Talk:Kirstjen Nielsen

Quality of photographs

Neither of the two photographs currently on this page are, in my opinion, suitable for this page. We should not be looking for glamour shots or anything, but these are noticably unflattering, almost to the point of being NPOV. I am going to remove them until some better pictures can be obtained. KConWiki (talk) 02:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Flattering" is not a standard of NPOV. If these are the freely-available images of the subject, they should be used. Readers are disserviced more by not using an image at all than by using a "unflattering" image. James (^talk/_contribs) 15:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
• @KConWiki and James Allison: I have permission to use this photo, which is a larger version of the picture from the Center for Cyber & Homeland Security at GWU. All I need to do is have them send permission to OTRS... would you be O.K. with this one? I agree that the two above should not be used. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 21:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that image would be preferable. Thanks KConWiki (talk) 02:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Per James. If these two, as of now, are the only free-use images we have, then we should use them. It's not like these image will be her permanent lead image. These will be temporary until a better version or (if confirmed) her official portrait comes up. If OTRS approves great! If not then we have to work with the two we got. In the end, the readers will spend most of the time looking into the article and not the image. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I've restored File:Kirstjen Nielsen1.jpg to the page. It'll do for now. It can be replaced when there's something better. -- Pemilligan (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

White House Position

According to the articles in the text, she only informally performed as Deputy Chief of Staff, e.g. she never actually held an official position. Yet, her box and head section make it look like she held an office in the White House? Shouldn't this be removed and/or clarified?--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 11:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

No, she was appointed to that position in September 2017, as at least one of the sources for that sentence now makes clear. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Here is the Presidential Actions announcement from the White House dated September 6, 2017. It states: Kirstjen M. Nielsen of Florida will serve as Assistant to the President and Principal Deputy Chief of Staff. Ms. Nielsen formerly served as Chief of Staff of the Department of Homeland Security. P37307 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Position on immigration

I think Nielsen's testimony and role in the "s***hole" controversy is relevant as it relates to role in immigration policy. Knope7 (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Controversies section and material

I reverted the removal of the "Controversies" section under the premise that, and I quote, "To claim it is a "controversy" because the woman refused to contribute to an attack on her boss is absurd." By the very fact that it is being widely reported as having occurred, the event in question IS generating a significant amount of controversy, and her statements on the event directly controvert what others are saying happened. I was going to leave this to a consensus discussion between the article maintainers and not revert the change myself, however on noting the editor who made this change has no other Wiki edits, I elected to carry out a revert, welcome the editor, and invite them to join this discussion by elaborating their reasoning for why this content is not appropriate. besieged^talk 17:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Controversies section and material continued

The focal point of some editors is to use the article for decidedly non-neutral political purposes and not to advance an understanding of Nielsen as the leader of Homeland Security. The worst of the posts have come from IP address editors and not registered editors. Regardless of that fact, inclusion of Nielsen's testimony cannot be complete without the objective position on the facts which she took, which is that Trump favors immigration based on employable skills rather than a diversity lottery which objectively can only be said to eschew the value of employable skills altogether. Furthermore if there is going to be a discussion of Trump's remarks regarding poorly managed countries, that commentary should also reflect the fact that Trump made the comments in a meeting where he was open to signing a bill which would legally extend DACA, to the benefit of the illegal immigrants it currently protects, if immigration reform favoring immigrants with employable skills could take place. But some editors are intent on drawing speculative and indeed demonstrably inaccurate conclusions about Trump and Nielsen, using Wikipedia to advance a political point of view. Following this line of reasoning, I removed partisan content and will continue to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JAQUINO (talk • contribs) 18:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC) JAQUINO (talk)!

You, removing referenced content here and here and here is edit warring. Wikipedians are not "drawing speculative and indeed demonstrably inaccurate conclusions" -- we're just reporting what secondary sources report, as per the rules here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I must disagree that the edits were not drawing conclusions. By selectively focusing the article on the cross examination by hostile Democratic senators and removing my edits which highlighted the important points which Nielsen actually made, it is clear that certain Wikipedians some operating via IP address only, were seeking to promote a political point of view.

I am amenable to the sandbox approach, if there is interest in developing comments which reflect the substance of Nielsen's testimony and allow reference to the reaction of other parties to that testimony.JAQUINO (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Please a assume good faith. Editors should editors are allowed to use their IP addresses and we are not judging editors based on their contribution count here. Further, it's possible to adjust content that has been added without deleting all mentions of this weeks events. I do agree that we need better context, that is Nielsen is supporting the administration's immigration stance but also that such a stance has had repercussions with diplomatic relations. That is relevant to her work at DHS. Knope7 (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Let's see if we can agree upon a version here in this talk page about what to add. In my view, blanking out the entire incident, removing referenced content, is highly POV and unbalanced. So what I propose is this: three sentences only: first one, background context; second one; what critics of Nielsen said; third one, what defenders of Nielsen said. That way, readers will get what this is about, and readers can make up their own minds how they want to interpret this. Would the three-sentence approach work for people?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

---Proposed version--- (please use #s to refer to sentences in later discussion)

(1--background context) In January 2018, Nielsen was at a meeting at the White House on the topic of immigration in which president Trump allegedly used the word shithole or shithouse to describe Haiti and African countries, and Nielsen was asked later in a hearing to verify whether or not she heard those terms at the meeting; she said "I did not hear that word used, no sir" although she said she heard "tough language" which was impassioned. (2--critics) Nielsen was criticized by New Jersey senator Cory Booker who said that her "silence and amnesia were complicity". (3--defenders) Republicans criticized Booker for insulting and mansplaining Nielsen and did not give her a chance to respond.

Thank you for thr attempt. I think there are still a few issues to sort through. First, this matters because some Americans are upset that the President disparraged an entire continent. Morevover, other nations have reacted to the comments. As written, it appears Booker is mad the president used crass language. His complaint goes further and he was certainly not the only important player to criticize the statement or Nielsen. Second, presenting this as a clear partisan issue is inaccurate. Graham pushed back on Trump's comments comments as they happened and several Republican senators repudiated them later. Third, Fox News is not a good source in this context and thr issue is not whether Booker was right to criticize Nielsen. Nielsen did have the opportunity to defend herself at the hearing and a brief summary of that is sufficient to respond to Booker's points. Fourth, this should not be it's own section. All of this reates to Nielsen's cavacity as DHS Secretary, it belongs under that section. Knope7 (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I have made some further adjustments. I still think it needs to reflect that this is not a strict partisan breakdown and that the criticism is not unique to Booker, but it is a start. Knope7 (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The amended version did appear to be balanced to me. However the "Controversies" heading does not put the topic in the context of what actually took place, and the context statement is inadequate. Hence the recitation of the circumstances giving rise to Booker's questions. That is the basis for the additional material, to provide the reader context to understand the questions raised by Booker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JAQUINO (talk • contribs) 23:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Each sentence should have a checkable reference -- can you please provide them?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Consecuive sentences from the same source just need one citation at the end, but yes the quotation especially needs a citation. Also, the quotation should be pared doen or possibly sumarized. The extended quote in their now is too much. Knope7 (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Since a summary of the critical testimony on immigration was called for I provided a summary.JAQUINO (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the work done here. Since the quotation of Nielsen was deemed worthy of synopsis, it is not clear that Booker's comments should be quoted either. It suffices to say that he was critical of her and let interested readers follow the reference, just as interested readers can follow the reference to Nielsen's own testimony.JAQUINO (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I removed the extended Nielsen quotes because it was not cited and it was a paragraph long. Quoting a few words would be fine, as it was fine to quote a few words from Booker. It's a question of how much quoting to use. Also, please read both WP:TPYES and WP:THREAD. Threading in particular is helpful for keeping talk page discussions organized. Knope7 (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I just wanted to add my thanks here to everyone involved for working together in a polite and productive fashion to achieve a consensus and improve the quality of the article instead of descending into a partisan flame/edit war. This is what the wikipedia is all about, and undoubtedly a big part of what makes it great. Thanks again to all, carry on and be bold! besieged^talk 17:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I reverted to my previous elimination of "she described as" which is redundant casts a POV on the article. Also one editor deleted the reference to https://www.uscis.gov/family/family-us-citizens which is the website of the Department overseen by Nielsesn and which clearly lays out that the current system is in fact based on family relations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JAQUINO (talk • contribs) 16:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Where possible, we should be using secondary sources, not the official website. The official website is better than nothing, but we really should look for an independent organization who has reported on Nielsen's positions. It is unclear what you mean by redundant POV, but ascribing Nielsen's views to Nielsen is not a POV problem. While I am here, @JAQUNIO:, please read the links I previously provided on talk page formatting. It would be helpful if you could sign your posts and if you could start threading conversations. Thank you. Knope7 (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

In the case of whether the current immigration process is family based, there is no more credible reference than the DHS link which specifies the privileges accorded to prospective immigrants by the US when family members petition on their behalf. For you to suggest that offering the actual advice of the DHS to family members that they have the right to petition under current policy is not a clear and obvious factual reference is inscrutable to me. What I mean by "redundant" is that it is always obvious that if a person, such as Nielsen. makes a statement, then one should do their own research on that point. If you were to look at all the articles on Wikipedia, and rewrite them according to your rules, then you could just as well put every single article in quotes and lead in with "The Wikipedia authors claim..." I started with a straight quote from Nielsen's testimony, in quotes, which I thought was the best way to handle the point, but some editors were unwilling to allow a quote. Perhaps we should revert to the quotation of the testimony because that makes it clear that it is "described as" rather than the pejorative repetitive "described as" which one can reasonably interpret as an attempt to impose POV.JAQUINO (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Look at what you wrote above -- one should do their own research on that point. That's what we don't want. Use secondary sources. Part of the logic behind avoiding WP:PRIMARY sources is to avoid original research, such as when a Wikipedian pulls together his or her own conclusions, then uses primary sources to back up his or her point -- use sources one-step removed as per WP:SECONDARY -- the sources are out there, simply find them and add them, thanx.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Nope, you are wrong. The logic you express above suggests that if it is printed in Wikipedia it is proven beyond doubt. There are many quotations in many Wikipedia articles and it is apparent that the statements may or may not be true. I did not pull together any conclusion. I provided the link to Nielsen's own testimony and the link to the DHS website that she runs. Therefore I have reverted out "she desrcibed as" again and will continue to do so.JAQUINO (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Please learn to follow the rules. The community made these rules. Follow them.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Education-Nanzan University

I edited her education section and added her Japanese Studies at Nanzan University. I felt Bloomberg was a reliable source. AllGov.com also has a profile, written by Steve Straehley, which has been used as a reference cite on other pages but I didn't include that. I'll leave it up to other editors to decide. It goes a little deeper into her profile. http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/secretary-of-homeland-security-who-is-kirstjen-nielsen-171105?news=860354 P37307 (talk) 09:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

NPOV?

You're kidding, right? There's hardly anything neutral about the section on so-called "family separation." It reads more like an editorial rant from MSNBC.

2601:483:C480:42:3CD6:C319:ADFF:688 ([[User Dougmock (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)talk:2601:483:C480:42:3CD6:C319:ADFF:688|talk]]) 16:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Brendan, 19 June, 2018

I see no editorializing in that section. I do see her direct quotes. Maybe you could elaborate and object to specifics instead of a blind objection to everything. I would suggest starting with paragraph 1, tell what you think is wrong with that and then proceed to the next paragraph and so forth. P37307 (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

First of all, there's nothing to change. Your characterization of that section as being "an editorial rant from MSNBC" is, while adorable, highly tendentious. Second of all, even if there was something to change, perhaps you see that it would be more constructive of you to quit whining and change it yourself. Unless this is yet another one of your "poor little me" Republican self-victimization diatribes. Spare us. As Wikipedians, it is our job to keep both liberal bias AND conservative bias out of Wikipedia articles, and that includes keeping your jingoistic Fox-and-Friendsish talking points out of the articles. Luc Donald Vélour (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

--Who is making the section that she created concentration camps for babies called TENDER AGE SHELTERS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.187.254 (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Well the line about her supposed testimony that she "supported the Trump Administration policy of separating parents and children" is clearly incorrect, taken straight from Democratic Party talking points and plainly, when read with the following sentence, meant to suggest that she contradicted herself. The CNN story cited as evidence for that specified that she supported the policy of enforcing the illegal entry law, which "will result in more families being separated at the border." That's a very fundamental difference and Nielson has been consistent all along. Definitely a NPOV problem.

@Dougmock: at your prompting I read the CNN source and made some changes [1]. "Supported" has been changed to "enforced", which Nielsen confirmed via the quotes cited in the CNN article.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Family separation policy in the lede

Nielsen's implementation of the family separation policy should be in the lede. It is the single most notable action that she's taken as DHS head, the reason why most people know about her, and one that she'll be renowned for. Text on this policy currently takes up about one third of the body of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

This discussion also quickly got into stuff not related to content MelanieN alt (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I agree - and I see that someone just changed the piped link in the lede from Trump administration family separation policy to Operation Streamline. That was incorrect and I see it has been changed back. Up until this year, parents with children were deliberately NOT prosecuted under Operation Streamline, specifically so as not to separate the families. The elimination of that exemption for families with children is what was new this year. --MelanieN (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Pretty sure you are wrong. It's an enforcement of policy/law already in place since before the Trump Administration. The piping is a vio of WP:EGG as well, as it's misleading. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Exactly. It's "enforcement" in a way that previous administrations decided not to enforce. The policy itself didn't change but the manner of implementing it did. Hence, the lede correctly says she implemented it. --MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC) If that's the criteria, then it needs to be written more clearly because readers will mistake it to mean the Trump Administration started the practice. They didn't. In fact, both presidencies prior to this one did implement it, it just wasn't used as frequently and there was no "zero tolerance" for not implementing it. As it is, it looks like the Trump Administration invented it. And we know that isn't the case. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Let me try one more time. We are talking specifically about the practice of separating families; we are not talking about the practice called Operation Streamline. Yes, the earlier administrations implemented Operation Streamline, namely, prosecuting people who crossed the border illegally. So does the Trump administration, nothing different there. BUT... the earlier administrations did not apply that operation in a way that would separate families. The Trump administration does (or did; supposedly they have stopped). So the statement currently in the article, Nielsen implemented a policy of separating parents and children who crossed over the U.S. Mexico border illegally., is exactly correct. --MelanieN (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Wait, you're saying that the Trump Administration essentially sort-of invented the separation of families policy, isn't that right? They didn't. You know this all happened during the Obama Administration as well? My point here is that the WP:EGG in the article points to the Trump Administration as being the original implementer of the policy, which it is not. Doesn't matter how much more they did it, doesn't matter that they instituted a zero tolerance policy that already existed, the problem is with the use of WP:EGG which implies to readers unfamiliar with the law, the implementation of it, and the policy that Trump is the only president who has done this. That's what I'm having an issue with more than anything. It's misleading to readers. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Let's see your evidence that the Obama administration followed the policy of always separating families. They certainly would have taken the children away if the parent was unfit, or criminal, or some other reason why the family COULDN'T be kept together. But the policy of separating children from families in all cases, just because - that was new. That was a Trump invention. As a matter of fact the Trump administration themselves didn't follow that practice, which you claim has been policy all along, in the first year of the administration. Separating all the families was a new practice, a new interpretation of the policy, started in the second year of the Trump administration (and revoked within a month or two because of the public outcry as well as the disorganization and chaos caused by the failure to set up proper systems before implementing it). Trump IS the only president who has done this. The Trump administration didn't "essentially sort-of" invent this policy, they DID invent it. --MelanieN (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC) "Let's see your evidence that the Obama administration followed the policy of always separating families." Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say they "always" did it, I said they did it. And they did. Those holding cells and facilities for children were used by the Obama Administration long before the Trump Administration. "The Trump administration didn't "essentially sort-of" invent this policy, they DID invent it." Where's your proof of this claim ("invented")? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC) OK, I'll lay out the whole well-documented story if I must. It's true that the holding facilities for children were definitely used by earlier administrations. As I already said, they sometimes had to separate the families because the parents were unfit or for some other reason. And there were children who came across the border alone or in the company of someone not their parents. So yes, there WERE some children taken into custody after crossing the border. All that is true, as I have said repeatedly. But previous administrations did not ROUTINELY separate families. That's what changed. That's what Trump "invented". Here's a timeline. Trump began to consider a family separation policy almost immediately upon taking office. In March 2017 Homeland Security Secretary Kelly confirmed that they were thinking about it, justifying it as a "deterrent" that would discourage people from crossing illegally.(note below) In April 2017 Kelly claimed families would only be separated if "the child's life is in danger". Still, sometime in October 2017 they quietly began separating families. On April 6, 2018, they went public with it: Sessions announced a "Zero Tolerance" policy of prosecuting every adult that came across the border. That policy had the consequence that the children were automatically taken away, because children can't be held in jails with their parents. The administration was no longer going to exempt parents with children from prosecution, as previous administrations had done. That was the new action, the new practice, the thing Trump "invented". That was the change that Nielsen implemented (although it had been proposed by her predecessor). As of April 20 more than 700 children had been taken from their parents since October. By June 9, 2300+ additional children had been separated since the implementation of Zero Tolerance. In May and early June, Sessions, Kelly (now White House Chief of Staff), and Nielsen all defended the practice of removing children from their parents. But on June 20, Trump reverted the program, saying that Homeland Security should keep families together. So that's what happened. The practice of routinely separating families was a new initiative by the Trump administration. End of story. --MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Note: By making this announcement, Kelly was confirming that the proposal would be a change to existing practice. --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Bless you for putting the time in. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Thanks for being (mostly) forthright re: the practice going on pre-Trump Administration. I already knew the history, albeit without the anti-Trump spin, but I knew it nonetheless. Just for the record, it should be noted that the Obama Administration was implementing the separation policy "quietly" as well. Did you hear about it happening between 2009 and January 2017? Yeah, me neither. Let's also be honest about the number of kids actually separated from parents in light of total number of illegal immigrants that have been detained: roughly 12k total, 2k minors detained = 17% of all illegal immigrants at our border. Of the 2k, not too many actually came with parents but with traffickers and smugglers/coyotes. The law is the law. We have them for a reason. It's a good thing we have those laws and are actually implementing them. Where would those kids be if we didn't? Trafficked for sex, sold into servitude, joining violent gangs committing crimes and setting themselves up for a failed existence (possibly death), wandering the streets of our cities forced to do God knows what to survive. The kids that are detained? Living better lives for the time being than they were in their respective countries. The ones that did come with families were separated because their parents did not follow procedure at the border or were caught crossing at a location other than a port of entry. But yeah, what are we going to do about the misleading WP:EGG situation? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 05:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Off topic -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 05:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Maybe we should use this for the lede of that article! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC) WP:UNDUE ;) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion unrelated to article improvement - "We're not talking about content inclusion."
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
" The policy was unique to the Trump administration. Previous administrations did not, as a general principle, separate all families crossing the U.S. border illegally." "The Obama administration established family detention centers that kept families together while their cases were processed." [2] Of the 2k, not too many actually came with parents but with traffickers and smugglers/coyotes. Wrong. " 'Smugglers' only represented 0.6% of all cases of families apprehended at the border." "In other words, for every 1,000 families that approached the border in the first five months of this fiscal year, only six allegedly involved individuals pretending to be a child’s parents. The percentage of alleged smugglers in fiscal 2017 was smaller, at 0.1 percent." "almost every family unit that’s apprehended at the border is genuine: 994 in 1000 are real families, according to DHS’ own data. "[3] "In other words, alleged child smuggling accounted for 0.6% of apprehensions at the border in the first five months of this fiscal year. That’s an increase from the rate in the last fiscal year, when it was 0.06%, but an increase from a very small number." [4] --MelanieN (talk) 06:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC) "only six allegedly involved individuals pretending to be a child’s parents" "Only" six to 1000. One is too many. And how many children do each of those six in 1000 have in tow? Ever seen one of those vans, moving trucks, or semis full of kids headed to or northward from the border? One smuggler, one coyote, one sex trafficker can do immense amounts of damage because they don't get paid to just bring in one child at a time. And, seriously... one child being used and abused in this fashion is too many, isn't it? They aren't, by the way, being abused at the detention centers. Surely you've seen the videos, reports, and photos that show how well they are treated and cared for there? Let's also not forget that the children separated from their parents have been separated because their parents chose to send them with strangers, abandoned them, or tried to cross with them at the border illegally/asked for asylum at a location that was not a port of entry. Like I said above, the law is the law. Selectively choosing to apply it is not lawful or responsible. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC) Aside from the well-documented conditions at the detention centers, separating children from their parents is considered unnecessarily traumatic and abusive in and of itself. –dlthewave ☎ 15:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC) More unnecessarily traumatic and abusive than selling your child to a trafficker/coyote or abandoning them or forcing them participate in a dangerous, illegal activity? Considering how those detainment facilities provide safe shelter, nutritious food, clean clothing, schooling, entertainment, security, emotional support and health care 24/7 -- I'm leaning toward the trauma and abuse factor being negligible in comparison to the former examples above. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC) Can you provide reliable sources which are leaning toward the trauma and abuse factor being negligible in comparison to the former examples above? –dlthewave ☎ 16:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC) Why would I need to do that? We're not talking about content inclusion. I'm seeing a lot of personal opinion being bandied about in this discussion - who said anything about putting any of this in the article? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support inclusion in lede - Nielsen implemented a change in practice that drew significant public attention, and characterizing it as right, wrong or simply enforcing existing law does not change that fact.

The Administration has the power to exercise discretion in enforcing the law. As with most zero-tolerance policies, they are responsible for both the positive and negative outcomes of their decisions. –dlthewave ☎ 15:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I also support inclusion of this sentence in the lede MelanieN alt (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit

@Musdan77: the matter has been settled re this content. If you'd like to revisit, please discuss on Talk page. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: I don't know what you mean by "settled", but this is what I posted on the editor's user page (24 hours ago without a reply) who reverted it:

1. What I found on the talk page says that the sentence should be included in the lead, not how it should be worded.
2. I changed the word "implemented" to "enforced", which exactly reflects what the text says. "Implemented" is not found in the article or in the sources.
3. As for the other changes:

   a. I changed to DHS because there's 3 sentences in a row with "as Secretary of Homeland Security". That's unnecessary repetition for the lead.

   b. Added the necessary hyphen. It's grammatically incorrect without it.

   c. And it should go without saying as to why I removed the death parameters - but if a parameter is irrelevant and blank, there's no reason for it to be there.

4. Complete reversions are usually reserved for vandalism and the like. Otherwise it can be considered disruptive. "It is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit than to revert the prior edit." —Musdan77 (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Secretary Nielsen will eventually die (as all of us), so it's useful to keep these two parameters. I added a dash and removed redundancy of repeating "Secretary of Homeland Security".

The substantive dispute seems to be over "implemented" vs "enforced". "Implemented" seems better in this context, IMO, and appears somewhat more frequently in news search results: implement vs enforce. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

It appears more frequently because most news is left-leaning (as is WP). But frequency in news search results is irrelevant. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, and like I said, that word is not found in the article or the sources given. But, thanks for making the changes that you did. —Musdan77 (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Question

Re: this, this, and then this, it appears to me that the challenge to wording was not resolved, yet, an editor has made a change without consensus. Am I seeing this correctly or incorrectly? It's SOP to wait until a discussion is completed before reverting back to a preferred version. I think it's also important to note that the change to content had no edit summary with it as there should have been, especially since the content has been recently challenged. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The last linked edit is yours, "challenging as POV". Could you elaborate on the POV concern? –dlthewave ☎ 21:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Dlthewave, "appeared to hesitate". -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

It's verbatim the same language as in the source. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Then it needs to be written that way - as from the source - not in Wiki-voice or you could write it in your own prose. See the following diff for Jimbo's opinion on Wiki-voice [5]. Not to mention that if it's verbatim from the source, it's a copyvio. And, just one source? That's not enough for it to make it a general observation as seen by all watching/listening to her. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Why is there no mention at all about her personal life or family life? It may not be important but would be useful information for people to humanize her and see that she has a family too for those who may not particulary like her— Tthomas20 (talk) 03:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)Tthomas166

This has been discussed to death. She did not "enforce a standing policy". She implemented a new policy. Family separation was a new policy, a new approach, announced as such by Jeff Sessions on May 7, 2018.[6][7][8] --MelanieN (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Your response is not an answer to the question posed at the top of this section. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

It is the 9th Circuit’s misinterpretation of the Clinton administration’s settlement agreement under Flores v. Reno that doesn’t allow juvenile aliens to stay with their parents who have been detained for unlawful entry into the country.RTMairose (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Note on lead section

I have changed the language "implemented a policy of separating parents and children who crossed over the U.S.–Mexico border illegally" to "implemented a policy of separating parents and children accused of crossing over the U.S.–Mexico border illegally."

This is because, as many sources directly state, it was not only illegal entrants who have been separated from their families, but also people who entered the United States and presented themselves at a port of entry to seek asylum, which is entirely legal under U.S. law. See, e.g. Los Angeles Times: "Administration officials have said repeatedly that asylum seekers who don’t want to be separated from their children should present themselves at a port of entry. Doing so is the legal way to ask for asylum, they said. But court filings describe numerous cases in recent months in which families were separated after presenting themselves at a port of entry to ask for asylum." --Neutrality^talk 22:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

That's a good change. Thanks, Neutrality. What's not a good change is that you removed something claiming it was unsourced, when it's not. If you look down in the section on what's stated in the lead, it says exactly what was placed in the lead (that you have now removed) and was well sourced. Want to replace it? It would be appreciated since your rationale for removal doesn't hold water and is inaccurate. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

No, the text in the lead that I modified was inaccurate because it stated that the law somehow "required" the administration to criminally prosecute all alleged illegal entrants and thus separate them from their families. That is not the case. See, e.g., Prof. Cordero at Lawfare ("And, to be clear, there is no statutory requirement to separate children from their parents. The separations are flowing directly from the policy decision of the Trump administration to refer additional illegal-entry cases for prosecution without adequately developing a sufficient legal framework and an accompanying policy for addressing the practical realities of what would happen to the children as a result of the new prosecutive guideline."); Bloomberg News: "President Donald Trump has falsely attributed the need to separate children from their parents and legal guardians to a law passed by Democrats. ... The administration could end the policy of family separation without any action from Congress."). Neutrality^talk 16:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

BLP, NPOV VIOLATION; Non-Encyclopedic Tone?

Is this an objective article on Kirstjen Nielsen, or a propaganda hit piece? Democrat spin piece? Is this a propaganda piece in the controversy over "illegal invader criminals" vs "undocumented needy immigrants"?

1) Is this really tangential issue of "separating children from parents" really a matter of complying with long-established law which forbids putting children in prison because parents are in prison? Is it not a long-standing requirement that if a parent is detained behind bars, the children are not also put there? So is not the wording about "separating parents and children" an NPOV violation, when the issue would be "forbidding incarceration of innocent children," if it were relevant to the BLP?

2) Was not the incarceration of parents only (excluding their children) a hold-over from the Obama era? Is Kirstjen Nielsen justly blamed?

3) Are the sources for these statements reliable or antagonists in the MSM war vs. Donald Trump and his administration? MSM is not a reliable objective source for matters in this war, nor are antagonists of the Trump administration. Certainly CNN is not a reliable source for matters in their war vs Donald Trump.

4) Would this whole issue be better deleted? Or should the statements be changed to read: "Nielsen continued the traditional policy of not incarcerating children with parents"? (PeacePeace (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC))

CNN is a reliable source. For Wikipedia's purposes, we are looking at indications of reliability. CNN fact checks, has an internal process for verification, issues corrections when it is wrong, etc. We should not reject CNN as a source just because some Republicans like to repeat the words "fake news." If you have actual, verifiable reasons to doubt the CNN article used as source, but all means feel free to post those sources on the talk page. You are making a lot of assertions without offering reliable sources to back them up, and they do not square with reliable sources like the New York Times. [9] Knope7 (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2018

"Following her appointment, Nielsen implemented a policy of separating parents and children accused of crossing over the U.S.–Mexico border illegally."

^ Please remove this leftist propaganda, as Obama is the one who established this policy long before Nielson arrived, or cite a source to support and detail your claim. Claims without sources are worthless. 99.248.230.58 (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please see the relevant section of the article "Family separation policy" for an explanation of the policy, and references for the claim. Furthermore, in the future please try to avoid personal attacks ("leftist propaganda") against other editors. If you have questions, feel free to post on my talk page. DannyS712 (talk) 16:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2018

In reference to:

"At a congressional hearing on May 15, 2018, Nielsen testified that she would enforce the then-newly enacted[42] Trump administration policy of separating parents and children who crossed over the U.S.–Mexico border, noting that similar separations happened in criminal courts "every day."[43]"

Request:

Please remove the leftist propaganda quoted above, as the source provided does not establish the subject, or the Trump administration, established a "new policy" at all, as claimed. Rather, the source provided (which also clearly lacks credibility: CNN) claims the Trump administration announced it would prosecute all those entering the country illegally; it did not state a "new policy" was created to separate children from their families. No proof at all has been referenced to establish a "new policy" was created. In fact, the policy of prosecuting persons entering the country illegally, and thus being separated from their families in the process, was already in effect long before the Trump administration arrived. 99.248.230.58 (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 21:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

"New" Policy Not New

The source provided does not establish the subject, or the Trump administration, established a "new policy" at all, as claimed. Rather, the source provided (which also clearly lacks credibility: CNN) claims the Trump administration announced it would prosecute all those entering the country illegally; it did not state a "new policy" was created to separate children from their families. No proof at all has been referenced to establish a "new policy" was created. In fact, the policy of prosecuting persons entering the country illegally, and thus being separated from their families in the process, was already in effect long before the Trump administration arrived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.230.58 (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

8 April 2019: Restore family separations to lede

IP numbers keep edit-warring out text noting Nielsen's role in the family separation policy. The page should be protected and the text should be restored immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The editor Mitchellhobbs added a "citation needed" tag. The text in the lede is however sourced in the body of the article. WP:LEDE does not require citations in the lede. The editor should self-revert immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Another editor just now added that she implemented the family separation policy "at the urging of the Trump administration". She was in the Trump administration - she implemented the policy! Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead. Mitchellhobbs (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

To anyone with a decent grasp of reality, it's obvious and well-documented that she implemented the family separation policy. We don't have to source that Obama was born in Hawaii in his lede, even though some people believe that to be a falsehood or disputed fact. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The user Mitchellhobbs keeps edit-warring this long-standing consensus text from the lede, arguing that he can unilaterally keep this text out of the article until a new consensus is found (which is inane). I've therefore restored the text to the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Refer to Kirstjen Nielsen Lead~ section below to read Mitchellhobbs' response to User:Snooganssnoogans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchellhobbs (talk • contribs) 01:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Resignation

The article reads "Nielsen resigned immediately after a meeting with at a White House meeting with Trump, two days after". I would have changed it myself but it is a protected page so I thought I should at least point it out to those in a position to make corrections. To be clear its the part that reads "after a meeting with at a White House meeting" that should be changed. Ubbe nationell (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it has been fixed. Thanks for the note. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Opinion

This entire wiki is nothing but anti-conservative propaganda. It's insane to me how you have become so bias with your loaded words and sources. You truly have made your feelings more important than facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:8C7E:F59E:285C:D19C:3D07:A3E6 (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Origin of name

Does anyone know about the origin of the spelling of her name? It's not in a Scandinavian language. --Thathánka Íyotake (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

If you find out would you let me know ~ thanks Mitchellhobbs (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The name Kirsten is quite common in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Some variations occur, but I can't find anyone in Denmark with the spelling she uses (her father is of Danish origin), and only two in Denmark spell it Kirstejn. (That spelling is legally approved as a boys name.) Why her parents chose to spell it that way is beyond me. Her spelling is not an approved spelling, and in Denmark there is some control with what names and spellings are legally allowed. Here you can search for approved first names ("Godkendte fornavne"). A search provides this answer: "Du søgte på navnet Kirstjen. Navnet er ikke godkendt som fornavn. Kontroller stavemåden." Translation: You searched for the name Kirstjen. The name is not approved as a first name. Control the spelling." -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

"Future employability"

Just to note here that User:Factfindingmission has three times added a paragraph to the article saying that Nielsen is going to have trouble finding employment because of her work for the Trump administration. The paragraph has been removed by three different editors. I have posted a Edit Warring warning at Factfindingmission's talk page, pointing out the need to gain talk page consensus before they add it again. I just want to document this background here, because I will be away from the computer for a while. To be clear, I oppose inclusion of any of this material, sourced to a reporter's Twitter account and an opinion piece or two. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• User:Mitchellhobbs, you deleted the content with this summary: "opinions are not facts and Wiki is about facts." The last phrase is not true. We document facts and opinions, and controversial opinions should be attributed to the author. There can be various reasons why we would include or delete this content, and right now we need a consensus. That is a legitimate reason for deletion, but your reason in that summary is not one. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Thanks, can you tell me what would have been a better summary ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• User:Escape Orbit, How can Twitter be a wiki reliable source, and how can you say a New York Times reporter 'reported' on something when she actually tweeted it ~ the statement is misleading, making you think it was in the New Your Times. I'm not against opinions, but what does opinions of her gaining employment after she resigns have to do with being in the resignation ~ section ~ also the ref is improperly edited Mitchellhobbs (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[b] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material.

I don't see where someone else's opinion about a person, has to do with someone's biography in Wiki Mitchellhobbs (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Our job here is to document "the sum total of human knowledge" as found in RS, therefore we must document opinions (they are a very important part of human knowledge), and we do it all the time here. BLPs are no exception. This one should gain a bit more traction before we add it. If multiple RS deal with it, then it will be worth adding. There is no rush. There should also be a consensus, and "it's an opinion" is not a legitimate argument for leaving it out. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• There are 7.5 billion people in the world today and I can bet that there are 7.5 billion different opinions on what someone writes on twitter ~ When we edit a BLP it is our job to insure that when we are editing a BLP we don't give into whims from individuals that do or do not like the person we are writing about. This is where well documented facts come into play Mitchellhobbs (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Of course. The problem with starting with a tweet is that it can be OR. When the tweet is mentioned in an independent RS, then it gets closer to being usable, and even then we don't document every tweet, but usually use those which are from more notable people, such as journalists, politicians, etc, and Maggie Haberman is a very notable journalist. Just sayin'. Keep in mind I'm not pushing for or against the inclusion of this content. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The fact is that there are a number of opinions, reported and notable opinions, about Nielsen's work in public service, and her resignation. They should be in the article, both positive and negative. Removing them because "they're not facts" is misguided and a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia does. It is also not a BLP matter of Nielsen's privacy. The opinions are about her public work that are a matter of public knowledge. So this argument is also a red-herring.

The distinction between whether a journalist reported or tweeted is pointless semantics. She tweeted in her role as a journalist. Journalists report. The journalist is the source. The only objection to this that would have any validity would be if the journalist was not anyone of notable authority on the subject. I don't know the journalist, but the fact she is employed by the New York Times as a White House correspondent would suggest she is a notable authority. This is not just some nobody with a Twitter account.

However, I'm not saying that the article cannot be improved and that better sources cannot be found with more relevant content. But people's opinion about Nielsen's effectiveness and work should be in the article, because this is one of the more significant ways that public servants are recorded in history. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, two points. About Twitter as a source: yes, she is a notable journalist. But we require "reliable sources", and the definition of a reliable source is that it has "editorial control and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy". There is no editorial control over a tweet; the person can say anything they want, frequently on the spur of the moment or off the top of their head; there is no editorial review or fact checking. So a tweet, even from a highly reputable person, cannot be used as a source for facts. Second, about whether we put opinions in the article: in general we don't just put in "so and so said such and such", based only on their saying so - a primary source. We want to see secondary source reporting on or responding to their opinion; secondary source coverage makes it more notable. Likewise, if it is an opinion expressed by several people, we generally want some secondary source to point out that multiple people are saying it. Whether the original opinion is a tweet or an op-ed or a verbal comment, we want to see other people reporting on the opinion or responding to it. That's what makes it usable in a Wikipedia article. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:TWITTER says that Twitter can be used, within certain limitations. But I'm not going to argue that this falls within those limitations (it's questionable). But the argument "it's a tweet, therefore it cannot be used" is not policy. WP:PRIMARY says nothing against primary source use in reporting opinions. Yes, secondary sources would be good to establish notability, but primary sources are used throughout Wikipedia to cite opinions of authoritative commentators, simply because their own words are the best way to verify their opinions. The rest you say I fully agree with. This section should have a broader take on the subject, reflecting wider opinions. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Mother's maiden name

Her mother's birth name was Phyllis Louise Michelle. Her maternal grandparents were Arthur Albert Michelle, an immigrant from Italy, and Rose Agnes LaCerva, a Louisiana native whose parents were Italian immigrants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:AD08:EC00:8CE2:2397:77D1:2E98 (talk) 05:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Kirstjen Nielsen Lead~

What is the consensus to moving the below to a different section ~ The lead is about Nielsen and not about her replacements or any other firings from the president ~
Trump also tweeted, that day, that Kevin McAleenan, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner, would become Acting Secretary;[4] that was made legal after Trump forced Undersecretary for Management Claire Grady, the next in line,[5] to resign on April 9.[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchellhobbs (talk • contribs) 14:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• User:Snooganssnoogans is using very political moves on the lead page ~ I am not going to get into an editing war with Snooganssnoogans. even though he has many complaints about just such actions ~ie: putting a statement about a hot issue on Homeland security and the people of United States of America ~ ~ Following her appointment, Nielsen implemented a policy of separating parents and children accused of crossing over the U.S.–Mexico border illegally ~ this statement should be in the Family separation policy section and left there ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Would it possible for you to keep discussing this in the relevant part of the talk page, such as here[10]? It's very confusing to have to discuss this with you all over this talk page and then also on my talk page. And no, there's nothing "very political" about the text in the lede. It's a basic statement of fact. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• I'll let it be for now ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support inclusion in lede - Nielsen implemented a change in practice that drew significant public attention, and characterizing it as right, wrong or simply enforcing existing law does not change that fact. The Administration has the power to exercise discretion in enforcing the law. As with most zero-tolerance policies, they are responsible for both the positive and negative outcomes of their decisions. –dlthewave ☎ 15:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• I also support inclusion of this sentence in the lede MelanieN alt (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

You were right my bad ~ ):~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I came to this talk page to question whether the phrase "forced to resign" was appropriate. It seems that language is a bit too strong Catherinejarvis (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Catherinejarvis, welcome, I don't see anywhere in the article she was forced to resign ~ of course I just glanced at it but if you can tell me where it is at I will try to help you Mitchellhobbs (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

NPOV?

WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources"

The article devotes significant space to "Tear-gassing of migrants at San Ysidro," but does not mention that tear gas was employed at the border 79 times during the last five years of the Obama Administration – and most or all of those 79 incidents did not involve a large, projectile-throwing crowd rushing the border, as happened at San Ysidro.

In light of this, can anyone make a case that the article currently has a NPOV? 2601:281:CC00:5FD:F521:1233:6222:A264 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The article is about Kirstjen Nielsen, not the last five years of the Obama Administration. However, if you can find a source that discusses both you might add it. You may not combine sources to compare the two unless a source has already done it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

These are clearly designed to be sensational, which is the exact opposite how headings should be written. At a base level, these were incidents during her tenure that received significant attention in the press. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

They are also very much against the spirit of WP:NOCRIT. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

This was all reported by RS, and as far as I'm aware, the text reflects what is stated in the RS. The headers are perfectly descriptive. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: Stop what you are doing. The first of these subheadings is incredibly misleading; it appears to describe an event in which tear gas was used on a crowd, not "tear-gassing of children." The second, "deaths of children in custody" provides no context. Each of these is designed to elicit shock but actually omits key information. This is the definition of POV-pushing. "Border incidents" is the only neutral option here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

No, this is not "the definition of POV-pushing"--take it easy, Wikieditor. Now, I might could agree with you on the teargassing title, but there is no violation in "Migrant children's deaths in CBP custody". And you should restore that title, since that was hardly a "border incident". And while I could agree with you on the teargassing being a bit sensational, you can hardly deny (though you probably will) that "border incident" is kind of sadly euphemistic. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I think we should strive for a better descriptor, and "border incidents" may not be perfect, but it's certainly better IMO than something that carries a not-totally-accurate implication. I was almost leaning towards "Border incidents and criticism," but that seemed inconsistent with WP:CRIT as well. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I see your point on the latter heading and will add in separate subheaders for the two incidents. And I recognize why you might see "incidents" as a bit of a euphemism, but that is sort of the point with neutral headings after all. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Education in infobox

When a subject has attended a graduate school with a separate Wiki article, should the infobox link to that sub-page or just name the parent university and indicate the subject's degree? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization

The MOS:JOBTITLES are uncapitalized because "secretary of homeland security" is preceded by modifiers "former" and "United States" and "deputy chief of staff" is preceded by modifiers "former", "principal", and "White House", per MOS:JOBTITLES bullet 3 and table column 2, example 4: "Nixon was one of the more controversial American presidents." Any proposal for modification to the guideline should be posted at its talk page, WT:MOSBIO. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 02:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)