Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:52, 12 February 2018

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Racial views of Donald Trump. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Racial views of Donald Trump at the Reference desk.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 January 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Template:WikiProject Donald Trump Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Television / Presidents / Government Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Discrimination High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

RFC: Alleged

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should we refer to story told by Dick Durbin in the "shithole countries" controversy as alleged? PackMecEng (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Please refactor the RfC request in a NPOV manner.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Support - All but two of the source in that section refer to the event as alleged or a variation of that. There are also 3 people that deny it even happened. Finally it is a "he said she said" event with no good way of knowing for sure what happened. PackMecEng (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

An analysis of good available sources would be more informative than simply looking at the sources cited in a section of the article.- MrX 🖋

Agreed and from what I can tell most of them back up my point. I choose to stick with the sources listed in the article already since that is what we have gave weight to include from. PackMecEng (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

PackMecEng - yes, WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE would say to use the source wording -- if it's not a prominent item or typical of the coverage then it shouldn't be a cite, but while it is a cite then it's "allegedly" should be included. Markbassett (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:V Neutrality: If there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation." 12:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no substantive disagreement between sources. Most (reliable) sources factually state that the comment was made, and some sources note that a couple of people in attendance disputed that Trump referred to "shithole countries", but they could not recall what was actually said. Think about that for a moment...- MrX 🖋 12:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

It depends on what sources you're reading - the disagreement is also in the cited sources wherein there are opposing views, and that is a fact. To handpick only the views that allege he said it without including the claims that claim he did not say it is noncompliant per WP:V and WP:NPOV. Fact - it is an allegation, and both views should be included per WP:V using intext attribution...unless wider consensus decides to change that policy. 14:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

If there are sources that state that Trump did not say "shithole countries", then please present them. No, we don't present "both views" when one view has been roundly discredited, including by a respected Senator in an oversight committee hearing. For the avoidance of doubt, when someone swears up and down that somebody did not say something, and then says that they don't recall" what was said, that person is lying.- MrX 🖋 16:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

MrX, with all due respect, you are mistaken. Here is one, “I did not hear that word used,” Nielsen said under oath, about “shithole.” VOX - "under oath". Pretty powerful statement, I'd say. And there's the statement by two highly respected Congressmen that was published in Huff: Perdue told ABC’s “This Week” that the press was offering a “gross misrepresentation” of the president’s comments. Cotton agreed with Perdue, releasing a joint statement saying they did not recall the vulgar language described by the press. Huffington Post publishing an ABC "This Week" report. To say the sources don't exist is incorrect. 18:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The easiest place to found them is our own section on the topic. As noted before most of them do not state it as fact. PackMecEng (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• Reject - There is too much evidence supporting it as factual, including initial FOX News reports. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support Durbin's version has been disputed reputably by at least three individuals who were also there. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: Durbin's account has been disputed, but can you show a few sources that say it's been "disputed reputably"? That seems the opposite of what almost ever source is saying and not at all compatible with the reality of the public testimony and cross examination of Kirstjen Nielsen in which she quite plainly lied under oath.. Also, Cotton and Perdue.- MrX 🖋 14:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

If you want to bully and WP: BLUDGEON, try it with someone else who might take the bait. Or comment where you place your own !vote. I'm not interested in arguing endlessly with you or anyone over this. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Umm... I was merely asking if you could back up your comments. You're free not to answer it if you can't or if you don't want to. Sorry if you interpreted my question as bludgeoning or bullying. 😕 - MrX 🖋 14:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

How is one question "bludgeon"? Are you assuming this to be a vote rather than a discussion? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

How do you reconcile your position with MOS:ALLEGED? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Reject. While we should cite sources accurately, including their wording, we should not ADD "alleged" or other such weasel words when paraphrasing or using Misplaced Pages's voice. This case is so clear that only those who are known to constantly lie (Trump and those scared sycophants around him) are denying he said it. Several of those who were there attest that he said it, and he even bragged that it would gain him support among his followers, but then he started changing his tune. (It took 48 hrs for them to fully decide to completely agree on denying!) Then those sycophants began to waffle, then couldn't remember, and finally they could weirdly remember very clearly that he didn't say it. I wonder what threats he issued to them if they didn't lie for him? -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• No and RfC worded in a biased manner in violation of policy. It wasn't just Durbin nor is it a "story he told". Try again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support Durbin is saying it happened and others are saying it didn't. Therefore it's just alleged. We can't in Wiki's voice post a comment that Trump did say those things when it's a BLP issue. We don't know if he said it. There just isn't any guaranteed RS that says Trump said it independent of Durbin. Sir Joseph 04:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

See my question to Winkelvi above. As far as I can tell, sources treat the Durbin's account as credible, and it's backed by several other credible people. On the other hand, Nielsen, Cotton, and Perdue seem to have been lying. They caught themselves in a logic trap.- MrX 🖋 14:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

And one can very well say Durbin is not a credible source. He has been caught lying about this very same scenario before, during Obama's tenure. Sir Joseph 15:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

As I have still not decided where I'm going to land on this RfC, could you provide a couple of reliable source that support Durbin having been caught lying in this very same scenario before? Many thanks.- MrX 🖋 15:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Here you go: Sir Joseph 17:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

That source doesn't say Durbin was lying. It just says that the White House and Speaker's office refuted his claim. We don't know who lied, or if anyone lied. The account is sorely lacking in any details..- MrX 🖋 21:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Basing our answer here on whether Durbin has been caught lying is WP:OR. If the sources say it is alleged then we say it is alleged, if they omit the mention and lack attribution to Durbin then so do we. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The story most refer to in reguards to Durbin in these sitations is . Which was well covered at the time. PackMecEng (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Cotton was caught changing his story, so he deflects, saying that Durbin has a history of misrepresenting meetings. Sorry, that's not convincing at all - MrX 🖋 21:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• No "Alleged" should only be used in case of doubt, or for criminal offenses. zzz (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Why? Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Same reason we don't say that Norway is allegedly predominantly white. zzz (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Because of the reasons discussed at MOS:ALLEGED. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The majority of the sources we cite in that section refer to it as alleged, and do list doubts as well. PackMecEng (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you please reword the RfC in a neutral manner? Already asked once.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Reject This proposal is based on a faulty premise. This was not a "story told by Dick Durbin". It is not "Dick Durbin's version." According to the original reporting it was based on multiple unnamed sources; if Durbin was one of them, he is the only one who has come forward publicly, but clearly there were others. And the "denials" have no credibility. It took the White House and Trump days to get around to denying it, and according to several reports, Trump was bragging about his comment to friends later that day. Most of the "denials" from other people who were there in the meeting are classic examples of "non-denial denials": "I don't remember" ("oh, now I remember, he didn't say it"), "he used tough language" ("but I don't remember any of it"), etc. There is no need for an "alleged"; this comment is as well documented as anything can be that wasn't said in front of a tape recorder. --MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Forgot to mention: Trump's comments have also been all-but-confirmed by Lindsey Graham, whose sneer "my memory hasn't evolved" was directed at the two congressmen who suddenly remembered what they heard and didn't hear. --MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Would dropping Durbin from the question change the situation? The first reports of this incident I see is January 11th, the first report of denial I see is the 12th, days is not accurate before denying. The squishy original answers from the two others there are a bit lame, but we do not get to decide if they are full of it or not. It comes down to has this been challenged by people that would know for sure? So far the answer is certainly yes it has. PackMecEng (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Tentatively support for now There's still just enough of a controversy that it would be best for us to attribute all the claims that he said this. For the record: I have no reasonable doubt that he did say it, but the coverage I've encountered has never failed to note that there's some disagreement over whether he did. Also, I fully expect that disagreement to fade over time, at which point I would want to change the section back to asserting it in wikivoice. FInally: I don't think it should necessarily be described consistently as "alleged", but rather we should explicitly attribute the allegations. We shouldn't say "Trump allegedly called certain nations 'shithole countries'," we should say "according to X, Y and Z who attended the meeting, Trump called certain nations 'shithole countries'." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

If you are opposed to using the word allegedly, isn't that to say that you oppose rather than support, given that this is an RfC on the word allegedly? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

No, the RfC doesn't propose a specific wording, it merely poses a question. I oppose use of the specific word "allegedly", but I support attributing the claims that Trump referred to these countries as shitholes to the parties who made the claims. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

... it merely poses a question. Yes, and that question is, "Should we refer to story told by Dick Durbin in the 'shithole countries' controversy as alleged?", not "Should those statements be attributed inline?" If the latter question was posed, I may well support it, but that isn't what was asked. Is it not fair to say that you oppose the original proposition and are making an alternate proposition of your own? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

You should buy a thesaurus. It might do you some good. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Why do you say that, MPants at work? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Because you seem to have some difficulty grasping the concept of different phrasings with the same meaning, and I figured the concept of different words with the same meaning might help with that. The question posed is whether or not we should describe the claims as alleged. Since it never put the word "alleged" in quotes to indicate any specificity to that word, that question can thus be rephrased as "should we depict these claims as allegations," to which I indicated tentative support and specified how exactly I believe we should depict them as allegations; by attributing them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

that question can thus be rephrased as "should we depict these claims as allegations," to which I indicated tentative support and specified how exactly I believe we should depict them as allegations; by attributing them. How do you reconcile that position with the meaning of the word alleged (and, by extension, allegation) as described by MOS:ALLEGED? The MOS indicates that the possible implication that "a given point is inaccurate" is inherent to the term. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

How do you reconcile that position with the meaning of the word alleged (and, by extension, allegation) as described by MOS:ALLEGED? Mostly through a deep understanding of the English language and a lot of experience with formal and informal logic, and rhetoric. But also there's the fact that I tend to assume good faith with my fellow editors, and presume the RfC isn't just a cover for a POV push to insert weasel words into the article. I'm explicitly advocating not using that word because it carries connotations that aren't really accurate. Sure, some people claim the President didn't say it, including the president. But nobody neutral really has much doubt, based on what they know about the president. Therefore, the reader can be reasonably expected to understand that the fact that we are attributing the allegations does not, in any way, imply that we suspect them. At the same time, several people absolutely are disputing that the president said it. So we need to reflect that fact as well, else we're doing the reader a disservice. By attributing the claim that he said it, we can strongly imply that not everyone is on board with it, while simultaneously refraining from implicitly casting doubt on the truth of the claim. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• No because there is no doubts that Trump actually said it. I also agree with comment by MelanieN above. A disclaimer: I do not read a lot of this and may not properly understand certain sensitivities about it. My very best wishes (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• No at this point, although I reserve the right to change my !vote after I do some more research. MelanieN does a good job of outlining why we should not qualify Durbin's account as "alleged". Everything I've read so far supports the veracity of the account related by Durbin, Flake, Graham, and Erickson..- MrX 🖋 21:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC).

Update: I did a search for donald trump shithole durbin. In the top 10 results, only one source uses a form of the word "allege", and not in the context of Durbin's account.- MrX 🖋 13:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

53-57 59-62 all state it as a variation of alleged, not explicitly saying it happened. 59 is an opinion piece. 58 seems to state it as fact. PackMecEng (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with that analysis and more importantly, they don't say "alleged" and neither should we.- MrX 🖋 13:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

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

@Rusf10: - Senator Tim Scott said that Senator Lindsey Graham "told him the comments, as reported in the media, were “basically accurate." starship.paint ~

KO 08:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Starship.paint:Did you read the first sentence of that article? "U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham didn't directly confirm President Donald Trump's use of the term "shithole countries..." This only supports my argument that you can't present the quote as fact.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Rusf10: I did read the first sentence. I know Graham hasn't explicitly confirmed it himself. But a fellow senator has said Graham told him it's accurate. You had a problem with unnamed sources and I gave you a named source. starship .paint ~ KO 00:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

How do you reconcile your position with MOS:ALLEGED? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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

@R9tgokunks:What White House confirmation? PackMecEng (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

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

• Support. I vote for the idea of saying "according to X, Y and Z who attended the meeting, Trump called certain nations 'shithole countries'." by User:MPants at work, as it is verifiable with readable info and it doesn't put words in the sources mouths SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

It violates WP:NPOV by siding with the media's... You do realize that you're literally arguing that WP:V violates WP:NPOV with this argument, right? Understand, we both !voted the same way, but this argument is quite ignorant of policy. We are absolutely required by policy to "side with" the media. If the media also happens to side with one political side, that's not our problem. (If you're trying to figure out why I'm disagreeing with someone who !voted along with me, then understand that when a discussion such as this is closed, the closer looks to the strengths of the arguments. By giving a bad argument in favor of a good position, you undermine that position.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

the media has been known to lie and lie about things and hardly anyone trusts them anymore Three things:

1. That is not even remotely true. The vast majority of reliable sources (which includes the vast majority of the mainstream media) gets it right the first time, every time. Mistakes are both unusual, and corrected in an honest and open fashion.
2. The second part is no more true. The vast majority of people trust the media implicitly. Including you. You trust your preferred media to tell you the truth when it claims the "mainstream" media lies to you. (Unfortunately for you, they're the ones lying).
3. WP:V is policy, writ in stone and unchanging. If you cannot accept that reliable sources are reliable, then you have no business editing this project.

Sorry to be so blunt, but "you can't trust the media!" gets about as much traction here as a bowling ball on ice. It runs counter to our very principles. Please desist from this line of argument, and learn to accept that we must rely upon reliable sources for all of our content. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Just a side note Trump has denied it CNN as well as several people that were in the meeting. PackMecEng (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Summoned by bot. The evidence is there and its been confirmed by the White House - nothing alleged about it. Meatsgains 03:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly reject, per MOS:WTW and WP:V. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 17:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
• how about Reported We've been using alleged to much--it has multiple means or at least multiple implciations. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
• No as per above - "Alleged" doesn't belong anywhere in the article. –Davey2010 13:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
• Reject alleged(Summoned by bot) but would support 'reported' per discussion above and below, if it is felt that a 'disclaimer' is needed, though I'm not entirely sure it is. Pincrete (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• SUPPORT ALLEGED - the whole thing needs to be rewritten to be compliant with policy - use in-text attribution & quote the most notable person who alleged Trump called whatever country shi*hole, and do the same thing for the opposing view and cite the RS. 04:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

  The vast majority of this article was written by highly experienced editors, each of whom have edited thousands of other articles and are respected for their understanding of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. It seem implausible to me that those experienced editors, collaborating with other experienced editors, would even be capable of writing an article that is not "compliant with policy".- MrX 🖋 12:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• No - It has been widely confirmed and reported as fact by RS. SPECIFICO talk 14:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• Reject alleged - Widely reported in RS. Folks that have denied the story seem to have flexible memories of the event. O3000 (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• No to "alleged" and yes to attribution. Doing it that way gets the balance right, given the available sourcing if taken in its totality. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• Reject inclusion entirely Referring to third-world countries as "shitholes" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with race or racism. Yes, I realize that the popular press has attempted to draw that conclusion, but in this particular case, sensationalist news media isn't reliable for such an inflammatory claim in a WP:BLP. Instead, we should wait for respected, peer-reviewed academic journals to draw such conclusions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• Include. We follow RS, BLP, and PUBLICPERSONS (the latter is merciless...)

UN calls Donal Trump's s***hole immigrants comments 'racist' -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Please, BR...you're not understanding that it's still alleged or if you prefer...reported that...he said it. I have already cited all of the PAGs that contradict your argument...allegations/reporting what someone else said...does not qualify as a statement of fact. There are disputed arguments in the sources...stop cherrypicking the ones that agree with your POV and simply cite both using intext attribution and inline citations...simple resolution. 21:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

PackMecEng can ya reword the RfC statement? IIRC dick durbin wasn't even the original source for the reporting of the statement Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The earliest I see is from Washinton Post and they are listing to "several people briefed on the meeting". I listed Durbin since he is the only person that was there that said it happened. What would you suggest as better wording? PackMecEng (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Regardless, it still needs to be reworded.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

It isn't a "story told by Dick Durbin"....Something like "Should allegedly be added as in this diff" in relation to the "shithole countries" controversy." Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

That diff covers more than this section, I was hoping to keep it narrow. I would be willing to drop mention of Durbin though to something like "Should we refer to the "shithole countries" controversy as alleged?". How does that sound Galobtter? PackMecEng (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

That would be an improvement.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I mean it isn't the controversy that is alleged..the diff covers the section and the lead covering that section - unless you wan a discrepancy between the section and the lead.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I would go with "Should we refer to the "shithole countries" comments as alleged?" but that goes a bit far the other way with bias. PackMecEng (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The sentence we are referring to is In January 2018, Trump received widespread domestic and international condemnation for comments he made during a January 11 Oval Office meeting about immigration, in which he referred to African countries, El Salvador, and Haiti as "shithole countries". I would oppose "allegedly referred to" because the statement is better documented than that, but I could accept "reportedly referred to". What would you think about that? --MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Reportedly would be fine by me. As long as it is not stated as fact in Misplaced Pages's voice is fine. PackMecEng (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that (reportedly) would be good wording as well. Gandydancer (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

If you want to do that, you can't really withdraw and reword your original proposal after people have commented on it; maybe you could make a new proposal as a subsection of this one? --MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

On second thought, I think you could withdraw and self-close your original RfC, and open a new one. You should ping all the people who commented originally. --MelanieN (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This seems like the best solution. I would support using "reportedly referred to." Mr Ernie (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it should follow the cites phrasing for accuracy. Plus the article as a whole should reflect WEIGHT that there is variation, and denial and condemnation for NPOV. The coverage does seem varied. "Reportedly" is the BBC phrasing fairly consistently; theguardian stories vary among 'reported that' and 'Trump said'. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Politico: "Indeed, Trump’s own erratic behavior in negotiations last week — including his remarks to lawmakers that many immigrants come from “shithole” countries — helped precipitate the breakdown in spending talks..." zzz (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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 07:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Accusing someone of 'talk, talk, talk...' is hardly racist!...unless someone can find a reliable source that says it is

What Trump said was definitely out of order but unless someone can find a reliable source that actually stated that Trump's comment was racist, this subsection should be deleted. Lin4671again (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Is anyone disagreeing with my point? If not I will remove the section in a few days. Lin4671again (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The name of the article is Racial views of Donald Trump. I believe that we have plenty of RS that affirms that a person such as Trump to have sent that twitter out to John Lewis is the height of racial insensitivity, to say the least. Gandydancer (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Lin4671again: this section has no indication of a racial view, and should be removed. Trump has accused politicians of all creeds, colors and parties to be "all talk, no action". People get outraged because John Lewis happens to be a black civil rights leader, but Trump is an "equal opportunity offender". Remember he publicly questioned birthright citizenship of Ted Cruz as well as Barack Obama's. — JFG 22:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Well this article currently only has mention of the questioning of Obama, but should have no effect on whether we decide to include or remove the comment about John Lewis. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I was just quoting another example of Trump unfairly criticizing his adversaries irrespective of race or political party. I can't infer from your comment whether you support inclusion of the John Lewis incident or would rather remove it? — JFG 23:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I oppose it with the current sourcing because as Lin4671again has stated that they don't state it was racist, but I am open to inclusion if someone presents a relevant source. No BLP violation or incorrect information is included though, it is just a question of whether it is in scope or not so I think it is best to preserve it until a consensus is reached. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. A couple sources were added recently, possibly to substantiate this discussion:

• the first one cites Mark Anthony Neal, a Duke University professor stating that other presidents were "more sensitive to issues of race", even as they "may have imposed policies that hurt black communities".
• the other one cites an opinion comment by Bill Kristol lamenting that Trump "treats Vladimir Putin with more respect than he does John Lewis", well that only shows that Mr. Kristol alludes that race plays a role in Trump's "respect" for people.

Neither source asserts that Trump's remark on Lewis was racially motivated, and they both mention that he was reacting to Lewis calling him "not a legitimate president." We have nothing more here than the usual Trump lambasting anyone questioning his legitimacy — he made no comment about Lewis' race, hence off-topic for this article. This incident is already mentioned in Lewis' article, that's where it belongs. — JFG 00:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the section. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Belated support for removal, that was classic WP:SYNTH in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the final paragraph of the lead, “a October” should read “an October”. In the second paragraph, “of” should be removed in “between violence used by … and of violence used by …”. 67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thank you, good eye. Become an established registered editor and you can fix this stuff yourself! Oh, I see you're an established unregistered editor, so I guess you already knew that. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Ha, thanks for the thought! I prefer to stay out of this kind of mess. I stopped using my account so that I wouldn’t have the chance. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Article

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

• Restored as per Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#WP:TPO_clarification. –Davey2010 22:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

State of the Union speech

@PackMecEng: what makes you think this is "undue"? 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. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Removal of Palm Beach clubs

@Signedzzz: Why did you remove this section? Consensus at Talk:Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump/Archive_1#Palm_beach_clubs was to include. --Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I actually did not notice the talk section. I removed it because it all seems to hang on other clubs not allowing blacks or Jews, but the refs don't confirm this. Another problem is stating that it "has been called "one of the more Jewish-friendly clubs on Palm Beach"" when that is not actually a direct quote, and the person who expressed the opinion is just someone who was strongly in favour of moving the embassy to Jerusalem, not a huge fan of Mar-a-lago specifically. zzz (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you support having the section included in someway but reworded or are you totally against its inclusion? --Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I certainly don't think it deserves a section, that is why I moved it to the "Defenses" section before deleting it. If you have a source that directly confirms the racism of the other clubs, then I have no objection. zzz (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I felt it was appropriate. I read the refs and what we have at Mar-a-Lago and it is my impression that it was a smart move on his part, besides the fact that he needed to open his place to those other than the old wealthy aristocracy if he wanted to get clientele, rather than a moral position. Never the less, he apparently did open his club to all. No one came right out and said that the other clubs don't allow Jews, though it was inferred. I wish we could find a good factual site on the subject as well... Gandydancer (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Having looked at the text, I think it does not currently belong in the article. I also don't see where it's declared "consensus". SPECIFICO talk 21:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

"But Trump undercut his adversaries with a searing attack, claiming that local officials seemed to accept the established private clubs in town that had excluded Jews and blacks while imposing tough rules on his inclusive one. Trump’s lawyer sent every member of the town council copies of two classic movies about discrimination: “A Gentleman’s Agreement,” about a journalist who pretends to be Jewish to expose anti-Semitism, and “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” about a white couple’s reaction to their daughter bringing home a black fiance." from describing how Trump had to fight for his inclusive club in a way that the private clubs that excluded black and Jewish people didn't have to fight. Lin4671again (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

From the same article: "Wyett, who is Jewish, said he would hear Trump talk with pride about Mar-a-Lago’s nondiscriminatory policy, but wondered if it was a business strategy: “Was he smart enough to realize that Palm Beach is about 40 percent Jewish and he was not going to attract the old guard anyway?”" I have already done a revert today, but that addition to the lead definitely needs to be reverted.zzz (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Really? Is this article just setting out to deal with the evidence that suggests that Trump is racist or is it trying to deal with all evidence? Had you said you felt the addition should be moved to the 'Defences' section I may have thought the latter....Lin4671again (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The following text should be removed from the opening sentence of the lede: but, also, in the 1980's he turned his Mar-a-Lago mansion into an inclusive private club at a time when Palm Beach private clubs excluded black and Jewish people, and in 2017 unequivocally stated that "racism is evil". SPECIFICO talk 23:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. This is anecdotal and does not belong in the lead. Trump's public remarks and actions are far more noteworthy than what someone claims they heard Trump say with pride.- MrX 🖋 00:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

What about outside of the lead? Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 14:23, 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 08:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Reducing immigration for propominately 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)

Primary sourced video

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 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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 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 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. 22:52, 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:

" 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 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)

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)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Mid-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• C-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Mid-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• C-Class American politics articles
• Low-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• C-Class American television articles
• Mid-importance American television articles
• American television task force articles
• C-Class United States Presidents articles
• Low-importance United States Presidents articles
• WikiProject United States Presidents articles
• C-Class United States Government articles
• High-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class Discrimination articles
• High-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English