖋 14:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How is one question "bludgeon[ing]"? Are you assuming this to be a vote rather than a discussion? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How do you reconcile your position with MOS:ALLEGED? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Reject. While we should cite sources accurately, including their wording, we should not ADD "alleged" or other such weasel words when paraphrasing or using Wikipedia's voice. This case is so clear that only those who are known to constantly lie (Trump and those scared sycophants around him) are denying he said it. Several of those who were there attest that he said it, and he even bragged that it would gain him support among his followers, but then he started changing his tune. (It took 48 hrs for them to fully decide to completely agree on denying!) Then those sycophants began to waffle, then couldn't remember, and finally they could weirdly remember very clearly that he didn't say it. I wonder what threats he issued to them if they didn't lie for him? -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No and RfC worded in a biased manner in violation of policy. It wasn't just Durbin nor is it a "story he told". Try again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Durbin is saying it happened and others are saying it didn't. Therefore it's just alleged. We can't in Wiki's voice post a comment that Trump did say those things when it's a BLP issue. We don't know if he said it. There just isn't any guaranteed RS that says Trump said it independent of Durbin. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See my question to Winkelvi above. As far as I can tell, sources treat the Durbin's account as credible, and it's backed by several other credible people. On the other hand, Nielsen, Cotton, and Perdue seem to have been lying. They caught themselves in a logic trap.- MrX 🖋 14:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And one can very well say Durbin is not a credible source. He has been caught lying about this very same scenario before, during Obama's tenure. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As I have still not decided where I'm going to land on this RfC, could you provide a couple of reliable source that support Durbin having been caught lying in this very same scenario before? Many thanks.- MrX 🖋 15:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Here you go: Sir Joseph (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That source doesn't say Durbin was lying. It just says that the White House and Speaker's office refuted his claim. We don't know who lied, or if anyone lied. The account is sorely lacking in any details..- MrX 🖋 21:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Basing our answer here on whether Durbin has been caught lying is WP:OR. If the sources say it is alleged then we say it is alleged, if they omit the mention and lack attribution to Durbin then so do we. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The story most refer to in reguards to Durbin in these sitations is . Which was well covered at the time. PackMecEng (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Cotton was caught changing his story, so he deflects, saying that Durbin has a history of misrepresenting meetings. Sorry, that's not convincing at all - MrX 🖋 21:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * No "Alleged" should only be used in case of doubt, or for criminal offenses. zzz (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Why? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Same reason we don't say that Norway is allegedly predominantly white. zzz (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Because of the reasons discussed at MOS:ALLEGED. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The majority of the sources we cite in that section refer to it as alleged, and do list doubts as well. PackMecEng (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you please reword the RfC in a neutral manner? Already asked once.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Reject This proposal is based on a faulty premise. This was not a "story told by Dick Durbin". It is not "Dick Durbin's version." According to the original reporting it was based on multiple unnamed sources; if Durbin was one of them, he is the only one who has come forward publicly, but clearly there were others. And the "denials" have no credibility. It took the White House and Trump days to get around to denying it, and according to several reports, Trump was bragging about his comment to friends later that day. Most of the "denials" from other people who were there in the meeting are classic examples of "non-denial denials": "I don't remember" ("oh, now I remember, he didn't say it"), "he used tough language" ("but I don't remember any of it"), etc. There is no need for an "alleged"; this comment is as well documented as anything can be that wasn't said in front of a tape recorder. --MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention: Trump's comments have also been all-but-confirmed by Lindsey Graham, whose sneer "my memory hasn't evolved" was directed at the two congressmen who suddenly remembered what they heard and didn't hear. --MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Would dropping Durbin from the question change the situation? The first reports of this incident I see is January 11th, the first report of denial I see is the 12th, days is not accurate before denying. The squishy original answers from the two others there are a bit lame, but we do not get to decide if they are full of it or not. It comes down to has this been challenged by people that would know for sure? So far the answer is certainly yes it has. PackMecEng (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Tentatively support for now There's still just enough of a controversy that it would be best for us to attribute all the claims that he said this. For the record: I have no reasonable doubt that he did say it, but the coverage I've encountered has never failed to note that there's some disagreement over whether he did. Also, I fully expect that disagreement to fade over time, at which point I would want to change the section back to asserting it in wikivoice. FInally: I don't think it should necessarily be described consistently as "alleged", but rather we should explicitly attribute the allegations. We shouldn't say "Trump allegedly called certain nations 'shithole countries'," we should say "according to X, Y and Z who attended the meeting, Trump called certain nations 'shithole countries'." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are opposed to using the word allegedly, isn't that to say that you oppose rather than support, given that this is an RfC on the word allegedly? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the RfC doesn't propose a specific wording, it merely poses a question. I oppose use of the specific word "allegedly", but I support attributing the claims that Trump referred to these countries as shitholes to the parties who made the claims. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ... it merely poses a question. Yes, and that question is, "Should we refer to story [sic] told by Dick Durbin in the 'shithole countries' controversy as alleged?", not "Should those statements be attributed inline?" If the latter question was posed, I may well support it, but that isn't what was asked. Is it not fair to say that you oppose the original proposition and are making an alternate proposition of your own? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You should buy a thesaurus. It might do you some good. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do you say that, ? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Because you seem to have some difficulty grasping the concept of different phrasings with the same meaning, and I figured the concept of different words with the same meaning might help with that. The question posed is whether or not we should describe the claims as alleged. Since it never put the word "alleged" in quotes to indicate any specificity to that word, that question can thus be rephrased as "should we depict these claims as allegations," to which I indicated tentative support and specified how exactly I believe we should depict them as allegations; by attributing them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  23:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * that question can thus be rephrased as "should we depict these claims as allegations," to which I indicated tentative support and specified how exactly I believe we should depict them as allegations; by attributing them. How do you reconcile that position with the meaning of the word alleged (and, by extension, allegation) as described by MOS:ALLEGED? The MOS indicates that the possible implication that "a given point is inaccurate" is inherent to the term. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How do you reconcile that position with the meaning of the word alleged (and, by extension, allegation) as described by MOS:ALLEGED? Mostly through a deep understanding of the English language and a lot of experience with formal and informal logic, and rhetoric. But also there's the fact that I tend to assume good faith with my fellow editors, and presume the RfC isn't just a cover for a POV push to insert weasel words into the article. I'm explicitly advocating not using that word because it carries connotations that aren't really accurate. Sure, some people claim the President didn't say it, including the president. But nobody neutral really has much doubt, based on what they know about the president. Therefore, the reader can be reasonably expected to understand that the fact that we are attributing the allegations does not, in any way, imply that we suspect them. At the same time, several people absolutely are disputing that the president said it. So we need to reflect that fact as well, else we're doing the reader a disservice. By attributing the claim that he said it, we can strongly imply that not everyone is on board with it, while simultaneously refraining from implicitly casting doubt on the truth of the claim. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  02:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * No because there is no doubts that Trump actually said it. I also agree with comment by MelanieN above. A disclaimer: I do not read a lot of this and may not properly understand certain sensitivities about it. My very best wishes (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No at this point, although I reserve the right to change my !vote after I do some more research. MelanieN does a good job of outlining why we should not qualify Durbin's account as "alleged". Everything I've read so far supports the veracity of the account related by Durbin, Flake, Graham, and Erickson..- MrX 🖋 21:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC).
 * Update: I did a search for donald trump shithole durbin. In the top 10 results, only one source uses a form of the word "allege", and not in the context of Durbin's account.- MrX 🖋 13:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 53-57 59-62 all state it as a variation of alleged, not explicitly saying it happened. 59 is an opinion piece. 58 seems to state it as fact. PackMecEng (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that analysis and more importantly, they don't say "alleged" and neither should we.- MrX 🖋 13:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Mild support - Even the most recent press reports note there's some disagreement about what exactly Trump said and in what context. I agree with ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants that attribution is better than just saying "alleged". FallingGravity 23:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong support- Other than Durbin, everyone else who attributes that exact quote to him are unnamed sources. For example . The article attributes a quote to Trump as reported by "several people briefed on the meeting". The Post does not reveal who these people are. That's complete journalist garbage. How as a journalist do you quote someone when you yourself did not hear the quote and you won't even name the people who claimed that they did?--Rusf10 (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * - Senator Tim Scott said that Senator Lindsey Graham "told him the comments, as reported in the media, were “basically accurate." starship[[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|'''.paint ~

]]  KO  ''' 08:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you read the first sentence of that article? "U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham didn't directly confirm President Donald Trump's use of the term "shithole countries..." This only supports my argument that you can't present the quote as fact.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I did read the first sentence. I know Graham hasn't explicitly confirmed it himself. But a fellow senator has said Graham told him it's accurate. You had a problem with unnamed sources and I gave you a named source. starship .paint ~  KO   00:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How do you reconcile your position with MOS:ALLEGED? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Reject I base this decision on the excellent posts from several editors and my own common sense. But I still cannot say that the opposing editors have it all wrong.  I would much prefer to use the terminology "reportedly referred to" which is discussed below. Gandydancer (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Reject per White House confirmation. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 21:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What White House confirmation? PackMecEng (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Supportive - per WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE, if the cite says 'allegedly' then the article line should too.  I note that bbc.com says 'reportedly' said and 'according' to Durbin, so if the cite were to BBC then the word 'reportedly' should be used.    Think the general coverage is a mix so "allegedly" alone might not be the wording chose, but there seems enough contention that it has to be reflected somehow.  Markbassett (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 *  Reject. First, this is a badly worded RFC. As pointed out above it seems to fail "neutral wording" criteria on the WP:RFC page. The RFC question oversimplifies the issue. Many more sources verify that the President said "sh*thole" or "sh*thouse", while other sources note the President expressed derogatory sentiments about non-white populations and their respective nation. As mentioned above, the President even bragged about it to friends, before issuing denials about 48 hours later. Two senators couldn't remember during the week, and then attacked Durbin and issued denials in time for the Sunday talk shows. Sources cite their lack of credibility and the word games they are playing. Reliable sources indicate Trump received global condemnation. So the issue has been well defined in the press, demonstrating this goes well beyond "allegedly". Also, "allegedly" should not be used in Wikipedia voice. This has been noted as a weasel word and therefore discounts WP:NPOV. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. I vote for the idea of saying "according to X, Y and Z who attended the meeting, Trump called certain nations 'shithole countries'." by User:MPants at work, as it is verifiable with readable info and it doesn't put words in the sources mouths SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It violates WP:NPOV by siding with the media's... You do realize that you're literally arguing that WP:V violates WP:NPOV with this argument, right? Understand, we both !voted the same way, but this argument is quite ignorant of policy. We are absolutely required by policy to "side with" the media. If the media also happens to side with one political side, that's not our problem. (If you're trying to figure out why I'm disagreeing with someone who !voted along with me, then understand that when a discussion such as this is closed, the closer looks to the strengths of the arguments. By giving a bad argument in favor of a good position, you undermine that position.)   ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * the media has been known to lie and lie about things and hardly anyone trusts them anymore Three things:
 * That is not even remotely true. The vast majority of reliable sources (which includes the vast majority of the mainstream media) gets it right the first time, every time. Mistakes are both unusual, and corrected in an honest and open fashion.
 * The second part is no more true. The vast majority of people trust the media implicitly. Including you. You trust your preferred media to tell you the truth when it claims the "mainstream" media lies to you. (Unfortunately for you, they're the ones lying).
 * WP:V is policy, writ in stone and unchanging. If you cannot accept that reliable sources are reliable, then you have no business editing this project.
 * Sorry to be so blunt, but "you can't trust the media!" gets about as much traction here as a bowling ball on ice. It runs counter to our very principles. Please desist from this line of argument, and learn to accept that we must rely upon reliable sources for all of our content. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Reject We don't do WP:WEASEL or express doubt here (and certainly not in this case). We report the sources as given otherwise it will be OR and a violation of policy. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * No, do not include "alleged" -- the White House did not deny it, so no need for WP:WEASEL language. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * No.   "Alleged" is a weasel word as noted by K.e.coffman above. I also believe that this RfC is malformed as it presents the issue incompletely. Coretheapple (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Reject There's no need for the word "alleged". It definitely happened according to many different sources. The best sources, the biggest, most beautiful sources. Amsgearing (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it clearly violates MOS:ALLEGED – How can you possibly reconcile that position with MOS:WORDS, ? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per MOS:WTW and WP:V. A particular news source may call something alleged for cover your ass reasons, but after this much coverage and refusal of Trump and his people to deny, it's beyond "alleged" from WP's perspective; i.e., the real-world consensus is that it's not made-up. Early doubt on the part of a particular journalist does not translate to Wikipedia's own doubt forever.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just a side note Trump has denied it CNN as well as several people that were in the meeting. PackMecEng (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Summoned by bot. The evidence is there and its been confirmed by the White House - nothing alleged about it. Meatsgains (<b style="color:#5F9EA0">talk</b>) 03:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Strongly reject, per MOS:WTW and WP:V. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 17:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * how about Reported We've been using alleged to much--it has multiple means or at least multiple implciations.  DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No as per above - "Alleged" doesn't belong anywhere in the article. – Davey 2010 Talk 13:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Reject alleged but would support 'reported' per discussion above and below, if it is felt that a 'disclaimer' is needed, though I'm not entirely sure it is. Pincrete (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * SUPPORT ALLEGED - the whole thing needs to be rewritten to be compliant with policy - use in-text attribution & quote the most notable person who alleged Trump called whatever country shi*hole, and do the same thing for the opposing view and cite the RS. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 04:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of this article was written by highly experienced editors, each of whom have edited thousands of other articles and are respected for their understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It seem implausible to me that those experienced editors, collaborating with other experienced editors, would even be capable of writing an article that is not "compliant with policy".- MrX 🖋 12:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No - It has been widely confirmed and reported as fact by RS. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Reject alleged - Widely reported in RS. Folks that have denied the story seem to have flexible memories of the event. O3000 (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No to "alleged" and yes to attribution. Doing it that way gets the balance right, given the available sourcing if taken in its totality. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Reject inclusion entirely Referring to third-world countries as "shitholes" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with race or racism. Yes, I realize that the popular press has attempted to draw that conclusion, but in this particular case, sensationalist news media isn't reliable for such an inflammatory claim in a WP:BLP.  Instead, we should wait for respected, peer-reviewed academic journals to draw such conclusions.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Include. We follow RS, BLP, and PUBLICPERSONS (the latter is merciless...)
 * UN calls Donal Trump's s***hole immigrants comments 'racist' -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please, BR...you're not understanding that it's still alleged or if you prefer...reported that...he said it. I have already cited all of the PAGs that contradict your argument...allegations/reporting what someone else said...does not qualify as a statement of fact. There are disputed arguments in the sources...stop cherrypicking the ones that agree with your POV and simply cite both using intext attribution and inline citations...simple resolution. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 21:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
can ya reword the RfC statement? IIRC dick durbin wasn't even the original source for the reporting of the statement Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The earliest I see is from Washinton Post and they are listing to "several people briefed on the meeting". I listed Durbin since he is the only person that was there that said it happened. What would you suggest as better wording? PackMecEng (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless, it still needs to be reworded.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It isn't a "story told by Dick Durbin"....Something like "Should allegedly be added as in this diff" in relation to the "shithole countries" controversy." Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That diff covers more than this section, I was hoping to keep it narrow. I would be willing to drop mention of Durbin though to something like "Should we refer to the "shithole countries" controversy as alleged?". How does that sound Galobtter? PackMecEng (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That would be an improvement.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean it isn't the controversy that is alleged..the diff covers the section and the lead covering that section - unless you wan a discrepancy between the section and the lead.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would go with "Should we refer to the "shithole countries" comments as alleged?" but that goes a bit far the other way with bias. PackMecEng (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The sentence we are referring to is In January 2018, Trump received widespread domestic and international condemnation for comments he made during a January 11 Oval Office meeting about immigration, in which he referred to African countries, El Salvador, and Haiti as "shithole countries". I would oppose "allegedly referred to" because the statement is better documented than that, but I could accept "reportedly referred to". What would you think about that? --MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Reportedly would be fine by me. As long as it is not stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice is fine. PackMecEng (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that (reportedly) would be good wording as well. Gandydancer (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want to do that, you can't really withdraw and reword your original proposal after people have commented on it; maybe you could make a new proposal as a subsection of this one? --MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I think you could withdraw and self-close your original RfC, and open a new one. You should ping all the people who commented originally. --MelanieN (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This seems like the best solution. I would support using "reportedly referred to." Mr Ernie (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it should follow the cites phrasing for accuracy. Plus the article as a whole should reflect WEIGHT that there is variation, and denial and condemnation for NPOV.  The coverage does seem varied.  "Reportedly" is the BBC phrasing fairly consistently;  theguardian stories vary among 'reported that' and 'Trump said'.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Politico: "Indeed, Trump’s own erratic behavior in negotiations last week — including his remarks to lawmakers that many immigrants come from “shithole” countries — helped precipitate the breakdown in spending talks..." zzz (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * zzz - Politico stories also phrase it "was accused of using", "allegedly uttering", and covered the opposite side "denied" and Purdue & Cotton "did not hear" plus some mentioning it as something someone else "Washington Post reported that".   So Politico also is one of those that shows variations in handling including "alleged" and denials.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Reportedly I think is reasonable. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)