Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump

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 [1][2][3][4][5] --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)

@Steve Quinn, Volunteer Marek, and Galobtter: 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)

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)

• 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. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: 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.[6][7]. Also, Cotton and Perdue.[8][9]- 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. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 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: [10] 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 [11]. 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.[12][13] 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.[14] --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, MPants at work? 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.[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]- 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". ^Falling_Gravity 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 [25]. 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)

@Rusf10: - Senator Tim Scott said that Senator Lindsey Graham "told him the comments, as reported in the media, were “basically accurate." [26] starship.paint ~ KO 08:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: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)

@Rusf10: 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)

@R9tgokunks: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:

1. 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.
2. 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).
3. 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. (Summoned by bot) "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, PackMecEng? 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^(talk) 03:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

PackMecEng 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..." [27] 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)

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)

not SYNTH

Re [28] - 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. [29] 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. ^Falling_Gravity 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)

@Gandydancer: 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)

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 Y Senegambianamestudy (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The title chosen for the article

I think that the editors have done a commendable job in terms of keeping the article balanced and including all the relevant information! I have two alternative suggestions regarding the article title, though - "Race-related controversies involving Donald Trump" or "allegations of racism against Donald Trump". I think that the current heading (while appropriate for an encyclopedia article) may leave the reader with the impression that Donald Trump is primarily known for his views on race or is an expert on human races. He is a very famous politician and businessman, but the books he has written (to the best of my knowledge) avoid the topic of race/racial differences between populations and he is not exactly a racial anthropologist like Carleton Coon, if we are to take one example of a person who has theorized about/undertaken systematic studies regarding the various human phenotypes.Oleg Morgan (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2018 (EET)

Yeah, racial views does make it seem like he's known for his views on race.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Good thoughtful comments. I'm certainly open to a change. Gandydancer (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The current title is not precise, but I struggle to find a better one that is both precise and concise. The most accurate would something like History of racially-provocative remarks and racially-motivated actions by Donald Trump.- MrX 🖋 17:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Except while correct technically, it gives the impression its historical, rather than its actual use which is to indicate 'This is a history of (up until the present time) racial issues involving dondald trump'. How about 'Donald Trump's racial controversies'. Every one of them has caused a controversy at some point, either legally or in the news. And there is no argument that its due to him (regardless of his actual intent). The better sources (that bring all the incidents together) clearly indicate its a pattern of controversial racial-based actions/statements (its not a 'view' for example, when you refuse to rent houses to black people, it is however a racially-based controversy). Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all for the nice comments and the feedback offered! I like the other suggestions provided and am actually still undecided as to what the best title would be. I think that History of racially-provocative remarks and racially-motivated actions by Donald Trump accurately describes the scope of the article, though for the sake of neutrality the words "allegedly" or "purportedly" may need to be added as well. However, as rightly pointed out, the heading in question is not concise enough.Donald Trump's racial controversies would probably be a good compromise.Oleg Morgan (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2018 (EET)

I think Donald Trump's racial controversies would be an improvement. Gandydancer (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 29 January 2018

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)

@JFG: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 [30]. 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)

@MrX: 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".[31] 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. SPECIFICO 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. SPECIFICO 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)

@MPants at work / MjolnirPants: 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. SPECIFICO 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. SPECIFICO 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" [32]. ---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? ^Falling_Gravity 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)

• 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. –Davey2010^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). ―Mandruss ☎ 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.
  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. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• 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. ―Mandruss ☎ 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)

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 removed it as a "slow news day" anecdote, and my esteemed colleague MPants at work restored it because RS have covered it. My position is that we are facing a case of WP:NOT#NEWS. 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:

1. The story was covered by multiple RSes, so WP:DUE seemed satisfied.
2. 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)

@Gandydancer: "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. SPECIFICO 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)

(edit conflict)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. SPECIFICO 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)

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)