Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Primary sourced video

moved to next thread below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've removed a mention of Trump's "racism is evil" remark that was primary-sourced to a video of his remarks that were widely reported as dissembling and that were met with renewed criticism of his reaction to the incident. The accompanying NY Times article, which was not cited, gives the full context of that televised snippet, which RS tell us follows a pattern of brief scripted politically correct comments preceded and followed by inflammatory and controversial remarks. In the wake of the video statement, NYT reports criticism among his staff, 3 executives quitting Trump's American Manufacturing advisory council, and far-right sources who said the video remarks were not to be taken seriously. Cherry-picked primary sourced content and used out of context as SYNTH clearly does not meet our editorial policies and guidelines. If any of this is in the article, it would need to use the secondary NYT article along with the video snippet and give proper weight to the thrust of that secondary report. SPECIFICO talk 15:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC) See my remarks below, which I was in the process of writing when your post appeared. There is no SYNTH involved in quoting a speech without comment, as my edit did. — JFG talk 15:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

S--thole remark

The following edit(s) were removed from the article:

"A conservative editor and former Peace Corps alumnae reported that her tour in Senegal was marred by public hygienic practices including defecating in public.(ref)Karin McQuillan (January 9, 2018). "What I Learned in the Peace Corps in Africa: Trump Is Right". American Thinker. Retrieved February 11, 2018."(endref)

and

"In 2015, prior to Trump's alleged comment, the New York Times reported that open defecation was widespread in many underdeveloped countries, specifically citing those in sub-Saharan Africa.(ref)Rick Gladstone (June 30, 2015). "Dirty Water and Open Defecation Threaten Gains in Child Health". New York Times. Retrieved February 11, 2018.(end ref)

These were deleted with the notation WP:SYNTH (which I take to mean no WP:OR).

The first edit relays a widely circulated email documenting a Peace Corps (now conservative editor of notable online magazine) narrative of her experience with fecal matter in Senegal during her overseas assignment. I don't see where reporting this is WP:OR. The Peace Corps alumna was demonstrating, rather successfully, I thought, of the literal truth of the remark. It was circulated sufficiently that snopes investigated it. Snopes agrees that she made the statement, which is why I'm offering no link to snopes, since the truth is in the citation itself.

The second NY Times comment on Sub-Saharan Africa popped up during my online search. It, too, suggests the same literal interpretation of Trump's remarks.

How are either of these WP:SYNTH? They are both accurate. They both support his remark. Neither is WP:OR. Student7 (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Using the first source would not constitute original research, but it would be WP:UNDUE. The second source is unusable because it makes no mention of Trump's racial views and it predates the shithole remark.- MrX 🖋 00:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

How is the Peace Corps observations, widely circulated on the internet, and even reviewed for accuracy by snopes (who has a large in-basket), and who edits a notable magazine, "undue?"

I suppose I could pin the NY Times citation on Trump's remarks themselves, though he doubtlessly used other sources in identifying these countries as "s--holes." It cannot be proven that Trump's remarks derived specifically from the NY Times, but it seems to me to have been taken from the same sources. When people defecate outside in front of foreigners, it's going to be noticed. The fact that the NY Times and Trump wandered upon the same facts independently seem irrelevant per se and not WP:OR but rather the reverse. Same conclusions given the same facts. Student7 (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:WEIGHT WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV before returning to this article or talk page. I am not doubting your good intentions, but the text is rather obviously inappropriate and it's important you get up to speed on basic editing principles. SPECIFICO talk 03:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

"Widely circulated on the internet" does not factor into content decisions. If you want the material in the artilce, you have to show that it (Trump's not racist because of the shortage of bathrooms in Africa) represents a significant viewpoint covered in reliable sources. Unfortunately, a blog post by peace corps volunteer Karin McQuillan does not satisfy that requirement.- MrX 🖋 12:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you MrX.

Let's say I said you were "short," and we both agreed that "short" was a pejorative. Let's say I found a WP:RS that said you were 4'11". While that might not prove that you were "short" according to everyone's definition, it would put the remark into objective, rather than subjective, context. Note that the date of the reliable source would not be germane. The measurement could have taken place prior to my observation. Your height would still be the same. The RS would not have to include the gratuitous commentary that their measurement therefore "supports" or "refutes" my observation. It would simply be objective data.

McQuillan was writing in the American Thinker, a notable online publication. The subtitle heading is "Journalists and pundits." I suggest that McQuillan fits this description. It is not clear to me that I am "trying to prove" Trump is anything but accurate in his description. Whether he is "racist" or not is somewhat beyond documenting one remark one way or another. The citation tends to indicate that he was objective in this one remark, anyway. The New York Times article does the same, and is way more objective since they weren't trying to prove that anyone was bigoted or free from bigotry. They were just reporting the facts gathered by WHO. Student7 (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Not everything written in a notable publication gets WP:WEIGHT in any particular WP article. Please review the links I referred to above. SPECIFICO talk 19:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Trump's immigration plan

Given the overtones of racial bias/preference in the current Trump immigration plan, perhaps more should included in this article?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/06/trump-immigration-plan-could-keep-whites-in-u-s-majority-for-up-to-five-more-years/?utm_term=.c3f0a67a0cc9

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-immigration-plan-white-majority-20180206-story.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/05/trump-shoots-down-mccain-coons-immigration-daca-plan.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/un-donald-trump-shithole-immigrants-haiti-africa-racist-huamn-rights-united-nations-a8155186.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/01/11/reactions-trumps-immigration-comments/1026851001/

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/371548-gutierrez-slams-trumps-immigration-remarks-he-did-nothing-to-bring-lawmakers

C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

More people calling Trump's plan racist, doesn't make it so. — JFG ^talk 08:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Reducing immigration for predominately non-white countries, is racist and that is the proposed change to the immigration system, to reduce diversity in the background of immigration with such ideas as ending the lottery, etc., etc.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Seeking to reduce illegal immigration is not, in itself, racist. If the argument is that reducing illegal immigration will keep the USA white majority for longer, and is therefore racist, surely the corollary is also true: that to not reduce illegal immigration is also racist as it speeds the rate at which the USA will no longer be a non white majority!. Bottom line is that you can not conflate immigration and racism when both the citizenry of the USA and those trying to immigrate includes every race on earth. Lin4671again (talk) 10:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The proposed changes to the immigration system by Trump will have little effect on "illegal immigration" but will have the effect of reducing the diversity of "legal" immigration by end such programmes as the lottery. Trump Administration plans for immigration appears to be designed solely to reduce immigration for those 'shitehole' countries and nothing to do with "illegal immigration". According to the experts, you reduce "illegal immigration" by limiting their access to working in the USA; as first Carter and then Reagan attempted with proposals to check Social Security numbers for workers and big business interests gutted from those bills before they became law. E-verify is voluntary for employers, now if that were made mandatory, then it would reduce working illegally by up to 80%. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

cherry picking wording in lead

The wording "though this was settled in 1975 without admission of guilt" has been added to the housing discrimination information in the lead. I have removed it because it is cherry picking from the DoJ ruling:

"[The settlement] required the Trumps to place ads in newspapers saying that they welcomed black applicants. It said that the Trumps would familiarize themselves with the Fair Housing Act, which prohibited discrimination. So it also specifically said they don't admit wrongdoing, but they did have to take several measures that the Trumps had fought for two years not to take."

This detail is best included in the body of the article as it is no more important than the fact that they needed to place ads, etc. Gandydancer (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Details of the ruling are indeed undue for the lead, but the outcome of the lawsuit should be there. I suggest writing simply "In 1973, he was sued by the U.S. Department of Justice for housing discrimination against black renters, and settled the case." What do you think? — JFG ^talk 20:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem is, the statement as currently written and even the proposed change both would leave the reader with the impression that Trump had been found to have discriminated against black renters, which he wasn't. My suggestion is merely that 'alleged' be added before 'housing discrimination' - any reader wanting to find out what happened can then follow the link to the reference. Lin4671again (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Lin, actually I've worked on a lot of WP corporate articles in which lawsuits have been documented and I know from my work here that much more often than not the settlement includes the wording that the offender did not admit to the offense. It is really quite the norm. @ JFK, perhaps, let's see what others think. Gandydancer (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

It would also be more precise to say "In 1973, his company was sued…" Trump wasn't sued personally, and his father's practices seemed to be the main target of the plaintiffs. — JFG ^talk 23:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's the whole point of the settlement negotiation. Deniability. Unfortunately for WP this also means cherry-pickability. SPECIFICO talk 20:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

So, please be clear - do you think it should be included or not? Gandydancer (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

It should not be included. The matter was settled, full stop. Thanks for the reminder. SPECIFICO talk 23:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying that you want the accusation included, and the settlement omitted? That's picking a side… Include both or exclude both. — JFG ^talk 00:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Let's be really, really clear - it is cherrypicking to not use intext attribution, to pick only from a particular POV and not include all views, and to editorialize. If the true purpose is not leave readers with "an impression", then provide both views and let them decide on their own. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The lead would be a mile long if we did all that. It's all in the body Atsme. Gandydancer (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

We're not supposed to include every single statement from every RS - that's where editorial judgment comes into play - see WP:INTEXT. We summarize what RS say - if a source is not providing the various views, that in itself raises question. We should not lose sight of the fact that we're an encyclopedia, not WP:RGW or WP:SOAPBOX or WP:ADVOCACY. If editors will simply limit content to statements of fact rather than "opinions" (see WP:NEWSORG), we eliminate the "political" issues. Write the article based on statements of fact, and quote the opinions using in-text. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

There are three possible outcomes to a lawsuit: win, lose, settle. When mentioning a resolved lawsuit in an article, the least we can do is document the outcome, without commentary. Otherwise, we'd run afoul of BLP. — JFG ^talk 00:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Warren's Native American claim

This article is discussing Trump's racial views and the subsection on his use of the term 'Pocahontas' was entirely focused on that until this final sentence has been added - "Warren denies that she ever claimed to be a minority to secure employment. FactCheck has reviewed her employment history and interviewed her past employers and has been unable to find anything that disputes her claim"

My point is simply that I do not feel this additional sentence is required. Prior to its addition the subsection started by explaining why Trump is choosing to mock Warren for claiming native American ancestry; it then provides the context - an 'honoring native Americans' event - at which he used the term; it then has several statements of people attacking Trump for his use of the phrase; it then ended with the White House response in which the White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders stated, "What most people find offensive is Senator Warren lying about her heritage to advance her career."

The newly added sentence is not relevant to whether Trump's use of the term was racist - it is nothing more than starting a discussion on the strength of, and possible motives behind, Warren's claims. Other editors may now add to this discussion. I don't think this is good for the article and would suggest the recently added sentence, that is not directly relevant to the subject of this article, should be deleted.

Just saying. Lin4671again (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

In the other sections where information in this article is a condensation of info from elsewhere we give a short summary of the information. In this case a charge was made, it was denied, and an outside source found no evidence that she had used her claim to gain employment preference. What with Trump/Sanders accusing her of lying you can't expect that the article does not need to not include the fact that no guilt was found. Gandydancer (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Apply that same argument to almost everything as it applies to Trump - the claims are made, the accusations of lying are made, allegations of racism and collusion are made - nothing proven. If one person is not to be judged in the court of public opinion, why should anyone else? WP:BALANCE. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The section seems to be balanced overall regarding Warren, it should be left without major changes from the research I've been doing, IMO. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

State of the Union speech

@PackMecEng: what makes you think this is "undue"[1]? zzz (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

A few things really.

-One probably best not to quote Think Progress for the type of partisan institution that it is.

-Two generally not good to list being endorsed by someone as something controlled or targeted by that person. Like we don't list Duke's endorsement of Trump as a candidate for example since he was someone that Trump did publicly denounce.

-Three comments by Jason Johnson seem undue in general, not very notable.

-Finally the view that the state of the union was racist is a minority view over all and not widely covered.

Just not a major story that holds weight that shows racial views of his. PackMecEng (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I summarised the Time source; I make no judgement on the notability of (blue-linked) people included in that source. Other sources can be added also, so I don't agree that it's "not widely covered". zzz (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

See Google ""americans are dreamers too"" - 226,000 results. [2] including all the main Reliable Sources (plus Fox, Breitbart etc.) zzz (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah because that was part of the speech. From the whole first page of that google result none of them mention racism and only Mother Jones mention Duke. PackMecEng (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The first one on the list, CNN says "some... thought it marginalized immigrants". I would say that is clearly in scope for this page, even without the "R" word. CBC's article is entitled "'Americans are dreamers, too': Trump ditches the fog horn for state of the union speech" and subtitled "Trump's line on immigration called 'remarkable' and 'intentionally divisive'" - again, obviously relevant for this article (and also mentions Duke). Etc. etc. WHITE SUPREMACISTS PRAISE TRUMP FOR HIS 'AMERICANS ARE DREAMERS, TOO' REMARK White Nationalists Celebrate Trump’s ‘Americans Are Dreamers, Too’ SOTU Linezzz (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The CNN quote you mention was not by CNN, they were quoting twitter. Not really applicable or particularly damming. Never really heard of CBC before, they are state sponsored right? But anyhow the quotes from there are again from twitter, same guy are before and same issue with citing Duke as listed above. I should point out divisive does not equal racist. The Newsweek source seems to cover it, but they still seem to be the minority view. The Daily Beast just points out people parroted it, with no commentary on it. Again these do not hold much weight for such a divisive claim that it was a racial statement. PackMecEng (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

No one is claiming it is a majority view that it was divisive. It doesn't need to be. It is reported that many people saw it as divisive. In my opinion that is enough to cover it in this article. I'm ok to wait and see what others think. zzz (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

If I am shown wrong that is fine. Hopefully some others will chime in with their thoughts. PackMecEng (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

This remark was discussed on Washington Week in Review with Robert Costa and other prominent journalists: "And from the State of the Union, the Democrats were really unhappy with the president’s rhetoric on immigration, and they were also unhappy that he appropriated the “dreamer” line, you know. That was one of the big lines from the speech, “Americans are dreamers too.” That incensed a lot of people." So it seems to me that this establishes the fact that it is an important issue and it actually goes far beyond the "Pretty Korean lady" remark which was overwhelmingly thought to be appropriate for the article in our above discussion. I also want to mention that it is a mistake IMO to insist that unless the word "racist" is mentioned we can't use the incident. All the better if one can find a notable person that uses the word (as I did when I added Mark Shields comment to the Elizabeth Warren section), but it was considered a racist viewpoint even without Shield's comment. I strongly favor including this information that has been deleted. Gandydancer (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think either of us were saying that sources must include the term racist. But that it would support Trump having a racial view, which this clearly does not. Incensed people does not equal his racial view. PackMecEng (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The Time source states "Immediately, critics, journalists, activists and other commentators took to social media to question the phrase “Americans are dreamers, too,” suggesting that it amounted to a racist dog-whistle against immigrants." Which is corroborated by white supremacists' support for the phrase. zzz (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

"Incensed people does not equal his racial view." Sure, as long as you separate this latest event from everything that's gone on before it. Of course Trump wouldn't admit that the Dreamers catch phrase had anything to do with the drug smuggling, raping, lazy Mexicans - no more than he and the birthers would admit that their opinions had anything to do with the fact that Obama was a black man. Gandydancer (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia but I understand something about original research and having to have claims properly sourced. The claim that the phrase "Americans are dreamers too" is racist can only be supported as such if reliable sources say that the phrase was racist. Of course there is bound to be someone somewhere who would claim that Trump was being racist if he asked for sugar for his tea, but I doubt that sad individual would count as a reliable source. Trumps use of the phrase "Americans are dreamers too" was a clever turning of a phrase the Democrats had been trying to use for their own political ends, but to suggest it was racially motivated is clearly nonsense - had he said "White Americans are Dreamers too" I would conceded the phase is racist, but "Americans are dreamers too"? Incredible! So unless there are reliable sources that support the notion that the use of the phrase was racist, it should definitely not be included in this article. Lin4671again (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

There are reliable sources (see above). The question is, I suppose, is there enough of them. I would say yes, there are. zzz (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

You are missing my point - I said "So unless there are reliable sources that support the notion that the use of the phrase was racist.." I know there are many sources that us the phrase but are there any reliable sources that suggest that the use of the phrase was 'racist, racially-charged or racially motivated" - if not the information is not relevant to this article or the article scope needs to be broadened by editing the first sentence. Lin4671again (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

No, I got your point. "Immediately, critics, journalists, activists and other commentators took to social media to question the phrase “Americans are dreamers, too,” suggesting that it amounted to a racist dog-whistle against immigrants" (see above). Critics, journalists, activists and other commentators think the use of the phrase was racist, racially-charged or racially motivated. zzz (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

zzz there are only two objections to your edit. I think you should re-add it. Gandydancer (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

So two are for it and two against and that is consensus? PackMecEng (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Count three against. The mental gymnastics to construe anything Trump says as racist are truly mind-boggling. "Americans are dreamers too", sure, clever pun on DACA, no race involved. Did you know that American citizens come in all sizes and colors? — JFG ^talk 02:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

"The mental gymnastics to construe anything Trump says as racist are truly mind-boggling." So, do you have some examples in mind, of statements falsely construed as racist? Or are you merely saying that, in your opinion, this particular statement is not racist, and so it should not be mentioned? Can you explain how that is consistent with WP:NOR? zzz (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Signedzzz: Well, we are possibly drifting into OR or FORUM territory, but let's take a well-known example: many commenters have been accusing Trump of racism because he embraced and amplified the birtherism claims. However, how is that more racist than using the exact same political smear against a very white adversary like Ted Cruz? Trump attacks everybody irrespective of race, gender or political party. So, when he attacks a black politician like Barack Obama he is considered racist, and when he attacks a female politician like Hillary Clinton he is considered misogynist. When he attacks a conservative politician like Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz, he is considered a traitor to Republican values. When he attacks a veteran like John McCain he is considered disrespectful to the military. But when he praises Martin Luther King, when he hires Ben Carson, is he racist? When he appoints Nikki Haley or Linda McMahon, is he a misogynist? When he wants a military parade, is he smearing the military? (Oh right, then he's a childish dictator…) Everything he does is viewed under a lens of evil symbolism, and that is quite puzzling to observe for a dispassionate outside observer of American politics. — JFG ^talk 23:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Back to the direct question raised, indeed I totally fail to see how "Americans are dreamers too" can be construed as racist. There are certainly plenty of pundits who "hear a dog whistle" but this analogy is getting really tired. — JFG ^talk 23:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you don't think birtherism is racist, I forgot that. Back to the question of the SOTU, you don't think that was racist either. However, as you say, there are plenty who do, so that should be stated in this article. Any RS that agree with you can also be added, of course. zzz (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, everything we document in the encyclopedia must be properly sourced. We must still be aware that not everybody agrees that all utterances by Trump must have malevolent undertones. The birtherism affair has certainly been exploited by people with racist motives, I do not dispute that. I'm only stating that Trump has used similar weapons against all his opponents, so that cannot be taken as evidence of racism. — JFG ^talk 01:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Please don't talk about what you don't understand. Tell us what RS report. SPECIFICO talk 00:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the condescension, always a pleasure. — JFG ^talk 01:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

So you have no constructive suggestions based on RS that would support your benign view of what RS cited here describe as POTUS' racist postures and policies? If so, let's move on. SPECIFICO talk 02:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It comes down to this is a undue addition of a almost fringe viewpoint. PackMecEng (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The subject of this thread is the remark "Americans are dreamers too". Many editors agree that construing this as racist is, as PackMecEng eloquently stated, "an undue addition of an almost fringe viewpoint", so there is no consensus to keep it in the article; indeed let's drop this and move on. — JFG ^talk 02:26, 16 February 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)

I also don't like "racial views of Donald Trump", something like "accusations of racism against Donald Trump" would be better. Racism is inherently irrational and arises from ignorance, stereotyping and prejudice, not from having "views". Better still, delete the whole bloody thing and merge it back into the Donald Trump article. The article got Afd'd, and while the admin judged the consensus correctly, the consensus was not a correct application of wikipedia policy regarding WP:POVFORK and WP:BLP. There really is no precedent on wikipedia for an entire article dedicated to whether a living person is or isn't a racist. 222.153.254.63 (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Among the alternative titles offered, Accusations of racism against Donald Trump matches article content most closely. — JFG ^talk 07:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump, racial issues would be the even better as some are far more than just 'accusations'. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I think we should keep the current title. It is neutral, unlike "controversies" or "accusations" or "allegations". And it leaves room for the other side, i.e. his own and others' defenses of his views, which are absolutely required to be included by Wikipedia policy. MelanieN alt (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't realize this discussion was still ongoing. I agree with Oleg and JFG and support Accusations of racism against Donald Trump which is what comprises this article. If the article was actually about his views, they certainly are not given proper weight. The article includes some of his denials in response to the racist allegations against him by journalists and pundits, not actual his views (as in POV), most of which are actually supported by his actions, and the lede would read much differently - certainly not weighted so heavily with allegations of racism by op eds and commentary from news orgs and advocacies. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Accusations of racism against Donald Trump covers the content already in the article but is a more neutral title. Lin4671again (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This article is not about accusations; it's about Trump's 45 year documented history of racially-provocative remarks and racially-motivated actions. The word "accusations" is an expression of doubt in this context, and completely inappropriate for neutral encyclopedia.- MrX 🖋 20:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. BTW, at one point I said that Donald Trump's racial controversies would be an improvement. What with a few weeks of working on the article I've changed my mind and now feel that what we've got is the best title for the article. Gandydancer (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

'Controversies' or 'issues' would be the best for accuracy, for neutrality, and for being most comprehensive scope, IMO. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I think Accusations of racism against Donald Trump would be an improvement and fit more with what we actually have in the article. PackMecEng (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

You may think that, but it wouldn't conform to WP:NPOV or WP:TITLE. It also starts to brush up against WP:NOR.- MrX 🖋 21:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I frankly don't understand the argument. What's wrong with giving the article a descriptive title? That is absolutely part of our titling policy. This article documents multiple accusations of racism, that's what the title should describe. When you say "no, it documents a long history of racist actions by Donald Trump", you are simply embracing the POV of his accusers. On the contrary, very little in the article purports to document Trump's "racial views", because he hasn't really expressed any consistent views on the topic, therefore the current title is inadequate. — JFG ^talk 23:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. I'm embracing the reliable sources for crying out loud. And my argument is very easy to understand. This article is about Trump's racial views, not other people accusations. This is not creative writing where we try to turn the tables and make the so called accusers look like the bad guys.- MrX 🖋 00:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

MrX, we're not supposed to make anyone look like the "bad guys"...including Trump. I am dismayed by your comment. We're supposed be writing from a NPOV, and for you to say things like "creative writing" and "turn the tables" is very disconcerting. I counted 5 editors who indicated support for Accusations of racism against Donald Trump. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Opened a move request, to see where we stand. — JFG ^talk 02:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I've been persuaded to sign up by this article

Hi all. Just to let you all know that reading this article has persuaded me to sign up as an editor. I have used Wikipedia for years and encourage my students to use this fantastic resource, but to use it carefully always ensuring that claims are always referenced by reliable sources, and watching for any articles where it appears an article has been written for a political purpose.

And then I came across this article!!!

I am not a US citizen and nor do I live in the USA (as millions of non-citizens do) so have no direct bias either way as far as Trump is concerned. But looking at this article as a neutral observer who has some familiarity with Wikipedia policies (and did some more research on this before signing up), it appears to me that this article is about as biased an article I can imagine without being tagged as such. Can some editors not see this or is it just that they are viewing this article through partisan eyes? In any case, let me make a couple of points:

If it is appropriate for an article on 'Racial views of Donald Trump', there should also be an article on 'Racial views of Barack Obama', even if that article found evidence suggesting that his racial views were entirely non-racist/antiracist.

If you are going to keep an article called 'Racial views of Donald Trump' rather than a more neutral title, at least structure the article with a more balanced approach.

And finally, the ACLU accusing Trump of racism is not exactly a reliable source.

In conclusion, I think it is clear that Wikipedia requires some more neutral editors to help improve articles so that it can continue to be a trusted, respected and amazingly useful resource for all. I intend to make a small contribution towards that end. Birtig (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Articles existing on Wikipedia are based on notability, which we determine by(amongst other things) the amount of significant on the subject matter. There has been a lot of coverage on Trump's racial views throughout the years, before his campaign, during it, and during his presidency. If there was the same amount of(or enough) coverage of Obama's views, then an article would be warranted on his views as well. It isn't about comparing President to President, its simply what can be determined notable through reliable sources. Also there is discussion on moving the title name right above here, which you can participate in. In regards to ACLU, in which references are you referring to. Or do you just mean the quote that was given, as that isn't be used as a source but simply quoting what was said by someone about the subject, the same as the Newt Gingrich quote or the others in the Defenses section. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello WikiVirus. When I read the subsection about the Pardoning of Arpaio it just seems to me that to accuse Trump of racism for deciding to pardon an 85 year old man who had served law enforcement for 50 years was bizarre. While Arpaio was found guilty of using racial profiling when ordered not to, deciding that he deserves a pardon after serving his country for 50 years is not automatically 'racist' in of itself. And just because the ACLU accuses Trump of racism for this decision is not proof that it was racism. Birtig (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The statement isn't saying he is racists, it is saying Arpaio is and the pardon is Trump forgiving, or in their quote 'endorsing', the racism. Nothing there is implying proof, it is stating what was thought about the action, from the ACLU, along with Speaker Ryan, Senators. That was the ACLU's statement. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

There are issues that have been/are being discussed, Birtig, but it's the editors who participate in local surveys, or an WP:RfC which involves wider community input that determines WP:CONSENSUS. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Forgive me making this point - I am new - but the ACLU tweeted "that this White House supports racism and bigotry". Due to its partisan nature, the ACLU should not be quoted. If a reliable source were to say the same thing that would be different, but the ACLU... Wikipedia must surely be better than this. Birtig (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The ACLU is a reliable source for its own findings and is acceptable with attribution. O3000 (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Birtig, you say you are not from the US. I am from the US. You say Argaio served my country for 50 years. Did you read the Arpaio article? Gandydancer (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The main applicable policy is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which "nutshell" states: "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias." ACLU is one of the sides, or part of one of the sides. They are a major player on that side. We don't exclude viewpoints because they come from partisan sources. What we don't do is take the ACLU's viewpoint and present it as fact. If you feel that the pro-Trump side is under-represented, you're free to propose new content for consideration under the sizable array of Wikipedia policy (which only begins with NPOV).
But keep in mind that Wikipedia does not define neutrality as parity, but rather strives to represent the sides in proportion to their treatment in reliable sources. If reliable sources over all tend to criticize Trump more than praise him, policy requires us to reflect that in our content—and that is not Wikipedia bias. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

What about Trump's views as expressed directly?

I added a direct quote of Donald Trump saying "racism is evil", and was reverted by SPECIFICO, with an edit summary stating that the New York Times subsequently dismissed Trump's plain statement, and rejecting the source as primary. I believe that in an article titled "Racial views of Donald Trump", we should be able to document views about racism that Trump has expressed himself directly (yes, primary source, so what?), in addition to all the commentary from people who deem him racist. Removing this makes a mockery of our neutrality policy. — JFG ^talk 15:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Please put this in the section I opened immediately above to address this. BTW you did not cite the secondary source, so no you did not include any commentary or even any hint that there wasa such commentary. And the commentary is not about the label "racist" -- which we all know is a straw man. The whole reason we have this article is that his views are more nuanced and that the bare label denies our readers the detailed information they seek. You may move this reply of mine along with yours when you delete this separate section. SPECIFICO talk 15:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

If you feel that more context should be given, please feel free to WP:SOFIXIT. Blunt removal of this short quote was an utter violation of our NPOV policy pillar. — JFG ^talk 16:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

primary source, so what? WP:PRIMARY is policy. zzz (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, and if you read that policy, you will note that quoting a statement from someone without further comment is an acceptable use of a primary source. Otherwise we could never quote anybody. Anyway, this is nitpicking, because Trump's statement has been quoted by secondary RS, notably The New York Times. — JFG ^talk 17:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I've removed a mention of Trump's "racism is evil" remark that was primary-sourced to a video of his remarks that were widely reported as dissembling and that were met with renewed criticism of his reaction to the incident. The accompanying NY Times article, which was not cited, gives the full context of that televised snippet, which RS tell us follows a pattern of brief scripted politically correct comments preceded and followed by inflammatory and controversial remarks. In the wake of the video statement, NYT reports criticism among his staff, 3 executives quitting Trump's American Manufacturing advisory council, and far-right sources who said the video remarks were not to be taken seriously. Cherry-picked primary sourced content and used out of context as SYNTH clearly does not meet our editorial policies and guidelines. If any of this is in the article, it would need to use the secondary NYT article along with the video snippet and give proper weight to the thrust of that secondary report. SPECIFICO talk 15:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no SYNTH involved in quoting a speech without comment, as my edit did. — JFG ^talk 15:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

SYNTH is about context, and this was used in the worst possible way from a primary source without giving our readers the benefit of the context that was readily available from the same source -- namely the article that accompanied and explained the video for NYTimes readers that day. Not good. ##. Meanwhile, it's clear that primary assertions by politicians, even in the absence of an immediate secondary contextualization such as was ignored here, are subject to widespread fact checking. And especially for those politicians who are documented by RS to routinely spread false and contradictory statments -- both about fact and about their own actions and opinions -- this use of a primary source is really not even worth the effort to discuss. A balanced NPOV account is required. In the absence of that, the primary cherry gets unpicked. SPECIFICO talk 17:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh sure, our readers can't possibly make up their mind for themselves by reading a plain quote, they need The New York Times to tell them how they should interpret Trump's remarks. I see. — JFG ^talk 18:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

That's correct. That's why we don't just cherrypick primary sources and why we rely on fact checkers and of course that still fails to address the SYNTH misuse of that primary source which is also a core no-no. SPECIFICO talk 18:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Cherry-picking is everywhere on Wikipedia. This whole article could be construed as a giant cherry-picking exercise (see some remarks at the AfD). In this speech, and elsewhere, Trump has explicitly condemned racism. Apparently you don't want to admit it, and you are entitled to your opinion. Let other readers see what he said and make up their mind: some will see hypocrisy, others will see common sense, and neutrality will be upheld. I'm totally flabbergasted that you are sincerely advocating to remove Donald Trump's first-person statement about racism from an article called "Racial views of Donald Trump". — JFG ^talk 18:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

That's cherrypicking from a rejected AfD, so? WP:OTHERSTUFF usw. SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for not addressing my question. Why should Trump's publicly-expressed view on racism not be mentioned in an article titled "Racial views of Donald Trump"? — JFG ^talk 20:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you make busy with other things and let's just let other editors comment. Judging from the number of thank you pings I've received, I know there are several lurkers who will eventually share their views. Time to chill. Give it a week. (Or add the context as at the main Trump article.) Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with JFG it is silly to exclude Trump's statement. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Without reviewing all the sources (I am on vacation after all), I can see no legitimate reason for removing this comment, or for hedging it around with press commentary saying he didn't mean it. I think we should have the quote in the article, along with any context other than just three words (Was that the whole sentence?) I think the one notation we should add is that he said it "in prepared remarks". We all know that Trump reading prepared remarks is a very different animal from Trump speaking off the cuff, so that qualification should be included IMO. MelanieN alt (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, shame on you peeking here during vacation 😼. However the simple alternative is to properly contextualize POTUS' remarks, as e.g. in the Donald Trump article, using the NYTimes story that pointed to that primary source video. That way, our readers can understand what the primary source showed. In the initial insertion of the content primary-sourced to the video, the secondary article was not cited -- leaving our readers in the dark. Anyway the primary sourced bit without the secondary would be undue, since there are tens of thousands of such video clips of Trump on the internet. Why choose this one? The secondary article, not initially cited, tells us why, so we briefly summarize it. SPECIFICO talk 22:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Contextualize or editorialize so reader's can understand ... what? A particular POV? No. We publish in a dispassionate tone per NPOV what the article says...and keep in mind, news orgs are questionable sources when it involves opinions and not statements of fact...and it is at that point that we use intext attribution. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Atsme my love,👩‍❤️‍💋‍👩👩‍❤️‍💋‍👩👩‍❤️‍💋‍👩 have you reviewed the question at hand here?

A primary source video was used as a bare ref for one sentence uttered in the video with no context and no citation to the RS article that included the video. The article itself was not an opinion piece -- it quoted various notable individuals whose comments it summarized. SPECIFICO talk 23:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

This is very difficult to do when the basic facts can not be agreed upon. Establishing what the most simple baseline of factual evidence allows to build out to the most neutral point of view in the article. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

C.W., this thread is about a single narrow question. Whether a primary sourced cherrypicked statement should be used while omitting the full citation of the RS secondary source that published it and while omitting any of the relevant core information in that RS reference. You seem to be making a more general comment. SPECIFICO talk 23:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

It is a general statement and one that reflects on this narrow question. Trump has made many statements and many conflicting one; they conflict either with other statements or actions so it is very difficult to develop a baseline of which is factual and which are not. This is one of those cases, the statement was made, but given other statements and other actions, is it a factual statement? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

"Is it a factual statement?" Well, there is no question that Trump stated "racism is evil" in the cited speech; now, some people will believe him and some won't. NPOV requires us Wikipedians not to comment one way or the other, and let readers make up their mind. — JFG ^talk 00:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, what does the other evidence show about how 'factual' the statement is? Do his other statements and actions contradict this statement? Does this statement fit his historical actions in business and private life? If any of these are answered in the negative, then it brings the 'factual' nature of the statement into serious question and those contradictions need to be dealt with before accepting this comment as 'factual', IMO. Consider the Access Hollywood tape which Trump later denied, which of those statements is the 'factual' one? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

You appear to question Trump's motives or "true beliefs", that is not what is at stake here. It's a fact that he uttered "racism is evil", just as well as it's a fact he uttered "grab'em by the pussy". Each reader can make up their own mind about Trump's sincerity in both cases, that should not prevent Wikipedia from reporting what he said. — JFG ^talk 01:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

No, he's telling you it's UNDUE without the secondary source that demonstrates at least some suggestion that it's not UNDUE like other cherrypicked primary snippets and so there's what the Americans call Catch-22. You can't just grab a primary source and stick it where you please, because that fails WP:WEIGHT but if you want to claim due weight then you must cite at least one secondary source, and for some reason you decline to do so, even though it would in a sense relieve you of your immediate conundrum. SPECIFICO talk 02:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear SPECIFICO, while you seem to have time to intervene in a dialogue between another editor and myself, I'm still waiting for your answer to the central question of this thread. Again, I have no problem citing the secondary source and that is not the point. — JFG ^talk 02:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem with quoting Trump is that he says conflicting things [3] even on a single subject [4] so to ensure accuracy, more than a single quote is needed and it needs to be supported with actions; as with 'build the wall', that is a statement that is consistent and followed by actions, even though Mexico dos not appear willing to pay for it. The question on so many issues is which Trump quote is the 'Factual' one[5] so one must look at actions as well as the words to understand what the true intentions are and which statements to give weight worth quoting. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)🤗😘 SPECIFICO, I choose not to argue the RS argument...I've said my piece and have higher priorities on my list of things to do. I'll just leave with this closing thought (paraphrasing what a trusted admin explained to me in 2015 (and I wasn't too happy with his response at the time but I respected it): a major misconception is that a source can be declared "reliable", and that declaration is a fixed, absolute judgment. Reliability depends on two things - (1) the source itself and (2) how it is used. We have no way of providing a blanket approval that any source is reliable for all purposes. What matters is the greater context of the article. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

So true. That's why it's not ok to omit the secondary RS and cherrypick a few words from an internet video. SPECIFICO talk 23:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: The "primary source video" is a strawman argument; I already said I'm fine with adding the accompanying secondary article, and you could have added it yourself instead of removing Trump's quote. The real purpose of this thread, as I opened it, is to clarify whether we should plainly include Trump's directly-expressed views on racism or dilute them in commentary and opinion by others. So far, you have avoided answering the question. — JFG ^talk 00:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Please. You didn't open the discussion. You ignored my explanation of your primary sourced cherrypick and then opened a duplicate thread minutes later, now claiming (I'm not sure what it buys you) that you what? Own this thread? As I've already said -- your view is known. We need to hear from others about how to fix the problem. SPECIFICO talk 00:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

AGF much? We were writing our threads simultaneously; you happened to hit "Save" three minutes earlier. Now, will you answer the question I have been asking? I did answer yours. — JFG ^talk 00:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Support adding Trump's plainly stated view about racism in the article titled "Racial Views of Donald Trump." Seems to be a no-brainer. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

This [6]section is nothing but Trump stating he is not a racist, why do we need to add one more? Besides, when actions don't match the words, how many times do you need to quote those words? At least with building The Wall, actions and words match up, but not so much on racial issues. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. But just to state this in terms of our Wikipedia core policies: We can't cherrypick a single primary source out of the tens of thousands of statements from a public figure. So the initial edit clearly was wrong. But when we examine all the secondary sources that included that video or references to Trump's anti-racism revisionist statements, we see that the overwhelming weight of RS narrative is that Trump read those pre-scripted remarks to stem the firestorm of criticism he faced. RS then go on to detail how he was unable to stay on point with the anti-racism stance and immediately reverted to his initial inflammatory and racist narrative. That is what secondary RS tell us. That's why we don't cherrypick primary snippets. It's especially why we don't extract primary illustrations from a secondary RS like the initially cited NYTimes video, whose sole purpose in the source was to lay the background for the prolonged condemnation that followed the "racism is evil" words. MelanieN made a slight improvement by telling our readers that the "evil" bit was a prescripted remark, but that's rather oblique, when the fact it was scripted is significant only becuase POTUS reverted to his unscripted narrative in the following days and weeks. The cherrypicked content with no secondary sourced context is UNDUE. Citing it without the accompanying RS secondary narrative is even worse. SPECIFICO talk 16:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I do not know why that section exists. The defenses should be with the claims. Also only about half of it is actually Trump saying he didn't do it. PackMecEng (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

We need to keep things in perspective and abide by WP:BLPSTYLE, Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content. Next is WP:NEWSORG with regards to an author's opinion vs statements of fact. To say one's "actions" don't match the words when based on nothing more than media opinion is a bit of a stretch. As a wise admin once explained, media is the court of public opinion, not a legal court and their opinions are their own. When referencing the border wall, the reality is that it is a national security issue, not a racial issue, and a substantial number of American citizens support a wall. Sharyl Attkisson wrote a piece in The Hill about how polls have been conducted. Also see WP:LABEL which is important MOS guidance (my bold underline): Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

None of that applies to the edit, content or sources under discussion here. SPECIFICO talk 18:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The entire article is subject to it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Propsed article text

There is no consensus to reinsert the challenged content. I have removed a bit of text that was reinserted recently (a) without consensus, and (b) not conforming to statements in the cited source. I propose the following article text, cited to the NY Times story:

Two days later, responding to the wave of disapproval that met his initial remarks, Trump delivered a prepared statement, saying "Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs."

This text reflects the statements in the NYTimes article and reflects the statements in the cited source If anyone wishes to propose and alternative text, please put it up and we can discuss the relative merits. SPECIFICO talk 02:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

For comparison, the text I added, citing the same New York Times source, is:

Two days later, Trump forcefully denounced far-right violence, stating: "Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs."

Which one shall we add? — JFG ^talk 03:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources

If you'll examine every instance of "forcefully" in the NYT source, it's readily apparent that the article does not call Mr. Trump's tepid and temporary moderation "forceful". SPECIFICO talk 03:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure, the "forcefully" qualifier is not in the source and is not necessary, striking it. — JFG ^talk 12:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

You're disrupting the discussion to change it after you've posted it. The challenged content should not have been re-inserted without consensus and if you're also conceding that it violated WP:V then it's not helpful to take a second bite of the apple in the middle of the discussion. What would be helpful is to add a few words that convey the main thrust of the NYTimes source. To wit: Trump droned a few scripted words and then quickly reverted to his pandering to the far-right and racist elements with such ardour that a total of 3 individuals ended up resigning from his American Manufacturing panel, that iconic white supremacist Richard Spencer gloated that the remarks were not serious, and that he resumed preparations to pardon Joe Arpaio - famed birther, racial profiler, and recently convicted criminal. If you now admit that "sure" it's not in Verified by the cited source, then what possible justification could there be for inserting this false content into the artice? Please withdraw your re-jiggered text above and drop the stick. SPECIFICO talk 14:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem, as with the response to Charlottesville, he said one thing, then the opposite the next day, and then back to his first position the day after that; there is no consistency. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It is not a problem, we simply just the multiple responses. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

That's not WP policy. We reflect RS portrayal of events. In fact we could have a separate article that discusses all the disingenuous scripted statements his staff makes him read in between savage twitter attacks, coded dog-whistles to the most rabid of his "base", and unannounced policy decisions, such as staffing the white house with 100+ folks who lack the security clearance to get through the door. We are not his press secretaries. We need to present the NPOV balance of mainstream reporting here. "Fool me once..." Nobody, and I mean nobody -- friend or foe of Trump -- takes these anodyne interludes seriously. And it is highly alarming to see experienced editors doggedly inserting text that fails verification, that's sourced to a primary cherrypick, or that leads to SYNTH deviations from the RS narrative. SPECIFICO talk 19:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not saying that we should abandon RS portrayal or violate NPOV, but rather that we should not cherrypick what some editors would like the article to say about Trump when verified sources say otherwise even if that appears to lack consistency. Wikipedia is not meant to make Trump look "consistent" to readers but to show what the sources say. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support the wording proposed by SPECIFICO above. It's a much better representation of what the source says. Obviously Trump was in no hurry to disavow racism, and only did so under considerable pressure.- MrX 🖋 19:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, there is no consensus among local editors. #RfC: Racism is evil opened below to gather broader input. — JFG ^talk 21:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

This article is about 'racial views' and not religious discrimination

Hi all

The subsection on immigration had a paragraph that stated: "On Friday, January 27, 2017, via executive order titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, President Trump ordered the U.S border indefinitely closed to Syrian refugee families fleeing the bloody Syrian war. He also abruptly ceased immigration from six other Muslim nations - the order was for 90 days. A religious test was also implemented for Muslim refugees, which gave immigration priority to Christians over Muslims. Besides Syria, admission into the U.S. was halted for refugees from Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. Human rights activists described these actions as government approved religious persecution.[61][62]"

This may imply religious discrimination but it does not imply racial discrimination so I have deleted it. Birtig (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Y'all. I've undone your removal of well-sourced content and added a reference to the Fourth Circuit's attribution of the "travel ban" to Trump's racist statements. SPECIFICO talk 16:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the Fourth Circuit did not use the word 'racist' anywhere in its 285 page opinion, but a writer of an opinion piece in a newspaper says that the judgement was due to 'racist statements'. Birtig (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Please be more respectful of the author, Jennifer Rubin. We really don't need to disparage journalists or anyone else for that matter. SPECIFICO talk 19:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Apologies...on rereading you are correct. I have deleted the offending section from my post above. Birtig (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

You should strike it rather than delete it if an editor has already commented on it. Gandydancer (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I do not think it's necessary to attribute the word to Jennifer Rubin's column. It clearly summarizes the court's statements in the opinion and reflects the mainstream understanding of the ban and the court decision. Please remove your addition of the attribution, which was clearly premature for which you should seek consensus here on talk. You are editing in a topic area that requires caution and deliberate restraint. SPECIFICO talk 20:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Fine. Let's leave it misleading. I will do as you ask. Birtig (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The current wording "the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that Trump's "Travel Bans" implemented racist views" is misleading as one would easily interprete this to mean that the court actually used the word "racist". In legal decisions excast wording matter. The wording Rubin cites is "anti-Muslim bias", and I think there are also atter statements along that line in the decions. We don't have other examples of media choosing to apply the word "racist" when referring to the decision. Politico uses "anti-Muslim animus" and other media reports I can find also uses wording along that line. Choosing "racist" when we have one source for that and other media and court use "anti-Muslim" etc. seems like negative cherrypicking, and also misleading. The whole sentence is somewhat misleading as it doesn't mention that the Supreme Court had allowed the order they ruled against to go temporarily into effect. Iselilja (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree, Iselilja, and our NPOV policy is emphatic about us using nonjudgmental language, and that we present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. Several editors have detected editorial bias toward a particular POV. Another emphatic statement in NPOV that I also mentioned in the survey is that the NPOV policy (my bold) is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. Hopefully we can collaborate in a productive manner and resolve the NPOV issues. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Trump as an icon of multiculturalism and inclusiveness

In his book Devil's Bargain, Joshua Green includes a section (Bloomberg) on how Trump & The Apprentice became a symbol of a modern, diverse and inclusive America

• Trump and the show’s creators featured their minority contestants as striving, ambitious entrepreneurs
• They did a wonderful job of showing America as it was even then: multiethnic, multiracial, and multigenerational (Monique Nelson)
• The Apprentice was viewed by corporate America as the epitome of the forward-thinking, multicultural programming that all advertisers were increasingly seeking
• Trump and The Apprentice, up through the end of the decade, were considered by advertisers and audiences alike to be a triumph of American multiculturalism
• At his peak in 2010, Trump’s positive Q Score with black audiences was 27, while his positive score among English-speaking Hispanic audiences reached 18. Among nonblack audiences, however, Trump’s positive Q Score was just 8
• Trump had achieved by 2010 what Republican politicians had struggled, without success, to accomplish for the better part of 50 years. He had made himself genuinely popular with a broad segment of blacks and Hispanics

While indirect, I think this may be relevant for inclusion to give a fuller view on Donald Trump¨s relationship with minorities, which I think is the underlying topic of this article. Iselilja (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

This has to do with the TV show's advertising sales strategy, not with Trump's personal or political posture. I think it could go in an article about his work as a TV producer, but not here. SPECIFICO talk 21:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Have you read the WP article on this book? The reception section reminds me of posters about Broadway bombs with a few cherry picked words from terrible reviews to look like they are raves. Read the actual articles quoted in the WP article and they are extremely negative about the subjects of the book; hence the title Devil's Bargain. I would not trust this book to describe the character of the subjects. O3000 (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with Specifico here (wait, what? I actually agree with Specifico for once? Who'da thunk it?) In all seriousness, the things described by the book aren't really involving Trump's views on race, rather than the show's influence on racial conversations. Jdcomix (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree, Iselilja - it belongs in this article because it reflects his views equally as much as the biased sources do and will help correct some of the WEIGHT and BALANCE issues. What we've been experiencing here is reluctance to include as little as possible that reflects opposition to Trump being a racist, including the opposing views I've already pointed out that were published in the same MSM sources. The lede is a cherry-picked rendition designed to disparage Trump as a racist based on what biased RS have published less anything in those same sources that disputes the racist POV. Worse yet, not all are race-related. The following Slate article describes Tesler's analysis: Since 2009, Tesler has been chronicling what he calls the “racialization” of issues in the Obama era—the extent to which public opinion on topics unrelated to race have taken on a racial cast as Obama has staked out positions on them." We should be using editorial judgment to not include topics unrelated to race, such as the ban on certain Muslim countries that Obama first named, the border wall that prior presidents supported - they need to be removed as neither is racially motivated. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Nope. First, SPECIFICO is right that this is about a TV show not about Trump's racial views. Second, guess what? On Wikipedia we use the evil "MSM" sources, not "WMS" (wacky media sources). So that's a non-starter. Third, both the Muslim ban and the wall have racial components to them, as has been frequently noted by many many many many many reliable sources, so we're keeping that. Trying to remove it is also a non-starter. As far as Tesler's analysis - what's your point? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Yep - 2 to 2. Looks like an RfC is order. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

NY Times story relates to corporate advisors dropping Trump

Here. the corporate advisory panels were disbanded after mass resignations. SPECIFICO talk 17:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Why was the CBC info moved?

Why has the information about the CBC been renamed to "Reactions by the Congressional Black Caucus" and moved to the shithole section? Gandydancer (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Because it describes reactions by the CBC to Trump's "shithole" remark. — JFG ^talk 09:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It is irresponsible to make edits without even reading the article. You also removed information from the SPLC saying it had nothing to do with race, for example:

It was reported that there has been an increase in "verbal harassment, the use of slurs and derogatory language, and disturbing incidents involving swastikas, Nazi salutes and Confederate flags". "Nearly a third of the incidents were motivated by anti-immigrant sentiment and anti-black incidents were the second-most common, with frequent references to lynching.

I guess you didn't read this either but rather just deleted it because you didn't like it. I will adjust the article. Gandydancer (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Attribute POV

@MrX: re: "Attribution to news sources is fine. Additional detail about who wrote the news articles is excessive." This is misleading for our readers. NBC News and Vox are the publishers, not the writers, of those quotes. See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. ^Falling_Gravity 15:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Attribution to specific journalists is only appropriate when the sources are opinion columns. In this case, the journalists are reporting on behalf of their news organizations, not themselves. It would be misleading to suggest to readers that some material only reflects the views of the individual journalists, when in fact there are backed by the news organizations themselves (researchers, reporters, fact checkers, editors, etc.).- MrX 🖋 16:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The proposed edit includes attribution to both the author and news organization, meaning it reflects both their views. ^Falling_Gravity 16:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I know. That's what I'm opposed to. It's excessive, obtrusive, and tends to cast doubt on the material.- MrX 🖋 16:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

No, MrX - that isn't quite accurate. In-text attribution is required for other reasons as well, not just "Op-eds", including any biased opinion in any article WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and per WP:V, 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. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what the reliable sources say. Perhaps such a misunderstanding of our 3 core content policies are why we're having this NPOV issue? ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Of course, as no editor here is pushing a POV, that must be it. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, I never said that attribution was only required for opinion pieces; I said "to specific journalists" is not necessary, and I explained why. The writer of the source article do not own the views they write about. Also, are there actually sourced viewpoints in opposition to the text in question?- MrX 🖋 17:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

My offhand remark started a tangentially related discussion. FallingGravity 02:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"The writer of the source article do not own the views they write about." This is some rather mind-bending original research, but let's just stick to Wikipedia policies here. Also, since you seem interested in adding opposing viewpoints to the article, should we present these viewpoints from notable commentators, or should they just be removed because of "UNDUE"? FallingGravity 19:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC) We should include attribution even if they are from "opposing" viewpoints or not. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Any third-party commentary or opinion in an article like this should be supported by at least two or three sources, otherwise it's probably WP:UNDUE. If you're not able to differentiate journalistic analysis from commentary and opinion, then this may not be the article for you.- MrX 🖋 23:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Time to review the actual definition WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Note that there's no "published in two or three sources" requirement, just a "published by reliable sources" requirement. FallingGravity 00:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC) How is it significant if it is published in only one place? SPECIFICO talk 00:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC) SPECIFICO, multiple sources are required to establish WP:N. If it's an article in WP, it has probably already met the requirements for N, so multiple sources are no longer required...unless it's subject to WP:PUBLICFIGURE, If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported. Credibility of a RS is determined by the credibility of the publisher, and/or credentials of the author. The depth of mention is also a consideration for inclusion. A common misconception is that when a source is determined to be "reliable" that determination is a fixed, absolute judgment - not so. Reliability depends on two main criteria - (1) the source itself and (2) how it is used. WP:RSN cannot say unequivocally that a source is reliable for all purposes. If material is challenged, or likely to be challenged, it must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. See WP:BLPSOURCE Atsme📞📧 02:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC) Exactly. 2-3 sources is a reasonable threshold for determining weight. I've mentioned this principle in many, many talk page discussions and I think this is the first time that anyone has expressed disagreement with it.- MrX 🖋 00:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC) It's also stated on many of our policy and guidelines pages and in numerous essays. We must refrain from cherrypicking primary content and finding the silver bullet fringe or clueless theory. There are many topic areas in which to edit where this is not much of a problem. But in politics and recent events articles it's no good. SPECIFICO talk 00:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC) MrX, choosing 2 or 3 RS that support your particular POV is not the intention of our PAGs. While we can use biased RS we must not limit ourselves only to those sources to determine UNDUE and BALANCE re:NPOV. Furthermore, the opinions I've seen that some sources are not RS because a particular group of editors prefer another source (which happens to support their POV) or because there are more sources that "appear" to support that same POV does not determine WEIGHT. Most sources mirror a single source which must be considered when determining weight. AP is cited frequently so while there may be 20 RS referring to an AP article/report, it is still only 1 RS. Atsme📞📧 01:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC) I'm not suggesting that editors choose sources to support their POV. Syndicated content should indeed be treated like a single source, but if the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and ABC News each write stories about Trump's racial history, then those have to be treated as separate sources.- MrX 🖋 01:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Any subjective statements or judgements made by a journalist writing a news story should rightly be attributed to the publisher, not the journalist. They write on behalf of their publisher, not on behalf of themselves. This is why opinion columns were traditionally given to highly respected, senior journalists; to reward their efforts with the ability to speak for themselves, instead of toeing the company line. So the statement "The writer of the source article do not own the views they write about" might not make sense to everyone, but it's certainly based on the actual workings of journalism. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Does Vox even have opinion columns? Most Vox articles I've read are a mix of reporting and commentary. Moreover, this commentary appears to be coming from the article's author, not opinions emanating from the monolithic Vox Media. ^Falling_Gravity 01:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Does Vox even have opinion columns? I don't believe so, but that's even more reason to attribute it to Vox, not the author. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be even more reason to also attribute the author (you know, the person who actually wrote the commentary), not just Vox (the website that edited and published said article)? We are doing a disservice for our readers by omitting the person who actually wrote the statements we're quoting. ^Falling_Gravity 21:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Not really. We give the citation which should always include the author's name when possible. It's not like we're hiding it from the reader. Besides, even if such a statement were entirely the product of the author (and I believe that most such statements are), the outlet itself (via the editors) has to endorse it for publication. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Weight & Balance issues

I broke the issues up into 3 sections of 5-5-7, so we'll focus only on the 1st 5, then Section 2, followed by Section 3 ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

UNDUE & IMBALANCE is a concern in the following sections, so rather than tag each, I thought it best to bring it to the TP, and point out the reasons this article is riddled with NPOV.

1. Central Park jogger case - imbalance by omission of Trump's actual views - we already have a main article about the crime/injustice which also includes perceptions of Trump's views but that article isn't my focus. My concern is over the omission of the basis for Trump's views which includes the Chief of Police report, and the position of the Bloomberg administration.
2. "Advantage" of well-educated Blacks - remove because it is editorializing; worse yet, the cited source is questionable at best as it is the Real Estate section of Fortune, hardly where one looks for a scholarly or expert analysis. The full quote is: “A well-educated black has a tremendous advantage over a well-educated white in terms of the job market…if I was starting off today, I would love to be a well-educated black, because I really do believe they have the actual advantage today. “ While it is not a politically correct statement, it is not WP's responsibility to Wikipedia:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. Our job is to use editorial judgment regarding what RS say and present them via NPOV.
3. Birtherism - remove, it has nothing to do with race. The articles in Politico and BBC (and others) clearly demonstrate the focus was about disqualifying Obama's candidacy based on Article 2 of the US Constitution, not racism. To say otherwise is editorializing based on speculation.
4. Hispanic judge - remove, not racism. Bias is not racism (to make a point, neither is partisanship which is also bias - to make it anything more is editorializing).
5. Somali refugees - remove, not racism. The cited source doesn't even mention racism. The focus was Islamic terrorism, and Trump was accused of disparaging immigrants. The sources are cherrypicked to push a negative POV while other sources like The Courant are not cited. It's easy to pull up nothing but negative sources in a Google search asking if "Trump is a racist" vs "Trump is not a racist" - both should be used in an effort to achieve NPOV, BALANCE & WEIGHT. Regardless, this section needs to be removed.

Section 2

Immigration policy - remove...it has nothing to do with Trump's racial views. Terrorism concerns have nothing to do with race. Black Caucus - more of the same imbalance and 100% negativity. If not written to achieve NPOV, then it really needs to be removed. The NYTimes' opinion that Trump's question "Are they friends of yours?" is somehow racially motivated is clearly opinion not a statement of fact. WP is not a SOAPBOX to promote racial advocies, or moral or racial equivalency arguments, regardless of whether they are right or wrong, a good cause or a bad cause. We write only the facts, and avoid editorializing. What the Black Caucus thinks of Trump belongs in Congressional Black Caucus, not in Racial views of Donald Trump. Pardon of Joe Arpaio - again, not racist. I fail to see how profiling Mexicans to prevent illegal immigration along the Mexican border is racist. It's profiling not a racial issue. Profiling could also include men with tattoos, people 5'9" wearing hoodies, or teens wearing their pants down to their knees. Charlottesville rally - He did not condone it. MSM expected his condemnation and criticism to be immediate, before anyone knew exactly what happened but how is that not a rush to judgment? I also understand that it shouldn't matter because some believe supremacists do not deserve any consideration, but that isn't how it works in the US (regardless of our personal views) and it certainly isn't what WP is all about (NPOV, dispassionate tone, etc) - our job is to present the facts in compliance with our 3 core content policies. Elizabeth Warren - not racist...political. It was a rude insult to a political adversary and a balance of sources chosen per NPOV explain why. Perhaps an article titled Rude comments by Donald Trump would be more appropriate for WP?

Section 3

"Shithole countries" - no proof he ever said that beyond anecdotal claims. We know he said something, but it is not WP's job to determine exactly what it was he said - we report what we know to be statements of fact. If a disparaging remark, we use in-text attribution, and we include the denials for BALANCE & WEIGHT. One Democrat attended that meeting and 2 Republicans denied the allegations made by that Democrat as did Trump. We aren't even sure the term was "shithole". Furthermore, it wasn't "racial" - it was disparaging toward poverty/war stricken countries. How is that racial? Common sense. Impact - remove, because it cannot be proven that any of it is a result of Trump's racial views which have not been identified in this article to begin with so what are we doing exactly? This section is total POV via editorializing. Imagine an article that included the "impacts" of Bill Clinton's extra-marital affairs with Lewinsky, where there is actual legal evidence and admission? There are plenty of news sources that blame the lack of follow-thru impeachment by the Senate on the continuing sexual abuse by politicians. Effects on students - remove. The sources mirror SPLC which is an advocacy. NPOV does not allow us to promote advocies. Reactions by the Congressional Black Caucus - remove - how many times do we include the Black Caucus reactions? Defenses of Donald Trump - if this article is about the Racial views of Donald Trump, why does he need to defend what has not yet been presented? What are his "racial views"? All I've seen are criticisms, most not even based on his "racial views." Analysis - remove...it is nothing more than detractors making derogatory comments based in political opinion. To even include an analysis by Journalists and pundits is POV and advocacy. Opinion polling - need I say more?

References
References

• The above are the challenged issues regarding the NPOV issues in this article. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with each and every one of these points. They're indicative of misunderstanding and/or misapplication of policies and guidelines, false premises, ipse dixit assertions, tu quoque reasoning, already settled matters, and original research.- MrX 🖋 00:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Disagree all - per MrX. We should close this thread. SPECIFICO talk 00:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, if you don't want to participate, that's fine. No one is holding your feet to the fire. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Disagree all - We can only stay with the RS on this issue and not create original material or base the article on biased reporting from agenda driven sources. I feel that an non-NPOV is being put forward without building consensus or in some of these points, basing it on available evidence. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• @Atsme: I agree that the article has some problems, but proposing mass section blankings probably isn't going to get anywhere. You should alert WP:BLPN, WP:NPOVN, or the talk page of WP:TRUMP, to your most urgent concerns. ^Falling_Gravity 02:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

FallingGravity, NPOV and WP:PUBLICFIGURE are inseparable from WP:BLP, all of which are at issue here. If I called an individual RfC for each of the 17 sections, it would take nearly 1-1/2 yrs. to correct the noncompliance and that is unacceptable. In addition to BLP issues that are created because of noncompliance with NPOV, editor consensus does not override our non-negotiable NPOV policy. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)  

^{I broke it up into 3 sections so it wouldn't seem overwhelming. That way we can focus on 1-5 first, then move to the next section of 5, then to the final 7. Atsme📞📧} 03:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Dividing it up, does not make a difference, given [7] and [8] and all the other very long record of actions and comments. Just focus for a moment on Birtherism and consider for a second that Sen. John McCain's citizenship was never called into question by Trump, even though he was born in Coco Solo, Panama. The fact is if even one of your parents is a U.S. citizen, you are by right a citizen from birth unless you give it up; it does not matter where you are born; unless of course you are a Black man running for President, it would appear. How else does Birtherism make sense but in the light of racism, for that is the sole differential factor, given Obama's mother was a U.S. citizen. We can go down ever point, but they will end the same way, with racial bias being a major factor in differential treatment. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

We don't editorialize, and we don't speculate that racism is the reason Obama's citizenship was challenged as a presidential candidate - being a natural born citizen is a requirement which has nothing to do with color or creed - the only race that's important is the presidential race. As for the citizenship of other presidential candidates being challenged - the citizenship of Ted Cruz was called into question and so was his father's past - had nothing to do with race. McCain's citizenship was called into question - had nothing to do with race. Barry Goldwater's citizenship was challenged when he was a presidential candidate in '64 - was racism an issue then? The Birtherism section needs to go as do the other sections in the article that have -0- to do with race. ^{Atsme📞📧} 07:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Barry Goldwater being Jewish, so yes it was, just as Ted Cruz being Cuban. If you are white in the USA, like John McCain, you are given a free pass so it seems. This differential treatment is not explainable in any other way, but racism. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, wow - did I read your comment correctly? What are editors supposed to think when you say white people like McCain are given a free pass? That is unacceptable in a discussion about NPOV issues in a BLP about a white president - I'm beginning to think we're getting closer to discovering the cause of our issues. FYI, then Senator Obama was a co-sponsor of the bill that cleared-up the confusion about McCain's citizenship. It had nothing to do with race. Read the Natural-born-citizen clause. McCain was legally a US citizen at birth, and so was/is everyone else who was/is born under those conditions - regardless of race. On the other hand, Cruz's mother was a US citizen but his father wasn't. He was simply employed in Canada when Cruz was born. Cruz held dual citizenship but because his status was challenged as a presidential candidate, he gave up his Canadian citizenship. Huge difference, and again, none of it based on racism. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

To pretend that racial bias does not exist in the U.S.A., is to be blind to historical reality. I recall a tale of an interaction between Obama and Biden; Biden noted that Obama had been slighted by someone, and was a bit upset; Obama reminded Biden that the racial bias in the U.S.A. works both ways and if it were not of that fact, he may not have become President. Obama said, "You have to take the good with the bad". This is honesty, but you are pushing a revisionist history that sees everyone as equal; which is not yet a reality, not yet. Of course, someone closer to the color-line sees a reality of racial privilege that still happens to this day; O', and it's not just the U.S.A., but many places and lands. Walk a mile in the shoes of a person of color and see; be it France or Texas, it is a different experience, this is what I have experienced as a Mestizo/Métis. Racial bias still exists. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

You missed my point, CW. WP is neither the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, nor is it a WP:SOAPBOX. Racial bias should not exist here on Wikipedia - we leave our biases at login. This article has NPOV issues, and thanks to the RfC (I assume) more and more editors are becoming aware of the problems. There are sections that belong elsewhere that are being used to describe racism and have nothing at all to do with racism. See my list of 17 items above. If editors are unable to determine the differences between racism and border security or terrorism, they should not be editing this article. I am very dismayed by your responses. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Racial bias exists out there, that is the point, and Trumps actions as well as his words are a part of that real world which your wishing can not erase. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

What MrX said in his first comment above. At some point this kind of time-wasting becomes disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Then please stop wasting our time. We have NPOV issues that need to be corrected. If you don't want to collaborate, then please stop interrupting others from doing what needs to be done. It is really beginning to smell like OWN. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Really? "I know you are but what am I?" That's your argument? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that the best way to stop these accusations as to whether things are "racist" is to clearly define the scope of this article. If we expand it to something broader then people won't raise these concerns again, but if we don't then we need to make sure we can defend the inclusions and omissions objectively. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The scope of the article is defined. It hasn't changed. It's Donald Trump's well-documented history of racially-charged remarks and racially-motivated actions. It's not a coincidence that a small minority of editors who tried to get the article deleted at AfD are now trying to get it deleted piece by piece by making broad, unfounded claims of WP:NPOV violations. These unfounded claims are based on original research and personal preference rather than reliable sources. It's starting to look like tendentiousness.- MrX 🖋 22:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Defined the way you want it to be, MrX - not the way it should be per NPOV. Emir of Wikipedia - I agree with you, so what is the next step. There is a small group of editors here who refuge to budge - WP:OWN - despite the fact that the majority of the subtopics in the main History section are unrelated to race, but have taken on a racial cast apparently to fit a particular POV. Worse yet, the article is not even about Trump's views; rather, it's about the views of his detractors and what they think of Trump, apparently to further their own political agenda. I'm not quite sure why this article hasn't been deleted as an attack page, but something needs to be done. I'm open to your suggestions - do we take it to NPOV/N now that discussion has hit a dead end? ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that the next step is to not discount other peoples views by saying that some small group or minority of editors are acting in a certain way. We should use this talkpage to comment on the content, if an editor or editors are stonewalling the improvement of the project then report them elsewhere. The scope of the article should fit NPOV, but whether it should be just about racial statements or something broader is not a neutrality issue. We can include commentary on Trumps views in this article instead of just simply listing them as long as the views are from RSs and not our own. This article survived a lengthy AfD but I accept that we can improve it. A RfC could be a better option than NPOV/N but lets give this another day or two of discussion, not everybody will be commenting in the first day. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not discounting the views of the minority, but we do work by consensus. The minority can try to influence consensus by making arguments that convey an understanding of our policies, or present new information from sources, but repackaging the same arguments with vague waves to policy shortcuts is a waste of everyone's time. I think the scope of the article is about right, but if there is a solid argument for broadening it, I'm all ears. The goal is to have an informative article of the subject that represents the body of available sources.- MrX 🖋 23:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: That's your opinion, and you notice that your opinion has not gained much traction as of late. The subject of the article was discussed on talk:Donald Trump. I know, because I started the discussion. If you want to influence consensus, you can't just throw around TLA's without any substance behind your arguments and make sweeping claims contrary to existing consensus, and expect to be taken seriously. A good content argument starts with a reasonable premise backed by reliable sources, and then builds on that foundation toward some level of consensus. That's not happening here.- MrX 🖋 22:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)