The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The automatic headcount reveals 45 "keep" and 25 "delete" opinions. As concerns the arguments advanced, the "keep" side argues that the topic has received ample coverage in reliable sources, while the "delete" side considers the article to be non-neutral, original research by synthesis and/or a POV fork. These are all, in principle, valid arguments, and the degree to which one agrees with them is within the range of legitimate disagreement in applying editorial judgment. There are a number of opinions on both sides which aren't much more than votes, though, and at least two "delete" opinions that must be discounted because they make a political argument by describing the article as "insane liberal bias" or a "disgusting partisan attack", rather than making an argument based on Wikipedia's rules.

A deletion would require a consensus to do so, based on arguments founded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The above makes it apparent that a consensus for deletion isn't a possible result of this discussion. The question is therefore whether this is a "no consensus, kept by default" or a "consensus to keep" outcome. The effects are the same, but we still need to call it one thing or the other. In our practice, a 2:1 majority, which this comes close to, is often approximated to consensus. In my view, we are closer to a consensus to keep here than to no consensus: Many of the arguments advanced for deletion refer to supposed defects that can in principle be addressed by editing, such as non-neutrality or original research, rather than arguments that fundamentally call into question whether we should have an article on this topic at all (as would be the case if, e.g., the topic were found to be non-notable or unverifiable). For these reasons, I think it is appropriate to give the "delete" arguments slightly less weight and therefore to arrive at a consensus to keep. Sandstein 13:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump racial views[edit]

Note: article was moved to Racial views of Donald Trump 22:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Racial views of Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Donald Trump racial views (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The nature of the article is incredibly biased and non-neutral, lacks encyclopedic tone, lacks encyclopedic value, basically an "article" full of trivia, pretty close to being a WP:QUOTEFARM, and seems to violate BLP standards "bigly" (at least to me). I'm neutral politically and actually lean left, but I cannot believe this even exists as an article. Or anyone thought it was a good idea to begin with. Or that anyone thinks it's encyclopedic in any way. shape. or form.

An example of the kind of POV and unencyclopedic content this article invites (because it's political, because it's "Racism!", because it's Trump - the terror trifecta that just begs controversy, POV, and bias in content and tone): [1]. If this article stands, it's only going to get worse in the way of blatant POV content without encyclopedic tone or value. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It's not incredibly biased, but even it were, that's not a valid reason for deletion. The content is extremely well sourced and has been been covered for 45 years. There was a discussion at talk:Donald Trump#Racial views about the need to create this article and the support was overwhelming. It is not full of trivia, nor does it violate WP:BLP. If that argument is to be considered, one would expect it to be accompanied by some sort of evidence of how it violates WP:BLP.- MrX 00:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'll tellya what's a shithole; this nomination, a big cuppa of "I don't like it". The current president of the United States has made numerous statements that have been construed as racist by numerous reliable sources. The depth and breath of coverage regarding this man's racist statements spanning 4+ decades is staggering, with the latest comments regarding Haiti and such receiving international condemnation. This is a notable topic that would overwhelm the main biographical article, so a separate article is appropriate. TheValeyard (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no feelings of personal dislike for the article, I believe it's inappropriate by encyclopedic and Wikipedia standards. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not encyclopedic and WP:POVFORK. It's pretty much just a collection of quotes from random pundits who call Trump racist over (insert Trump controversy here). Trump's most recent remarks about Haiti and African countries (apparently the main reason this article was created) should be merged into Immigration policy of Donald Trump. ^Falling_Gravity 02:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, the article has a lot of prose and relatively few quotes. Most of the quotes are from Trump himself. The largest section in the article are the Central Park jogger case which provides solid background for why his actions were criticized as racially-motivated. There is a section about Trump being sued by the DOJ for housing discrimination against black people. There's a section on polling. This is a comprehensive subject with a scope beyond any existing subject except perhaps Donald Trump which is already too bloated with real estate deals and Apprentice tirvia to contain the full breadth and depth of Trump's racially-provocative remarks and actions that are perceived as racially-motivated.- MrX 03:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Central Park jogger case already has its own article where his actions are described in detail. The only inclusion criteria for this article appears to be if you get some pundit to call him racist, not that the incident actually gives us insight into his "racial views". ^Falling_Gravity 06:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly sure how it is a POVFORK when the lead material is essentially in Donald Trump - what POV is it forking off of. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a collection of incidents meant to prove a certain POV: that Trump is racist. ^Falling_Gravity 18:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's nonsense. It's an article about his racial views, which discuss some examples ("incidents") in a broader context. What is it suppose to do? Talk about his racial views without actually referring to his words or actions? What kind of a silly suggestion is that? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious...Volunteer Marek Do we have an article on any other president's racial views? How about President Obama's? I see a Politico article about them, and there are countless others. I'm looking for a place to gage the racism claims since they're obviously politically motivated rhetoric. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm I'm sure you can easily satisfy your curiosity on your own. Both your question and the assumption behind it (that such an article is equivalent) are made in bad faith.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why you don't read this article and stop casting aspersions. ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support looking into making this an article dedicated to Trump's recent comments and the various reactions, maybe titled "Shitholegate" as some have suggested. ^Falling_Gravity 17:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be merged into immigration policy, because the history of racism in his apartment rental business has nothing to do with immigration policy. Also, his lies about Barack Obama's place of birth were racial incitement and had nothing to do with any possible changes to U.S. immigration policy. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anomalocaris: That's why I was talking about merging just the section covering Trump's recent remarks. The topics you mention are already covered extensively in Business career of Donald Trump and Donald Trump #Political activities up to 2015. Nothing would be lost if this article was then deleted, and all the opinion articles currently used can be moved to related articles. ^Falling_Gravity 20:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 02:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unencyclopedic NPOV violation. KMF (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  May I ask how exactly is it a POV violation? In answering, please refer to specific article content that violates specific policies outlined in WP:NPOV.- MrX

(Also "it's a POV violation" is not valid reason for deletion. Not that it is. See WP:AADD).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is probably the most widely covered and important subject related to his election campaign, his personal views and his actual policies. Consider the number of other WP pages on various events that should be linked to this page or vice versa. No, the page is not hopelessly biased. It simply covers a highly important and controversial subject. It can not be merged to Immigration policy of Donald Trump because many issue on the page are not about immigration (only some are). It should not be merged to Political positions of Donald Trump because personal views and political positions by the person are frequently not the same. The latter are results of compromise with other members of the same Party, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the breadth and depth of coverage (mostly 2016-2018) is more than enough for notability. starship.paint ~ KO 02:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're aware that notability isn't even part of the nomination? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You wrote lacks encyclopedic value, basically an "article" full of trivia. I would think notability is the opposite of that. starship.paint ~ KO 03:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The man has now directly denied being a racist. Increasing the notability of this topic by addressing it. starship.paint ~ KO 03:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a Wikipedia litmus test and a general guideline, not the be-all-end-all for encyclopedic worth. That said, "coverage" doesn't necessarily equate notability (your litmus test). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, wait a minute. If "notability isn't even part of the nomination?", WHAT exactly is the basis for the nomination? (And don't say "it's not encyclopedic", that's circular). Here, per policy, are the reasons for deletion. Which one of them is suppose to apply? It's not a copyvio, it's not a vandalism, it's not a template, category or an image, it's not an advertisement. The ONLY possible criteria for deletion which COULD (but does not, as you admit yourself) apply is notability. And it's notable. So what IS the reason for the nomination? WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• sigh* It isn't about what it's "not", it's about what it is - it IS an attack page to discredit Trump. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE. The allegations of racism are unproven, mostly political banter by the opposition, unfounded opinions are what comprise the bulk of the published news sources, probably for the purpose of bait & click revenue; all of which have been denied and successfully disproven. Oh, and there is also no proof of Russian collusion, his handshakes are normal for an assertive businessman, and he is in excellent health, mental and otherwise. His hairstyle is wierd, and anyone who has taken a course in marketing/business knows the power of repetition. What WP needs are well-written, well-sourced informative encyclopedic articles, not political attack pages supported primarily by the opinions of political opponents. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per FallingGravity. Include comments about race and immigration in Immigration policy of Donald Trump or Political positions of Donald Trump. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Housing discrimination, birtherism, and full page ads calling for black teenagers to be executed do not fit into immigration. Sorry, but this article is not only about Trump's racist comments.- MrX 03:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Birtherism is covered in Donald Trump and Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#Donald Trump. Housing discrimination is covered in Business career of Donald Trump. Full page ads is covered in Central Park jogger case (which this article copies generously). ^Falling_Gravity 18:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, even if that was done (it shouldn't) there'd still be plenty left for a full fledged, notable topic, article, so this isn't really an argument for deletion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Talk:Donald Trump#Racial views -- an appropriate WP:SPINOUT. Meets notability guidelines for stand-alone articles, with WP:SIGCOV covering the subject. Sources have been widely reporting on Mr Trump's racial views, so there's no BLP violation here. Nor is this content undue, given the extensive coverage over time. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Numerous RS have commented on his history with racially-charged etc remarks and have connected these incidents into a pattern - and thus it is encyclopedic topic. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think it is incredibly biased. Just because almost everyone (including republicans like Paul Ryan) have problems with his statements, and so it is generally negative against trump, doesn't mean it is biased. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the amount of sources on the topic out there is immense. The topic is encyclopedic and helluva more notable than probably a million or two Wikipedia articles. The delete votes appear to be motivated by WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding the kind of content "this invites" - that definitely shouldn't be there - and indeed it isn't there in the article nor will it ever be. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While it is possible that this may be a valid topic in the future, at present we lack secondary sources that tie all these incidents together. Hence it fails notability, and instead is synthesis that connects incidents that Wikipedia editors have deemed relevant in order to prove a thesis, that Trump is a racist. Even if secondary sources could be found, it would be better to blow it up and start again, because it is easier to write a proper article than to correct a hopelessly flawed one. TFD (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about, if anything there is an over abundance of secondary sources that do this? [2]. And there's nothing "hopelessly flawed" about this one either.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Vox^[1] and NYT's Kristoff^[2] Avisnacks (talk) 09:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding on NBC's Duster^[3], Rolling Stone's Berney (2017)^[4] and Fortune's D'Antonio (2016).^[5] starship.paint ~ KO 10:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Four Deuces did you forget WP:BEFORE? Literally the first four references of the article tie these "incident" together. Now that it has been pointed out that your argument is completely fallacious, will you be changing your comment to keep?- MrX 15:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are opinion pieces and hence fail reliability. Furthermore you don't have any sources that establish the weight of these opinions. In a similar vein there have been a number of commentators who have called Trump a fascist, but the History Channel contacted some of the top fascism experts to weigh in on the topic. Obviously an article based on what experts say would read differently from one based on what his detractors say. And it's the same here. TFD (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who would you say are the experts that are suppose to "weigh in" on this topic? This is just an excuse to dismiss reliable sources. Lots and lots of reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that such opinions are from RS is challenged and the challenge is supported by WP:NEWSORG. WP:BLP is also a consideration as are the associated 3 core content policies which are inseparable: NPOV, V and NOR. Of course, NPOV is the dominant policy in this case when speaking to the reliability of opinions published by biased news sources. Any news source that espouses a person is racist based on nothing more than journalistic and non-expert opinions, not to mention the strong possibility such opinions are tainted by political biases, the proper action to take would be to avoid them per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The very term "race" is contested so much, and by some rejected as meaningless, that unless Trump were to write a coherent statement in which he explained what he thought of the term, we would be always hopelessly stuck in following heavily POV-pushing sources that at times speak across each other by using the same term for very different things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnpacklambert, you did it: "The very term "race" is contested so much, and by some rejected as meaningless..." is the most hilarious statement of the day. Yes race as a biological construct is contested by many, esp. by many on the left, who argue that it is biologically meaningless. But sociologically it is not, and denying it is silly. That Trump doesn't understand the first thing about race in any kind of way doesn't mean he doesn't held well-publicized views on race; after all, he had no problem spotting them: "there's my African-American!" One might likewise argue that "religion" is a malleable term and regarded by many as meaningless (in a conceptual, intellectual sense), yet Religious views of Adolf Hitler exists here on Wikipedia, as do article on the religious views of many other celebs. Drmies (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as "POV sources". There are reliable sources and not reliable sources. If a subject is covered widely in reliable sources then it is notable. The fact that YOUJUSTDONTLIKE what reliable sources write is not a valid reason for deletion. Or much of anything on Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is such a thing as POV sources, see WP:BIASED. ^Falling_Gravity 21:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the very link that you provide says that NPOV and "bias" are two different things.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is entirely contrary to WP:V and WP:OR. "Race (and its derivatives) is largely a social construct, but it has a commonly-understood meaning.- MrX 15:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The nomination statement accurately describes the mixture of thoughts I had when stumbling upon the article shortly after its creation. Killiondude (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems to me that the nominating statement is a combination of WP:IDLI and WP:VAGUEWAVE. Can you elaborate to explain how this article doesn't meet our inclusion criteria? - MrX 17:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I appreciate your questioning yet cordial reply. I've read the nom a few times now. It (the nom statement) seems to point toward valid (policy-wise) deletion arguments. The "lacks encyclopedic value" struck home the most. I'm not sure this is worth it's own article. If Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, we should be able to refrain from reporting on every facet of a person's life. Most of this article can be summed up in Donald Trump. After reading what Rusf10 write below, I can also see how the title/topic of the article is illogical. Killiondude (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a pity that while stumbling you didn't happen upon a valid reason for deletion. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• What a fun reply you gave! Killiondude (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - more than enough sources discuss Trump and racism. This goes back to his racist property management issues years ago. POVFORK is a hilarious argument though, if only because it depends on the premise that people want to make an article that doesn't represent the consensus view about the subject. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is highly notable and there are dozens of reportable instances of Donald Trump exuding racism. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 08:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - because racism is so taboo, those who are opposed to the transcription of Trump's racial views attempt to misconstrue the facts, out of all proportion, to fit a non-racist narrative. Perhaps the page could be both improved and made more palatable by broadening it to discuss Trump's heavy reliance on stereotyping in general (which isn't only limited to race but also includes religion and gender). Avisnacks (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename - the name is jarringly ungrammatical. fish&karate 10:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fish and karate: What should we rename it to? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care. fish&karate 11:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Racial views of Donald Trump would be similar but fix grammar issues. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• More sources that discuss these as a group: Associated Press ^[6]; PBS^[7]. All these should be in a reflist at the bottom. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

^ Lopez, German (14 January 2018). "Donald Trump's long history of racism, from the 1970s to 2018". Vox. Retrieved 15 January 2018. ^ Kristof, Nicholas (23 July 2016). "Is Donald Trump a Racist?". New York Times. Retrieved 15 January 2018. ^ Duster, Chandelis (13 January 2018). "Is it finally time to call Trump racist?". NBC News. Retrieved 15 January 2018. ^ Berney, Jesse (15 August 2017). "Trump's Long History of Racism". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 15 January 2018. ^ D'Antonio, Michael (7 June 2016). "Is Donald Trump Racist? Here's What the Record Shows". Fortune. Retrieved 15 January 2018. ^ "Trump's own words revive debate over whether he's racist". AP News. ^ "Every moment in Donald Trump's long and complicated history with race". PBS NewsHour. Archived from the original on January 6, 2018.

• Delete as WP:ATTACK page and unencyclopedic WP:SYNTHESIS effort. Trump's comments about incidents A, B and C can be mentioned in our articles about A, B, and C. And they usually are already prominently featured there, along with reactions to his remarks. — JFG ^talk 16:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Attack pages (i.e. Pages that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced.) should be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G10. Why haven't you nominated it as such? Also, are you able to back up you claim of WP:SYNTHESIS? The first four sources establish that there is a 45 year history of racially-provocative remarks and racially-motivated actions, as detailed throughout the article.- MrX 17:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, a few sources perform the synthesis all by themselves, by threading a few cherrypicked incidents from decades ago to build a narrative of "45 years of racism" (conveniently ignoring all events in Trump's life that show him acting in a racially-neutral way). Then some Wikipedians involved in this article have piled on with their own WP:SYN efforts, imbued with a WP:RGW attitude that transpires in talk page comments; that is not a great start to writing encyclopedic coverage of Trump's "racial views". We might some day write an article about Trump's statements and actions as they pertain to race relations, while including relevant comments from both supporters, opponents and neutral observers. This article is not that: it's a collection of opinions from people accusing Trump of racism, bigotry, antisemitism and whatnot, overreacting to every word he says because they hear "dog whistles": ergo it's still an WP:ATTACK page. The nominator also mentions WP:QUOTEFARM, which is another valid policy reason to delete this page. I'd add WP:TNT given the rather hopeless state of the current effort. — JFG ^talk 16:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

a few sources perform the synthesis all by themselves. That is literally not how WP:SYNTH works, please do not invent arguments. TheValeyard (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don' see that the article is nearly as bad as some are making it out to be. Our guide for determining what content belongs on the article should be the comprehensive source articles that cover his history, good or bad. If there are enough sources that cover his "racially-neutral acts" in the context of Trump's racial views, then those can be included also. Any other issues like excessive quotes or synthesis should be worked out on the article talk page. This is no more of an attack page than Analysis of the Personality of Adolph Hitler or Stalin and antisemitism. - MrX 🖋 17:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of the Personality of Adolph Hitler is the title of a 1943 government report; the article does not itself attempt to discuss Hitler's personality. Psychopathography of Adolf Hitler would be a more appropriate comparison. That article, as well as Stalin and antisemitism, is a legitimate encyclopedic exposé, informed by historiography, decades after the subject's death. On the other hand, Racial views of Donald Trump is motivated by the current news cycle about a controversial living president; as such, it will be harder to keep it neutral and dispassionate. Barring deletion, I predict a messy battleground. We shall see... — JFG ^talk 17:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, somewhat cautiously/reluctantly. I don't buy at all that an article topic "inviting" problematic edits is a reason for deletion, but I do think that we're often too quick to create forks of high-profile topics that receive a new wave of coverage of a different aspect of the subject in every news cycle. Among those possible forks, though, there is a whole lot more coverage of this subject -- over a long period of time and in depth -- than most others such that it seems like one we should have, regardless of how difficult it is and will always be to present this with a NPOV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my position in the nomination, Rhododendrites, I've added an explanation of why I feel the article invites trouble: because it's political, because it's "Racism!", because it's Trump - the terror trifecta that just begs controversy, POV, and bias in the way of content and tone. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wilkelvi: Thanks for adding. I do still reject the notions that (a) problematic editing/editors is a reason for deletion, since we have policies and guidelines to deal with that, and violating those policies (or threats thereof) should never be a way to affect content; and (b) that controversy or accusations of bias by either internal or external voices should likewise affect content that satisfies Wikipedia policies and guidelines (content which doesn't meet PAG should be fixed for that fact, not because it's controversial). I suppose there's an argument about a notable topic that cannot possibly satisfy NPOV, but I'm skeptical of that argument, and don't think this is one of them regardless. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment what does "racial views" mean? FloridaArmy (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  It means "opinions relating to race". It might actually be better to rename the article Donald Trump's opinions relating to race. Yaris678 (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, The article is pretty clearly a WP: coatrack for all the reasons people think he's a racist. A more appropriate name for that article would be "here's why Donald Trump is a racist". And I shouldn't have to point out how an article like that fails WP: NPOV. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, kinda the point is that lots of people do think he is a racist, and many sources detail that, and thus it is significant. Of course, we'd have to include the opinions of people who don't think he is racist. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you do realize that we have a requirement to be impartial in our articles, and an article that is "here's why x is this bad thing" fails being impartial on form. It's like asking the question, When have you stopped beating your wife. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No it's actually nothing like asking that question (because there is a possible "good answer - no, not racist", unlike in the wife beating question). And "impartial" means "as covered in reliable sources", not "what some random Wikipedia user thinks is impartial". Indeed it would be NOT impartial NOT to have this article given how widespread the coverage in reliable sources is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Impartiality doesn't mean "as covered in reliable sources", it means we present things impartially, and do not make arguments. Sources are not required to be impartial and can make arguments. An article structure such as "here's why x is this bad thing" is not impartial, and is making an argument, even if all content is sourced. It's why we don't have "Criticisms of" style articles either, they are inherently loaded and POV. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's pretty much what impartiality means on Wikipedia - reliable sources. And what article are you referring to when you characterize it as "here's why x is this bad thing"? Certainly not this one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See my first comment. The article is pretty much written as "here's why trump is racist". And it's pretty clear you're conflating NPOV with V so there's no reason to try and explain impartiality further with you. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the article does it say "here's why trump is a racist" or anything remotely similar? That seems like a complete strawman, but maybe I missed something.- MrX 21:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I say that it says "here's why trump is a racist". I say it's a coatrack, and written as "here's why trump is racist". --Kyohyi (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page is rather careful about it. Many sources are a lot more explicit and explain why. My very best wishes (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, that's an opinion article. ^Falling_Gravity 21:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyohy:, Are you suggesting that we should write about Trump's racial views without giving any examples of his racial views, even though several of the feature articles used as sources do exactly that. According to the essay you cited, a coatrack is an "article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely". What exactly are these two subjects in this article that different such that you would refer to it as a coatrack? - MrX 22:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't about Trump's racial views, the article is a number of situations in which people have called him Racist. The article would have to identify and focus on his views, y'know describe what they are. It doesn't, race is merely the hook for a coat rack of incidents. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This has signficant coverage in reliable sources. The claim of synthesis is just baffling; the article is not just a compilation of different comments or events — rather, a wide array of published material deals with the topic overall. Similar articles could be written on other presidents (for example, Woodrow Wilson). Surely we have an obligation to write this is a careful way. But we also have an equal obligation to include this topic, and in some detail. Trump is the president of the United States and what he has said and done, or reportedly said and done, is historically significant. Neutrality^talk 18:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Neutrality, starship.paint, and Volunteer Marek. AndrewOne (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep IMO this "shithole" incident, which initiated the development of this article, will turn out to be a historical watershed event. It's been at the top of every news program, on talk news shows almost 24/7, and has been internationally a top news story as well. Dozens of sources are now discussing Trump's long history of racism. If this article is deleted we'd all have to believe that Wikipedia is in serious danger from a very vocal minority. Just like our democracy is. Gandydancer (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - very notable, worldwide major coverage.Smeat75 (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This isn't an opinion piece and Trump's racial views are a perpetual point of contention and debate on both sides of the aisle. I believe that rather than looking at deleting this article, it should be explored if there should be a separate article about his "shithole countries" remark, assuming it does not fall under NOTNEWS. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is inevitably going to be a notable topic, and it makes no difference (or shouldn't make any difference) whether anyone likes that or not. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As a deletionist, not even I can argue for the deletion of this article. President Trump's racist rhetoric has been widely covered not just by the American media, but by world media. As the President of the United States, he ran his campaign under the wagon of prejudice and racism. His racist views preceded his election as President and goes back several decades as evident in the reliable sources cited. I want to make it clear that this article is primarily about his racist views, not his policies in government. His racist views passes the notability test and have received worldwide coverage from independent reliable sources. What I am seeing here is WP:IDLI. This article is well referenced and his views have received worldwide coverage from multiple sources - each addressing his views in detail. If his racist views were not notable enough, they would not have been covered in the magnitude they were covered. I would also like to draw to the attention of the closing admin (and the community) the fact that, his racist views are not a one off or a slip of the tongue (if it was, I would have been more inclined to merge it to his article), but a pattern of behaviour that goes back decades, at least as far back as 1973 when the U.S. Department of Justice brought litigation against him, his father and their company. This pattern of behaviour continued up to his election and thereafter. This article is encyclopedic and I see nothing wrong with it as a stand alone other than "delete because I don't like it". "The point of an encyclopedia is to provide information, not to describe what you "like" or "don't like".31.54.224.18 (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As a deletionist.... Do you have an alternate account you need to disclose? Finding it hard to believe that your 7-hour, 6-edit history is exemplary of a deltionist mindset. TheValeyard (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @TheValeyard, I have been editing and improving English and French Wikipedia since the time of the dinosaurs and long before your current account. I just couldn't be bothered to create an account. My contribution as an IP is not less valid provided I'm not here to cause problems and my rationale for keep is policy based. I draw your attention to IPs are humans too. You might find it a good read. 31.54.224.18 (talk) 09:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• A completely unprovable assertion, I'm afraid. TheValeyard (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - More evidence of Wikipedia's insane liberal bias. The "sources" are a bunch of far-left politicians and partisan pundits crying racism. "Pretty Korean lady" is considered racist? How desperate are some of you? Thismightbezach (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most nonsensical (and blatantly false) comment I've seen at AfD in a looooonnnnggggg time. And that's saying something.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From a well-known insane (but no longer WP:RS) liberal rag: "The African group of ambassadors to the United Nations has issued an extraordinary statement condemning the 'outrageous, racist and xenophobic remarks' by President Donald Trump and demanding a retraction and apology.".

Hurrah for the Blackshirts!. Suck on that. Narky Blert (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- As per nom. This is not only a WP:POVFORK, but falls under WP:SYNTH by stringing together a number of different incidents in which Donald Trump said something that could be perceived as racist and then comes to the conclusion that Donald Trump is a racist. Each incident is already covered in relevant articles. Nothing in the article reflects Trump's own views, which are technically unknown outside of his quote "I am not a racist." Instead the article is about what other people believe his views are. The analysis section is not actually an analysis, its just attack quotes from people like Jim Acosta who has been at odds with Trump since day 1.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The relevant issue is the notability of the general topic of Trump's views on race, not the contents of the current article. Even if Trump's actual views on race cannot be determined with 100% certainty, we can certainly describe what sources have reported about the topic. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not possible to accurately determine what his views on race are, then you can't have an article on his views on race, simple as that. The appropriate name for the article as it currently stands would be "Perception of Donald Trump as a racist by other people" and I don't think I even need to explain why an article with that title wouldn't stand.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can have an article, because Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and we report what they say, simple as that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reliable source that reports what Donald Trump actually thinks about race, as opposed to someone's opinion that he is racist? The only thing I can find is the quote of him saying that he's not a racist. You may or may not believe he is telling the truth, but it is the only statement by him about his racial views. Everything else is someone else's perception of what he said (ie. he said X and I think its racist).--Rusf10 (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Donald Trump has been obsessed with race for the entire time he has been a public figure." More sources cited in the first paragraph of the article, if you need them.- MrX 02:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's an opinion piece and, therefore, not a reliable source. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The question "What is the reliable source that reports what Donald Trump actually thinks about race, as opposed to someone's opinion that he is racist" misunderstands the issue completely. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, we base articles on reliable sources, reporting what they say. We are not meant to be arguing with the sources or using our own views to criticize them, hence the distinction between reliable sources reporting "what Donald Trump actually thinks" and reliable sources reporting someone's opinion about what he thinks is not something we need to worry over. Of course we would give academic sources more weight than newspaper pieces, but that's another matter. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, opinion sources are reliable in many situations if they are attributed. Also these reliable sources:

• A President Who Fans, Rather Than Douses, the Nation’s Racial Fires
• We Must Denounce Trump’s Racist Actions, Not Just His Racist Words
• Is Donald Trump Racist? Here's What the Record Shows
• Trump's Long History of Racism
• Trump’s candidacy and presidency have been laced with racist rhetoric

- MrX 03:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the opinions absolutely can be used as RS per policy, especially if they are published by well known authors and in reputable newspapers, such as NYT. In fact, they are not just expert opinions, but qualify as analyses on the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of you missed my point entirely. You can't title an article "Racial views of Donald Trump" and then write about someone else's view of him rather than his own views. The title of this article is not "Accusations of Donald Trump holding racist views"--Rusf10 (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia's policies, it is perfectly legitimate to write an article about Donald Trump's racial views based on what reliable sources say about those views. You are free to not like that, but simply not liking it doesn't override our policies in a policy-based discussion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about liking it or not, the article title is extremely misleading. You just can't title the article one thing and then right about another. The reliable sources are not about his views, they are about other people's view of him. His views (which is supposed to be the topic of the article) cannot be verified outside of a couple quotes where he says he is not a racist, everything else is just speculation about his views.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please brush up on what a WP:SECONDARY source is. Sources written by other people which discuss his views are secondary sources, which is what we use. Statements from Trump himself are primary sources which we might mention but which are best used in the context of secondary sources. This is precisely what the article does. Your objection is based on a fundamental lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can cut the condescending language. I know the difference between primary and secondary sources. The secondary sources don't describe his views they describe other people views of him. Using your logic I can create Criminal activity of Hillary Clinton because I can find reliable sources that report other people have opined that she broke the law.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments suggest you actually don't know the difference. And hey, if you can find lots of reliable sources on "Criminal activity of Hillary Clinton" (I can't believe someone is still trying to use the "Butter emails!" argument. Seriously, get a new obsession) then let's see them. Otherwise stop making crap up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't like that suggestion, did you? You just revealed your bias. But here's the sources that could be used for that article since you asked: [3] [4] and for balance an opposing viewpoints article [5] Opinions reported by reliable sources. I could synth that together with a couple news reports on the investigation and create an article. It doesn't prove she broke the law, but that's not important, we just need reliable sources reporting that other people think she broke the law. If you want to lower the bar to have a low-quality POV article about one person, then you shouldn't have a problem with another low-quality POV article about someone you like.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't "reveal my bias". I just pointed out how dumb your suggestion was, because it lacked reliable sources. And seriously buddy, NYDailyNews? That's like a definition of not a reliable source. Fox News not much better. If you could "synth" anything, then go ahead - but you really can't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• When people break the law, it's settled in a courtroom. In that case the "Criminal activity of Hillary Clinton" article wouldn't be appropriate without her being found guilty of crimes. On the other hand if you wanted to write "Email activity of Hilary Clinton" go ahead with your sources. starship.paint ~ KO 07:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're 100% correct, it would not be appropriate. And neither is this article for the same reason. It has not been proven that Donald Trump is a racist.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"It has not been proven that Donald Trump is a racist" - what in the world does that have to do with the notability or appropriateness of this article? And still waiting on those reliable sources you promised.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You just dismissed Fox News as not a reliable source, you are blinded by your extreme liberal bias. I also included the op-eds in the New York Times too, to show that the opinions about Hillary Clinton were being reported there too. At the end of the day, that article would be and this article is based purely on POV. Just because the media reports on POV doesn't mean its an encyclopedic topic.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a problem if the article were titled "Donald Trump's Racism" and said that trump was racist. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article clearly comes to the conclusion that Trump is a racist, the title doesn't match the content though.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - biased political opinions and allegation which are unsupported by any sense of logic - politicians gearing up for 2018 elections. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd point out regarding these political bias etc that even Paul Ryan called the mexican judge comment racist etc; it's not just the "liberals" who are calling him racist. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you believe that if you can gather enough opinions in MSM of people calling someone a racist that makes it true, despite proof and hard evidence to the contrary?? Nevermind - rhetorical question - the answer is in plain view. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Think it's time for you to dial it back a tad. None here are arguing that the subj is a racist, nor is there "proof" that the subj is not a racist. The article simply notes the many instances where sources have described what he said as racist. It is not a conclusion drawn, it simply is what it is, notable opinions. TheValeyard (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a valid spinoff per Talk:Donald Trump#Racial views. Covering a notable critical view of a politician's statements does not violate NPOV. –dlthewave ☎ 03:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete or merge into immigration policy Trump related articles. The article title is POV and Trump denies he said it in a racist setting and tone. Pure POV -- delete. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not POV, but anyway, "POV" is NOT, per policy a valid reason for deletion. And if you want to suggest a different title, please do.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest the title change to Shitholegate since this is what the press is calling it now. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could support that. At least the article title would match the subject of the article.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This too is completely false to the extent that it suggests you didn't even read the article. Only about 20% of the article is about the shithole comment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments suggest you didn't read the article either because none of the article is actually about Donald Trump's racial views.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really going to try and use the "I know you are but what am I" argument? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this article would benefit by focusing on the shithole incident instead of trying to criticize stuff throughout Trump’s whole life. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• re-name to Shitholegate and delete the other material. In principle a general article about his views on race works, but not in practice (the opposite of Wikipedia which does not work in principle but works in practice). Consider the lead paragraph following the lead sentence. “In 1973, he was sued by the U.S. Department of Justice for housing discrimination against black renters.[5][6][7]”. No, the family business was sued, for allegedly discriminating, which they denied, and there was a settlement with no admission of wrongdoing, so the quoted sentence is very slanted. “In 2016, he was accused of racism for insisting in 1989, and maintaining as late as 2016, that a group of black and Latino teenagers were guilty of raping a white woman in the 1989 Central Park jogger case even after, in 2002, Matias Reyes, a serial rapist in prison, confessed to raping the jogger alone, and DNA evidence confirmed his guilt.[8][9][10]”. There had been a confession, perhaps coerced, by a guy Trump said was guilty, which is a huge fact in Trump’s favor that is omitted, plus what’s the race of Reyes, is he lily white? So again our sentence is slanted. And, our Wikipedia article about the case says, “Between 9 and 10 pm on the night of April 19, 1989, approximately 30 teenage perpetrators committed several attacks, assaults, and robberies in the northernmost part of Manhattan's Central Park” so why are we implying that only one man was involved? “In 2011, he became the leading proponent of the already discredited conspiracy theory that President Barack Obama was not born in the US, and he repeated the false claim for the next five years”. Trump’s main point was that Obama should release his birth certificate, and after Obama did so Trump and many millions of Americans looked at it and concluded Obama was eligible to the presidency. So the lead looks quite slanted to me, and omits anything that might lead a reader to think, hey, maybe he’s not a racist. I take no position about whether he is or not, but this BLP obviously takes a position and pushes it quite hard. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC) Edited.06:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Just saying Trump didn't let up after the birth certificate was released. [6] Not in 2012, 2013, 2015. starship.paint ~ KO 07:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Trump was proud of having gotten the certificate released and later reminded people about it. None of it would have happened if more than one of Obama’s parents had been a U.S. citizen, which this article of course does not mention because the POV being pushed here is that it was all a racial issue rather than a citizenship issue. Tell that to the very white President Chester Arthur who was hounded for his birth certificate too because his father (also very white) was not a U.S. citizen. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What??? You really gonna make excuses for racist birther conspiracies? "Oh they didn't mean it that way, they were just concerned about his parents, look at the case of Chester Arthur"? Seriously? Gimme a break.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The conspiracy theory is that everyone who was grateful Obama released the certificate is a racist. RACIST, RACIST, RACIST! Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the conspiracy theory you're defending is that the motivation of the people who attacked Obama was some genuine concern about his parents and some... bullshit about Chester Arthur. It wasn't. The motivation for vast majority of them was... racism. And yeah, you can try to trivialize it by mocking the allegation with your "RACIST, RACIST, RACIST" troll (and doing that is itself sort of fucked up) but guess what? The shoe fits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The people pushing the birth certificate bullshit conspiracy were motivated by pure, naked racism.[7][8] - MrX 🖋 17:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone who wanted Obama to release the certificate was a racist. Obama himself ultimately wanted to release it, so in your analysis he is either racist or pandered to racists. This article is 75% POV-pushing. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should really stop now. Obama "wanted" to release the certificate only to put the stupid racist conspiracies to rest. The people who claimed that Obama was not a citizen and "wanted" (see this is how you do false equivocation - use the same word but with two different meanings) him to release the certificate were motivated by racism. "In my analysis" my butt. Comparing Obama's motivation to that of racist a-holes who spread this bullshit around is, like I said, messed up. You really really need to stop with excuse-for-racist-theories nonsense, because you're not making yourself look good.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VM, I think hell would freeze over before you allow this article to convey the stated motivation of the Trump camp: “Mr. Trump did a great service to the President and the country by bringing closure to the issue....” As for peer pressure and political correctness, may they never rule Wikipedia. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't peer pressure or political correctness. Not defending racist conspiracy theories is just common decency and a good upbringing. (also portraying the case of Obama being diplomatic, grown up and stoic about the attacks on himself as him actually giving credence to these racist theories is not only a ton of bullshit, it is also very low).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"closure to issue" - wow, like a bully saying "i did a great service to the kid I bullied by making them change schools to where they are not bullied". This article shouldn't convey that stated motivation; all it can do is quote that stated motivation if DUE + including caveats if RS include them. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely condemn the racists who were surely meddling in that controversy, just like I condemn those who use guilt by association to tar others who were involved in it. We already have an article devoted to this subject, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, how many more do we need? This article is a POV fork just like it would be if titled “All the really rotten things about Trump”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, there weren't just a couple racists "meddling" in that "controversy", the whole thing was a racist conspiracy theory. But hey, maybe in reality, or at least according to you these people were actually concerned about the legitimacy of the Chester Arthur presidency (sic!) from the 19th century. And it wasn't a "controversy" but a straight up conspiracy theory who anyone with a shred of decency tried to debunk. But I guess "there were good people on both sides", ey? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last comment here, so take the last word if you like. You can even be dishonest again if you want (I never remotely said anything about a “couple” racists). You allude to Charlottesville. I think the mayor of Charlottesville is a good person, and at the time of that controversy he supported keeping the Lee statue there. But we already established above that hell would freeze over before anything other than anti-Trump info goes into this BLP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the very fact that people are even questioning the notability of this article pretty much puts the whole notion of "liberal bias" on Wikipedia to rest. If Wikipedia can't have an article on one of the most reported and commented aspects of a US presidency because it hurts some people's feelings, then we actually have the opposite problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This all falls with in the guidelines of a WP:SIZESPLIT. Be it from the Trump article, Political positions of Donald Trump, or Immigration policy of Donald Trump. There's some editorializing that should probably be dealt with. At the very least a conversation should be opened about renaming as I don't feel this is a case for a common name under WP:POVNAME. This may also be the most NPOV name possible but thats a discussion for a talk page. I can't justify a deletion here. It doesn't seem to be a POVFORK.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Very notable subject with myriad RS covering it. Our job is to document that coverage. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm on the fence on this one but, ultimately, leaning towards delete. The article seems closing on OR in that several incidents are strung together under a single title without multiple RS connecting them under the common theme of the article. Chetsford (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is false - there is a TON of "multiple RS connecting them under the common theme of the article". For example [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it was only created 5 days ago. It's going to go through many changes before it reaches an agreed-upon final structure, or even definitions. Also, I suggest renaming it something broader like Social divisiveness under... Fishlandia (talk) 08:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep reluctantly - The only reason this "article" (too many issues to genuinely call it that) was created rests solely on Trump's recent "sh*thole" remark; naturally, enough editors will believe this news story needs a page in some form. However, I'm not entirely sure if the article creator even knows what this article is about. An actual article about Trump's racial views would have the reported views of, well, Trump, not every account when someone believes he was being racist -- all loosely strung together. We may as well call this article "Instances when Donald Trump was racist" because that is the POV being pressed here. Would actually waiting for scholarly sources a few years from now have ultimately resulted in an actual encyclopedic article? Absolutely, but unfortunately that is not the encyclopedia editors seem to want to work toward.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you have not actually read the sources. SYNTH applies to when editors connect a+b+c etc. It does not apply when RS do the same. And since there are multiple RS that explicitly connect his racist acts/views over the years - going back to his refusing to rent property to black people - its not a valid argument. This has been pointed out at least 2 or 3 times above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assume all you want Only in death; it doesn't make your statement any more correct. I'd be more interested in your opinion to my full argument, not one part you thought you could rebuttal.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you read the sources that explicitly linked the racial attacks, policies, statements then you don't understand WP:SYNTH. Article should be 'Donald Trump and Racism' based on the content. An article on 'Donald Trump racial views' would consist of 'Donald Trump says he isn't racist, heres a list a mile long of sources that say why he is wrong, and why his views are racist'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly keep: The article is well-written and formatted, and everything is reliably sourced. I don't see a bias in it and any claim there is one is like saying that the article on the German invasion of Poland in 1939 is biased because it says that Germany invaded Poland in 1939. Though I'd propose a page move to "Donald Trump's racial views" since that'd be more grammatically correct. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 09:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Falling Gravity, how many articles on Trump do we need Darkness Shines (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, we would have a lot less if he kept his mouth shut. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or rename to "Analysis of Donald Trump's racial history" or something. This article does not do a good job of conveying his stated views, but seems to be media analysis of some of his statements. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Ernie, you're right that it's not really about Trump's racial views. Your suggestion to rename it to Analysis of Donald Trump's racial history or something similar has merit. It really is about the history.- MrX 🖋 15:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"This article does not do a good job of conveying his stated views, but seems to be media analysis of some of his statements." Yes, instead of simply describing "his stated views" (i.e. his views based on his own statements which are primary sources), this page describes his views based on secondary publications in media. That is exactly as it suppose to be. My very best wishes (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep article per multiple reliable sources covering this exact subject. Better to split it out of main article to avoid undue weight. Title might still need tweaking. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -but re-title. The Title seems off, but the article's sources are solid as Sarek stated before me. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Cobbling together the remarks from sources to try to paint a picture (and there is a clear picture being attempted) ends with SYNTH and POV pushing. I'm not even a fan of the guy, but I can see the POV being advanced. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One more time. There's no "cobbling together". There are many many reliable sources which discuss the entirety of his views in a full context. This is another comment which either didn't bother reading the actual article or read it and decided to pretend it's something it's not (i.e. strawman).Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Glad you decided to ignore good faith. I read the article, I just don't agree with you. Maybe that's a difficult concept for you to grasp. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Providing a 40-year history with reliable sources is not cobbling together sources to paint a picture. If there is something missing from this article that would show Trump in some other way, supported by a reliable source, please add it! —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll give your opinion all the weight it merits. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If that's your response to editors refuting your argument by pointing out that the sources are the cobblers, then you should not be participating in AfD. This point has been made (with sources) several times in this discussion. That degree of WP:IDHT is astonishing.- MrX 🖋 22:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• And I'll give your opinion all the weight it merits as well. I'm so happy you know how to wikilink favorite. The fact that you completely miss the fact that these "sources" cobbled together the material just to push an agenda doesn't surprise me. Then again, since I don't answer to you or place any value on your opinion, further explaination is pointless. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There was an earlier and ongoing discussion on this article before this AFD at WP:BLP/N. --Masem (t) 17:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is it encyclopedic? No. Just because numerous allegations have been published in center-left news sources, it doesn't automatically grant inclusion in WP. It's nothing more than politically based allegations based on opinions, innuendo and speculation with zero factual evidence. I'm still waiting for proof of Russian collusion...where is it? Embarrassing is the best word I can think of to describe it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are several cleanup things that need to happen, but editors at the BLP/N discussion have noted that there are RSes that have done such lists of events where Trump appeared racist, justify that this list is reasonable. But I do concern about its presentation that should be broader about how he has seemed racist (from sources) his career, and that the same type of concerns we worry about with "Criticism of X" articles be kept here - eg , if Trump or other appropriate voices have countered these claims, this needs to be included to be neutral, etc. --Masem (t) 17:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a highly notable topic. A Google search for "african union trump racist" yielded 1.98M hits, from all around the world, and just about every one on the first two pages is a WP:RS news source. The exception is The Sun; and anyone who thinks that is a left-wing publication knows nothing about the UK press. (It's owned by Rupert Murdoch.)

I haven't studied the article for WP:POV and WP:OR, but neither is a reason for deletion if the topic is notable. Issues of that sort can be dealt with by editing towards consensus. Narky Blert (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming reasonable people would want to touch that screwy article with a 10-foot pole. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Assuming reasonable people would want to touch that screwy article with a 10-foot pole."

I assume, then, that you have never tried to correct a straightforward typo on one of those Middle East-related pages which cannot be edited by WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED editors, who have to ask on the Talk Page for someone else to do it. If you think this page is contentious, you have seen nothing. Narky Blert (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: it's only a collection of random events if Wikipedia:Reliable sources haven't connected them. They have. The sheer number of them rates an article. --GRuban (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although this is a very controversial topic, I have faith in the Wikipedia community maintaining a strong and NPOV page. This is not only a very controversial topic, but also one that is the focus of many debates in the media and thus relevant to many of our readers-- making it all the more imperative to have an encompassing, representative, and NPOV page. Editors who believe the page to have problems should work to fix them.--Calthinus (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It is a valid topic for an encyclopedia; it's useful to have the history, scope and details in one coherent article. Encyclopedic, notable, verifiable. What's not to like? —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Extensive RS coverage. Long-term encyclopedic value, as this is a subject of interest and scholarship for future generations. I'm actually pleasantly surprised to see that this article exists, as I've been stumbling on extensive sources that would be worthwhile for inclusion on this subject, but I never bothered adding them to the existing 'Political positions of Donald Trump' article (or its forks) because the subject is too long to tack onto already-enormous articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have been a regular at the Donald Trump biography page and related pages for several years. Repeatedly during that time there have been suggestions to say something about his (let’s call them) controversial views and actions toward minorities. Up to now those suggestions have always been rejected as undue or inappropriate. Yes, here on “liberal” Wikipedia, consensus has kept this kind of material out of Donald Trump for several years. But with the explosion of coverage over the past week, consensus had to change in the face of the overwhelming amount and intensity of Significant Coverage by Multiple Reliable Sources. That coverage included not just “I condemn this” quotes or opinion pieces, but multiple mainstream pieces pulling together his long history of such comments into a coherent narrative. This has transformed from an occasional incident into a well documented pattern. There was once a time to object to this article; that time is past. --MelanieN (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- If anyone has any doubt about how politically motivated this article is see the discussion at Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump#Allegedly The current article presents Trump's "shithole" remark as fact (in quotes) when what he said is actually disputed, not only by him but by other people who were there.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of "politically motivated", that right there is a pretty inaccurate description of the situation. And actually the article DOES include all the denials, the can't recalls-later-changed-to-denials-later-changed-to-semantic-games and all that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this has nothing to do with notability and reasons for deletion or lack thereof. Keep it at the appropriate talk page please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are definitely a few editors that I see scanning the talk pages that appear acting as righting great wrongs (eg "Trump is a very bad and evil person, we need to point out every flaw"-type logic), and that's not helpful to the development of the article. But there ware also several editors without any apparent bias goal, and from this AFD and BLP/N, there's definitely objective reasons to keep the article given the weight sources have given the topic. There's a lot of proverbial landmines in how the article can be built, and things that should be done, but that's cleanup, and not an AFD reason. --Masem (t) 14:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete:Disgusting partisan attack creation. Govindaharihari (talk) 09:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: POV-fork, coatrack. The entire point of the article seems to be to advance the POV that Trump is racist. -109.40.3.65 (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)— 109.40.3.65 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Not at all, the article allows for claims that Trump is not a racist, so why not edit the article to reflect Trump's love for all humanity? If they are referenced, of course. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deletion is not for topics that are controversial and difficult to ensure neutrality over. If anything this is a topic where the world expects Wikipedia to cover with more nuance than partisans of either side might like. ϢereSpielChequers 14:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are biased news sources that support the politicial opposition, the article reads like an attack page with unproven allegations of racism, and it doesn't matter how many unfounded opinions are published, we are expected to comply with WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:ATTACK. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, it's been repeatedly pointed out to you that "biased" does not actually mean "anything that Atsme doesn't like". You're always welcome to take up the reliability of individual sources at WP:RSN, but here there are so many you'd be wasting your time. You'd also be wasting your time because what you regard as "biased" is very different from what Wikipedia regards as bias.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Biased news sources - I mean there are enough reliable sources that are not opinion pieces that this deserves an article; whether you or I or whoever thinks they are biased is irrelevant. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources are not required to be unbiased. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We do want independent sources for notability/verifyability and NPOV, regardless of bias. That's not an issue here (the article has many) but for example, if this article could only be built from the sources on Trump's media "blacklist", like WaPost or CNN, that would pose the independence problem. Again, this is not the case here; the source range is very broad. --Masem (t) 15:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting point, possibly one unique to this BLP subject. The words of the President of the US have historically carried a great deal of weight, and when this one yells "fake news" and targets WaPo and CNN specifically, it can color their coverage of him in turn and make it less reliable for use in the Wikipedia. What happens when or if the President widens that scope, perhaps even deliberately so? It would become some sort of meta-well-poisoning. We are truly living in strange times. TheValeyard (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, the media negativity reaches far beyond just WaPo and CNN, and I imagine that after the "Fake News Awards" are announced tonight, (surely it's a comedy), the current 90% negativity may jump another 2%. Some members of MSM published articles about Trump's negative media coverage: NPR, Chicago Tribune, Washington Times. The problem with this article is the misalignment with WP:BALANCE and WP:WEIGHT, but you could say it maintains a sense of consistency with most of the other Trump articles in that it cites primarily news sources, and includes allegations based on unproven media opinions, inunendo, misinformation/disinformation, political bias and speculation, such as the Trump-Russia collusion. Based on my own experiences, attempts to add factual material citing center-right sources in a Trump article may require a bit of wizardry. If we're going to create POV Forks based on color, why not focus on the color Trump likes most...GREEN?! 😂 ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And based on my experience what YOU consider "center right" sources are wacky far right conspiracy websites, and what you consider "leftist" sources are traditional, centrist outlets. And what is the point of this comment anyway? What are you talking about? And seriously, you're sort of giving away the fact that you're here with an WP:AGENDA by throwing this term "MSM" around so casually. You don't like mainstream sources? Fine. Go to a webpage where fringe and wacky sources serve as basis for content. But that ain't here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VM, remove the word "YOU" from your comments and focus on the topic if you want me to engage in a discussion with you or please just don't address me at all. Last time I looked, your user name wasn't spelled M-A-S-E-M which is who I was addressing, but now that you've cast some mighty hefty aspersions against me, I'll respond in defense. I don't cite wacky anything and any attempt to deny that the racial allegations being made against Trump are cited primarily to biased sources is wishful thinking. I don't have an agenda, and I don't promote anything but NPOV and maintaining quality articles in WP. Good day. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at my comment again: I stressed that this current article was fine because a broad number of sources have pointed to this that there are sufficient independent sources to overcome a bias from a dependent source. Yes, many show clear dislike for Trump, but not all are as engaged with fighting Trump as some like the WaPost that Trump has specifically called out and are not happy with being called out. I only suggested a hypothetical situation in response to OID's comment about bias, where if it were only dependent sources, like the WaPost due to this, being used for sourcing and there was no other sourcing, this would be a problematic article due to the dependent bias. But I am asserting that this is not an issue with the current article as is; there may be broad media bias, but it is sufficiently covered through independent sources. --Masem (t) 19:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also to reiterate from my previous !vote - there are no question some content issues, and some POV lines being crossed. But AFD is not cleanup - the question asked is that is the topic of Donald Trump's racial views notable and can be pulled together without engaging in synthesis, and the answer is yet - there are sources from RSes that cover Trump's racial views throughout his career. I fully agree not every incident on this page currently is appropriate, and it needs a more neutral approach, but that's not the question to ask at AFD. --Masem (t) 19:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Masem, but I was asking in the context of WP:Attack page which states: ...a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced. Also, the argument could be made per WP:BIASED Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...". Read the lede. I'm hard-pressed to see this article's purpose as anything other than to disparage. Further, If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists primarily of attacks against the subject or a living person, and there is no neutral version in the history to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place. This is especially important if the page contains biographical material about a living person. I just felt the policy presented a pretty convincing argument. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an attack page. It does not "primarily exist". It's no "unsourced or poorly sourced". At some point this becomes WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:TEND.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has a very easy potential to be an attack page if editors aren't careful, and I fully agree there's content that should be added, as we would with a "Criticism of X" article, to make sure that we're presented the best set of views from reliable sources including any counter-points made by Trump or spokespersons. --Masem (t) 22:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If Religious views of Adolf Hitler exists, I see no reason why Racial views of Donald Trump should be deleted. Further, this is a notable subject which received plenty of coverage from reliable third party sources. Just because some don't like it does not mean it should be deleted. Wikipedia is not here to cater to your feelings. We can't keep changing the rules just to fit some people's political agenda.Senegambianamestudy (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huge difference between that article and this one. Hitler's religious views are well-documented through his speeches and writings. His views have been studied by academics for years. In this article, we have content that is based off of a bunch of media reports that have a political motivation to claim Trump is racist.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're being slightly disingenuous, the article is based on "a bunch of media reports" dating back to 1973, not just a random collection of recent reports. These are reliable sources that are used, there is no motivation to "claim" anything. Trump's words are Trump's words, no one made him say them. TheValeyard (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ Rusf10 So is Mr. Trump's racist views. We go by sources here. If you have an issue, take it to the appropriate board or go and tell Mr Trump to shut his gob. We can't keep jumping hula hoops just because an article is too sensitive and offends your sense and sensibilities. This project is called Wikipedia, not "Nanny-pedia." The nomination of this article is not based on one justifiable Wiki policy. It is politically driven as evident throughout these discussions. I don't have time for such foolishness. Is this Wikipedia or "Poli-pedia?" If Wiki is now a political tool, then I want my money back. I have gone through some of the delete arguments and I have never seen such foolishness. One of which mentions left bias. Is this for real? i am not an American and do not have time for the left or right silly games some play down there. Why does it always have to be a left or right thing? Why is it never the centre? Why does it even have to be a left or right thing? Some people are using Wiki as a political tool and I find that worrying. Senegambianamestudy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If your trying to make the argument that because your not American, your opinion must be neutral, that's garbage. I don't care what country you're from or what your political beliefs are, but you still have a clear bias here when you are comparing Trump to Hitler. The issue is biased sources are being used that blur opinion and fact. Like this Washington Post source that is used in the article [16]. 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. And I know someone is going to say "We at wikipedia regard the Washington Post as a reliable source. How dare you attack them" To be clear, I am not suggesting never using the Washington Post as a source, but that particular article is junk. 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? Because of that article and a few others quoting Trump through unnamed sources, we're now told it is a fact and using a word like "allegedly" is a misrepresentation because reliable sources are reporting it as a direct quote. The media relies a lot on unnamed sources , especially in recent years. I don't know what Trump said, I wasn't there, its very possible that he said exactly what was quoted, but no one knows (except for the unnamed sources, who absolutely should be named in this article). The person who wrote the Washington Post article really doesn't know either, but they want you to believe that they do. The "shithole" incident was the inspiration for this article and the other incidents (which each taken by themselves do not necesarily show racism) are strung toether as WP:SYNTH to come to the conclusion that Donald Trump is a racist (something that you yourself clearly believe). The people using wikipedia as a political tool are the ones who wrote this article.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Regardless of the initial report of anonymous sources, there were later named sources 1. Senator Durbin has been quoted as agreeing that Trump had said shithole. 2. Senator Tim Scott said that Senator Graham confirmed the media reports of shithole as basically accurate. starship.paint ~ KO 07:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Approximately six million dead Jewish people killed because of Hitler's views on their religion are reasons to question your competence in determining similarities. The disparity in notability is a reason to delete, not keep. Equating them clearly diminishes the evil inflicted by Hitler's antisemitism and is quite offensive. --DHeyward (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Rusf10. Wikipedia does not go by facts/truth or what you believe the facts are. We go by sources here, reliable sources at that. By your own rationale, you are pushing OR. If you have a problem with the sources, take it to the appropriate board.

@DHeyward, Emotional blackmail does not work on Afd and certainly does not work with me. I find it a real turn off and you won't get any sympathy from me. If you have a problem understanding my statement, I rather you ask me for clarification rather than misrepresenting me above and below. The key word here is "views" - notable views at that, and both views are notable. As I and other editors have noted, those screaming for the deletion of this article are merely doing so because they don't like it. You have just proven this point. I do not have time for such foolishness. If you are going to ask for an article to be deleted, do it on policy, not on emotions. I have no time for emotional rants. I do not have time to be listening to sob stories. If you want an article deleted, convince me based on policy, not emotional blackmail. This is Afd. If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as obvious attack page. It's a misnomer and an example of opinion cruft and WP:NOT. The accurate conglomeration is really "What other people think Trumps views of race are." It's as fact based as such other articles like "Race and Intelligence" and come from the basest views of contributors attracted to the topic. There are no winners, least of all the reader, and if Trump has policies regarding civil rights, immigration or other programs that touch on race, they should be integrated into those articles rather than arguing (as I just read in the discussion) how it relates to Hitler. If there's a corollary to Godwin's law for Wikipedia, it's that an article should be deleted when the discussion devolves into mentioning Hitler. It's the clearest sign that a topic is not based on sources, facts or truth but feelings of editors supported by opinions they agree with. --DHeyward (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward, welcome back from your short retirement! Can you please explain how you believe this article a) "exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject"; or b) "is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced."? So far, no one claiming this is an WP:ATTACK page has been able to do so, but perhaps you can enlighten us.- MrX 🖋 13:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MrX. Can you please stop bludgeoning editors who comment at AfDs and RfCs related to Donald Trump? That would be fantastic. Thanks! -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winkelvi: Respectfully, I don't believe I'm bludgeoning anyone, but if you think my conduct is out of order, may I suggest you raise it at WP:ANI?- MrX 🖋 14:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The naming choice thus far are sub-par but that can be discussed on the talk page later. From housing issues in the 70s though the birther stuff to pretty much everything Trump has said about Mexicans, his unacceptable opinions, actions, and words have been characterized as racist on numerous occasions by a lot of reliable sources. Too much for the bio and extends beyond politics so not appropriate for a political positions article. ValarianB (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:POVFORK and WP:COATRACK. I don't edit political articles, but it is difficult enough to patrol and settle disputes without fresh new articles that are designed specifically to divide people. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All political subjects are divisive to some degree. It does not mean we should not have pages about them. Was this page created by Steve Quinn specifically to divide participants of the project? I do not think so. My very best wishes (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being divisive doesn't mean that valid articles should be deleted. Multiple people have mentioned POVFORK, yet essentially the same POV is present in the main Donald Trump article in its section.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And none of that overcomes WP:POVFORK and WP:COATRACK. The divisive nature may explain it's creation, but that wasn't the policy based reason I gave for deletion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Brown, I don't see that either of those apply. A POV fork is a fork designed to advance the POV of an editor or group of editors. A google news search for "donald trump" "racism" (link) returns over 2.5 million hits. Bear in mind that this is a news search and both terms are required to be in the result in order to return it. Even a much more strict term, like "Trump is racist" (link) returns well over a hundred thousand hits. And again; that's a news search, not a general search.

As to it being a coatrack... A coatrack is an article that is not actually about it's nominal subject. What, exactly, do you think this article is about, if not about the racial views of Donald Trump? That is a serious question, by the way, not a rhetorical device. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dennis Brown in that POVFORK and COATRACK are indeed issues. I agree for the most part with Masem when he said above, "there are no question some content issues, and some POV lines being crossed." I presume he was referring to balance; however, WP:BALANCE states (my bold underline): The idea expressed in meta:Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. This article is noncompliant with BLP. In its current state it is an attack page beginning with the first sentence written in Wikivoice: "...has a history of making racially-charged remarks and taking actions perceived as racially-motivated." Opinions are not facts, and we don't write opinions in Wikivoice. Per policy it should either be deleted or reduced to a stub until a neutral version can be written. The lede is what shows up in the Google searches, and as MOS confirms, a reader may not read beyond the lede. Full sections in the body are cherrypicked and include sections that don't represent the "Donald Trump racial views", rather they represent the opinions of others. If the article is not deleted, at the very least it should be retitled, reduced to a stub per policy, and rewritten in compliance with NPOV including in-text attribution to the source as relative to the questionable biased sources that have been cited. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, so much wrong in the above. 1. He has a history of making 'racially charged' and outright racist statements. This is backed up by multiple reliable sources. It can be stated as fact in wikivoice if we felt like it. As it stands its almost always attributed. This is not a BLP issue. 2. A POVFORK is where an article is created to fork off a POV that is counter to either what is in the article or the general consensus of reliable sources. It is not when the same POV in the article is expanded in a larger article. Unless you are going to genuinely claim that the consensus is not that Trump makes racist statements, has supported racist political policies and has been accused over a period of 30 years of racially-related actions? 3. COATRACK is where an article is supposedly about one thing but is actually filled with information about another. This is clearly not the case here. 4. BALANCE is where reliable sources contradict each other. Again this requires that there actually is disagreement in reliable sourcing about his racial views. So to sum up: You dont understand POVFORK or COATRACK, BLP is satisfied by reliable sourcing and widespread coverage. And you seem to be saying that the various events in the article are either not racist, or that there is a parity of reliable sourcing that agrees they are not racist. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I should point out that when someone rebuts a number of claims, responding by saying that you agree with those claims does nothing to support them. As to the actual argument you presented, allow me to summarize what OiD and others have said countless times here: Donald trump absolutely and without question has made a large number of racially charged remarks. That is -in no way- an opinion. If you disagree, you are denying reality. "Donald Trump is racist" could be argued to be an opinion, as we have no way of proving that his thoughts align with his words and actions, but for all intents and purposes, that is also a well-supported fact. Despite that, you might note that the article never actually goes so far as to call Trump racist. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it is stated policy in WP:NPOV (my bold underline): Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." That is policy - thank you and good day. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you didn't actually respond to what I said. It's not an opinion that Trump has made racially charged statements. It's a verifiable fact. And right below that quote you pulled, it says in big, bold words: "Avoid stating facts as opinions." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll explain it all to you on my TP - don't want to make this AfD any longer than it needs to be. 😉 ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was an excellent point by two contributors above: this is all a matter of fact. He said what he said, and this is fact. Even more importantly, what he said has became a matter of official policies, which is also a matter of fact. My very best wishes (talk) 03:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Classic double entendre - JD: "I got slapped with a trout!" Friend asks: "Where?" JD responds: "Down by the river." Friend asks, "No, where on your body were you slapped?" Here's another thought: Politician "A" says, "Even as we are a nation of immigrants, we’re also a nation of laws. Undocumented workers broke our immigration laws, and I believe that they must be held accountable, especially those who may be dangerous." Opposition responds: "You're a racist!" Now you tell me, is the opposition stating a fact or his opinion? ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This page only tells the following: (a) the subject made such and such comments (yes, he said it; this is a matter of fact), and (b) his comments have received such and such response from the public, media, other politicians, etc. (yes, they said it, this is also a matter of fact; no one tells the opinions are the absolute truth). In addition to the statements/views, the page should also includes materials about certain actual policies by the administration, and these policies are also a matter of fact, even if some of them have been eventually rejected. Surprisingly, it does not include much about the actual policies. I think it should. My very best wishes (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes, the question was simply whether or not the opposition's response, "You're a racist!" is a statement of fact or is it opinion based on Politician A's comment about law-breaking undocumented workers being held accountable? A simple yes or no answer will do. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sufficiently documented racism with sufficient impact to warrant its own article. Artw (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the level of coverage worldwide. It would be remiss of us not to document this subject, and given the amount of coverage, it would be almost as remiss of us to relegate said coverage to acceptable-length sections or subsections on different pages. The "delete" have thus far been highly unconvincing, and as strongly partisan as any split I've seen, with such insanely obvious falsehoods as claiming that the article comes to conclusions it doesn't come to, that the article is a work of synthesis, and that the existence of the article is an attack on Trump. If Trump hadn't opened his big mouth and made so many objectively (and so many more arguably) racist comments in the public view over the course of his life, then the RSes would never have given it so much coverage that we couldn't help but write an article on it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Subject has received significant worldwide coverage, and is far too large at this point to document in a section of an article. It needs its own article. Concern about this seems to stem from WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than any policy-based view. Smartyllama (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Every time he says anything about race it makes the news for days. And yes much that he says about race is overtly racist and his life long habit of this should be noted. Bojackh (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Trump's racist remarks have become common and prominent and he blatantly used them to gather supporters. Perhaps we should compromise and change this article's name to Donald Trump racial controversies. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Compromise"? You just unilaterally changed the article title with zero discussion. As I just stated on your talk page, you need to revert. Immediately. If you want to change the article title, it needs to be discussed at the article talk page. WP:BRD is one thing, what you just did, considering this AfD and the heated discussion at the article's talk page was turn the 'D' for "discuss" into 'D' for "disruptive". -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:POVFORK Also, if this is to stay, I better get working on 44 articles for every other president. This is simply not encyclopedic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ral 33 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not saying there is reason to keep this article, I don't think it automatically follows the existence of articles for one president means there should be articles for another. We have articles George Washington and slavery, Thomas Jefferson and slavery and Abraham Lincoln and slavery. (We also have Alexander Hamilton and slavery.) It may be there is justification for some other US presidents. However this doesn't mean we should have an article Ronald Reagan and slavery or Bill Clinton and slavery. Nil Einne (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am running Google search for exact match "Bill Clinton and slavery" [17] - this is zero. "Donald Trump and racism" - 289,000 [18], with top hit by MSNBC entitled "White House simply can't overcome Trump's racist presidency" [19]. My very best wishes (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Benon, (he is not even notable ehought to have a wikipedia biography) is about as opponionated biased anti trump source as you could find. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, it's Steve Benen.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Ultimately I'm just not convinced this is the best way to cover these statements as opposed to mentioning them in other sub-articles. Nil Einne (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the other sub-articles? They're huge. In fact, the consensus to create this article initially arose precisely because the info could not fit in a parent-article. (This is a "sub article", btw).Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editors can always remove the disproven WP:RECENTISM material to make room. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Lack of status and recency are not valid reasons from removing content that otherwise meets WP:V and WP:DUEWEIGHT, and has consensus for inclusion.- MrX 🖋 18:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the consensus qualifier, MrX. My reason for providing the wikilink to RECENTISM was because, as most will notice, it is an explanatory supplement to WP:NPOV, WP:N, and WP:NOT policies, any one of which may provide valid reasons for removal of content that do not meet policy requirements. Perhaps more solid arguments for removal can be found in the sub-articles of former presidents. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ultimately many article particularly on politicians will be large if we include every single thing that blew up at one time. We cannot, do not and should not include every such things but need to keep stuff which are most relevant. We can use RS to help use determine such. For example, if almost no RS mention the thing after 6 months, then it's likely not of great relevance. And if you accept that consensus is required to keep every single thing that blew up at one time, even if everyone has forgotten about them in 6 months, then you accept that me saying that I do not believe that we should be including such things is one sign there may be no consensus. Nil Einne (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Trump's well-documented obsession with race has already had far-reaching consequences, not least changing the political landscape domestically, and significantly damaging the international profile of the country. zzz (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that was possibly planned (just one of many refs). Stirring up racial tensions in the United States has been always a part of Active_measures#Against_the_United_States. My very best wishes (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Since this appears to be the only article on Wikipedia with a title Racial views of ... Faolin42 (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...and that is a valid reason for deletion because? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can start with the fact that this article is not about the views of Trump rather it is about the views of his detractors who consider Trump a racist based on what they believe is racism. Those opinions have been published in biased news sources by journalists who are part of the 90% who have been writing mostly negative articles about Trump, most apparently for political reasons, which is why we should more closely follow the guidelines in WP:NEWSORG. I've already provided the applicable policies that I believe warrants a Speedy Delete of this article per WP:ATTACK, although some don't interpret those policies or this article the same way. There is no question that Trump is disliked by many in MSM and there is undeniably a concerted effort to "resist" by Trump's political opposition. I and others have noticed some keep comments that appear more like attempts to right great wrongs. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since this appears to be the only article on Wikipedia with a title Racial views of ... Yes, because this is the only case in recent history when things like that became so significant nationally and internationally to receive very wide coverage in sources. Journalists do not just publish accusations. They report on the subject, at least for as long as they publish in reputable newspapers. And there is a strong and broad consensus of sources published in many countries on this subject. My very best wishes (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MVBW, when you get a chance, read the following reports about today's journalism as reported by journalists:National Review, The Guardian, USA Today. Enjoy! ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not telling that every single publication must be trusted (of course not) and that there is no bias in media. But speaking of opinions, everyone has an opinion, and this is good. What matters is not "neutrality" of an author but his or her expertise. Actually, a personal opinion by an expert is highly valuable. That has been recognized long time ago in natural sciences. Hence we have the large series of scientific review journals in Current Opinion (Elsevier). And remember that all notable opinions/views should be reflected per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per User:Gandydancer.– Gilliam (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gilliam, that's really nice of you. But you know what, even as I wrote "watershed moment" I cringed and knew it most likely was not as he's had just one rock bottom moment after the other and I see no end in sight. This incident will fade just like all the others. All the more reason for the importance of this article - even if the best we can do is to just document them. Gandydancer (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this topic is extensively covered in multiples and multiples of reliable sources. Wikipedia articles report only what reliable sources say. Sometimes controversial topics are covered on Wikipedia as a result. This is one of those, while satisfying WP:NPOV, WP:NRV, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Guys (and gals [and gender-nonconforming individuals]), let me just say: bludgeoning doesn't get any less annoying when it's coming from multiple people. Almost every "delete" !vote has a response, and that's entirely unnecessary. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 08:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I may have said delete a few weeks ago. But, how long can we ignore the subject while being hit in the face with incident after incident? If editors see any BIASED, NPOV or BLP problems, then go fix them instead of deleting the article. O3000 (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm certain we don't have an article called Racial views of Andrew Johnson. Johnson being the most racist US President in American history. We also don't have such articles on all the slave-owning US Presidents, either. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See: [20] O3000 (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But they're not separate articles, called Racial views of George Washington or Racial views of Zachary Taylor, etc. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is George_Washington_and_slavery but it isn't very comparable; but more importantly WP:OSE Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Race still refers to one's color, not one's ethnicity, so calling someone a racist using ethnicity, nationality, or religious ideology as the basis for racism is inaccurate, and may contribute to some of the editorial disagreements in this article. Also, comparing the prevalent views of prior centuries to the 21st Century is an apples to oranges comparison, because morality and humanity have consistently evolved. Women (all races) are no longer considered chattel in most countries. Slavery (all races) has been abolished, or at least it's considered "illegal" in most countries, but the world is still dealing with human trafficking (slavery indiscriminate of race). ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Race still refers to one's color, not one's ethnicity. See the first paragraph of Racism. O3000 (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Person of color, Color terminology for race and The Guardian's reference to "woman of color", NPR: The Journey from Colored-to-Minorities-to-People of Color, Trump's past comments on people of color (notice the cherrypicked segments and how they are edited). If it wasn't about color, the MSM wouldn't still be saying white racists or white supremacists. It appears the Racism article may need tweaking. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our "racism" page get it right. For example, it is generally accepted that race "theory" of Nazi was racism, but it had little to do with the color of skin. My very best wishes (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll believe it when I see complete elimination of the terms "Race:" on census forms/applications/government docs, and the distinction between "black" and "white" is totally removed. Until then, that WP page is just another theory and a disputed one according to the way race is judged in RL and by certain governments - this is not the place for me to argue with you about yet another article with issues. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously you can find a lot of articles that mention both race and color. Color usually suggests race. That doesn’t mean race is limited to color. O3000 (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest issue I see overall - article and in this debate - is the relentless attempt to conflate racism with bigotry - it's like trying to fit a square peg fit in a round hole. ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The only arguments I'm seeing against the article are on POV grounds. Since NPOV isn't a reason to delete, the claim that it's a biased article is either IDONTLIKEIT or POVFORK. I don't buy that it's a POV fork. Donald Trump receives a lot of media attention as a quick look at Template:Donald Trump will show. The general practice is that when one aspect of his life gets too much attention for the main article, per WP:SPINOFF, we create a new article to deal with that. That's what happened here. That it happens to be an aspect of his life that reflects poorly upon him is not reason to delete. Creating a new article is appropriate, and it's standard practice. -- irn (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a defining characteristic of his campaign and of his presidency, and there are literally thousands of article from reliable sources dedicated to it. Most of the delete votes seem to be based on "This article is POV!" which, as VolunteerMarek pointed out above, is not a reason for deletion; in any case, I read the article and I find it to be remarkably even-handed, maybe even to the point of glossing over how divisive some of Trump's statement related to race have been. Anyway, my point is that most of the delete votes are just "I don't like an article that calls attention to Trump's racial views, because deep down I know they're bad but I like Trump." Nufy7 (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.