Talk:Mexico–United States border wall/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Mexico–United States border wall. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Tortilla Wall

Which parts are called the Tortilla Wall? --24.94.189.11 18:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Artists react to the proposed 700 mile Border Fence: In Nov. 2006 a group of artists in Los Angeles, California decided to implement a project called The Great Wall of Chinga. By doing so they reached out to fellow artists across the US to create a body of work around this issue. This became an inagural project for a new organization they called The Ministry of Culture. This name was chosen to bring attention to the lack of governmental support for the arts & culture in a country where its population is made up of practically every nationality on earth. The information on this project can be found at: [1].

This is a notable reaction to the barrier, and deserves mention in the article. --Ramsey2006 04:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest merging the article Tortilla Wall into this one. Sdenny123 13:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Company building the border fence pays a fine for hiring illegal immigrants

PDF link - http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/cas/press/cas61214-GoldenStateFence.pdf Is there a place for this in the article? Are there arguments about the pros and cons (and in this case irony) of this border fence in this article? Hnc 20:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Also http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20061214-1922-bn14golden.html Hnc 20:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Improper Use

Is it possible for someone to deal with the person/persons who've posted the Lou Dobbs junk on this talk page, maybe send a warning? Windscar77 09:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

'The intention of these barriers is to force illegal immigrants to cross the border through more difficult lands, with the assumption that this will deter illegal immigration'. This currently appears in the article and seems to be vandalism. The introduction of the article also seems to be somewhat POV, and a great deal of the article is unsourced. omnijohn 03:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The article Tortilla Wall should probably be included here, if it's at all accurate. Frankly, as a long time San Diego resident, I'm not aware that the term "Tortilla Wall" has ever applied to the border fence. Rather than nominating that artice for deletion, I think it discusses the same things this artice does here. --Eric Bekins 22:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose merge See talk page of other article for massive opposition to this poor merger proposal. Tynetrekker (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: there is no "massive opposition" to the merger proposal on Talk:Tortilla_Wall, in fact the other article talk page has no opposition on it at all. There was no need to exaggerate, especially something so easy to verify as being untrue. Radagast83 (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversy Section

Could this be possibly expanded to its own article if we found enough sources? This is an extremely controversial issue, and a lot of people are going back and forth over it, moreso than can be captured by a quick blurb. Ideally we could have people from different areas where the wall is being built contribute information about protests and rebuttals as they occur.

Pylze (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Pylze

Lead bias

The lead section makes it sounds like everyone against the wall is "pro-Mexico", when actually some people are against it only because it seems like throwing rocks in a creek to try to stop it flowing. Wnt (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

also, people can be against the wall for its role in effectively splitting up communities. that is not "pro-Mexican" it is pro-human. isprawl 17:14, 25 March 2009.

"Impact of the Barriers on Illegal Crossings" section needs serious rewriting

I'm trying to research available evidence about this topic, and IMHO this section is far from Wikipedia standards on several grounds: (1) (IMHO) it has an anti-wall bias; (2) it is largely unsourced; (3) It includes selective facts; for instance, citing that the increase in deaths in the Sonoran desert section has gone up 3x, without careful research about deaths in neighboring sections, ignores the obvious truth that if large numbers of people who were going to cross elsewhere, are now attempting to cross there, then whatever is leading to their deaths will happen there, increasing the numbers. So, is that desert actually increasing deaths? Impossible to tell based on what is presented so far. I've marked this section both POV and factually disputed; I would greatly appreciate authoritative references, and a proper analysis in the context of neighboring sections. ToolmakerSteve (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"United Stated Border Patrol" has relevant material

... in its "Expansion" section, complete with references -- should some of that be HERE?. ALSO, these references show sources of OPPOSITION that include ENVIRONMENTAL and LOCAL LANDOWNERS and SPLIT COMMUNITIES -- shouldn't these be included in this article's lead paragraph, to show the depth of controversy around this topic?:

The Secure Fence Act, signed by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2006, has met with much opposition. In October 2007, environmental groups and concerned citizens filed a restraining order hoping to halt the construction of the fence, set to be built between the United States and Mexico. The act mandates that the fence be built by December 2008. Ultimately, the United States seeks to put fencing around the 1945-mile border, but the act requires only 700 miles of fencing. DHS secretary Michael Chertoff has bypassed environmental and other oppositions with a waiver that was granted to him by Congress in Section 102 of the act, which allows DHS to avoid any conflicts that would prevent a speedy assembly of the fence.[6][7]

This action has led many environment groups and landowners to speak out against the impending construction of the fence.[8] ) Environment and wildlife groups fear that the plans to clear brush, construct fences, install bright lights, motion sensors, and cameras will scare wildlife and endanger the indigenous species of the area.[9] Environmentalists claim that the ecosystem could be affected due to the fact that a border fence would restrict movement of all animal species, which in turn would keep them from water and food sources on one side or another. Desert plants would also feel the impact, as they would be uprooted in many areas where the fence is set to occupy.[10]

Property owners in these areas fear a loss of land. Landowners would have to give some of their land over to the government for the fence. Citizens also fear that communities will be split. Many students travel over the border every day to attend classes at the University of Texas at Brownsville. Brownsville mayor Pat Ahumada favors alternative options to a border fence. He suggests that the Rio Grande River be widened and deepened to provide for a natural barrier to hinder illegal immigrants and drug smugglers.[11] ToolmakerSteve (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

660,000 in 6 month period

Is there any independent verification of the figure of 660,000+ people detained by immigration authorities between October 1, 2003, and April 30, 2004? This figure is HIGHLY suspect. According to the US census bureau figures, the country's net migration rate is 3.05 per 100,000 which translates to about 100,000 people entering America every year. If this figure is right, that means more than 1.3 million people attempted to enter the US during a 1 year period, more than half of the entire US Prison Population...unless there was a severe drop off during the second half of the period for some reason. Also, it seems a bit odd that the border patrol could have the capacity to detain nearly 4,000 people EVERY DAY. Looks to me like one of the minutemen has taken a break from wrangling Mexicans so as to engage in some good old fashioned fearmongering. 193.129.64.154 08:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to comment that: (1) with 11,000 agents working full-time, 4,000 per day is entirely believable. (2) Many people attempt to cross multiple times (until they finally succeed); The figure may be "attempted crossings"; there is anecdotal evidence of, say, San Diego intercepting 1000 people on a busy night, and promptly busing them back to Mexico [often to try again the next week]. (Time magazine, June 30, 2008, p.34-35). (3) Your comment about the size of the US Prison Population reminds me that it is often reported that it is infeasible to put the number intercepted in prison, even for a week or two. Given 52 weeks in the year, that may also suggest large interception numbers -- or maybe not, given our prisons already frequently hit their capacity. Just exploring all angles... ToolmakerSteve (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

United_States–Mexico_barrier

Is this truly the best article-name? Does anyone perceive any resemblance to United_States_of_Mexico, United_States_of_America? United_States–Mexico_barrier, really?

Keith_Olbermann, msnbc, claims that the wall, the fence, ends @ Ray_Lee_Hunt's property-line, property-border. I've been trying google; however, no luck, yet.

Please do help.

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 02:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

NOT TRUE. The fence is going to run parallel to and adjacent to his property. —Preceding unsigned comment added by La Lydia (talk • contribs) 02:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Other options?

"Yes there is! Build commerce or other human activity on the border. It is locations where there is no human activity where problems occur. This issue mostly applies to urban areas. Rural areas have different problems than do the urban areas. Both sides of the border need to be compatiable and have similar uses or else commerce will not buy into the area. At bordercommerce.com, there is an option proposed to create zones for commerce, open public lands and other uses. What is most needed is a code book that has been approved by Federal, State, and Local governments as how to deal with each mile along the border and how those security measures will be implemented. Otherwise, you have the Federal government imposing its unilateral decision on the border but that does not guarantee security!"

This section is written very poorly and seems to exist only to express one person's view and advertise a website. I'm deleting it.Ueli-PLS (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Poorly written indeed, and uninformed. "It is locations where there is no human activity where problems occur." I think that person meant that problems occur where there is no human activity. If there is no human activity, then are the animals causing the problems? As a matter of fact, border crossing in urban areas is extremely easy, because the illegal entrants can quickly disappear into the population. Border crossing in remote areas is more dangerous for the illegal entrant, and they are more easily observed and tracked in such a setting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by La Lydia (talk • contribs) 02:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Tunnels?

At least 40 tunnels have been discovered under the Barrier.

I think a report on these would reflect on the effectiveness or otherwise of the operation as a whole. 86.144.192.162 (talk) 12:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Types of fencing?

How about a section on how the border barrier is constructed, detailing the different types of fencing? In Southern California alone, it ranges from double-layered barbed-wire fencing to a ten-foot high steel mat, even "Normandy barriers" designed to stop cars but not people. A couple of good sources:

http://americanpatrol.com/ABP/SURVEYS/BORDER-2009/Border-Main-20009.html

Number of beach border pictures

Three are too many. One is enough. In the discussion of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center there was debate on whether or not there were too many pictures of the Center in that article.

It doesn't matter how many pictures there are of the wall/fence/thing on the beach, no matter at how ever many angles the pictures are shot at readers will still get the picture. Thoughts? --GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 04:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I appreciate pictures and sometimes I get more out of them than the written articles! Frognsausage (talk) 10:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Border Field State Park is in Imperial Beach California not San Ysidro. It is in the city limits of Imperial Beach. (Pacific Ocean) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrysUniverse (talk • contribs) 06:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

OTM = Other Than Mexican

I see there's a "citation needed" for the CBP usage of the acronym "OTM" as a designation of non-Mexican detainees. I can't find a glossary entry, but the usage is common enough in releases, such as this one. the fourth paragraph reads:

Reductions have carried over into other areas. For example, the number of Other Than Mexican (OTM) aliens apprehended in Del Rio Sector has declined from the peak in FY05 with more than 30,000 arrested followed by a dramatic reduction to 12,275 in FY06. In FY 07 6,634 were apprehended.

Does this really need a citation, and if so, how do you cite poorly-documented jargon? - JeffJonez (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

OTM's is a term used by the government: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/54276.pdf, and www.house.gov/sites/members/tx10_mccaul/pdf/Investigaions-Border-Report.pdf

OTM's is also a term used by the media: www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162199,00.html, and www.latinamericanstudies.org/immigration/otm.htm.

Not that it makes it wrong or right, but to illustrate its common usage, I'll tell you that we use it frequently in my Border Security class. The professor is Mexican and anti-fence. Sensitivities aside, a clear majority of illegal immigrants are Mexican. I think the usage of OTM's most commonly refers to terrorists who cross illegally. Or the concern that terrorists *could* cross as easily as a common migrant worker or narcotrafficker. --Lacarids (talk) 00:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Undocumented Immigrants is Propaganda-Speak

Since the issue is not and never has been "lack of papers," referring to illegal invaders as "undocumented immigrants" is propaganda-speak. The term "invaders" is the accurate term. (EnochBethany (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC))

Beach pic caption

A family enjoys the beach at Border Field State Park on the US side

Is that meant to show how easy it is to swim through the barrier? Valetude (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Jet Pack

If the intention is to deter illegal immigration, then doesn't the invention of a sub-$10,000 jet pack allow anyone to cross the fence at virtually any point? It isn't difficult to imagine someone offering $100 jet pack rides for anyone to cross the fence. There's some irony there. Building a fence to protect a capitalist system that invents a jet pack, which affords people the opportunity to make money offering a service to (illegally) enter into a capitalist system.

http://jetpackaviation.com/the-jumpjet/jb-9/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.66.130.12 (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Map

Is there a map available of where these barriers are? If not, is there data such that one could be made? 108.202.194.102 (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Length

The intro is confusing. It talks of physical walls and "virtual barrier" [which are nothing of the sort]. It is said that the barrier is 580 of the 1,989 mile border. Does that mean 580 miles of physical wall and 1,409 miles of "virtual barriers" or 580 miles of both?Royalcourtier (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Tear down this wall

Enrique Peña Nieto did not mock Reagan's 1985 speech. He was mocking Americans today by quoting fro Reagan.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Article Merge

The information on the Wikipedia page regarding the Mexico-United States barrier obviously stems from bias beliefs regarding the subject, as the very first sentence of the article proves with the term "illegal immigration." The series of walls and fences was NOT created to prevent undocumented immigrants from entering the United States. Both governments agreed to the construction due to the Battle of Los Ambos Nogales in 1918. Having suffered losses, both the United States and Mexico thought this solution best to avoid any future confrontations. If such irresponsible reporting is going to occur, then at the very least Wikipedia could reference the battle that took place on that fateful day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FraggleRockQueen (talk • contribs) 13:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose--Rockero 05:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose--The barrier itself should have its own article as it falls within a classification of walls and fences collectively known a Separation barrier. The barrier itself is separate from the border. Both barriers and borders change over time and not not neccessarily correspond to each other.--P Todd 15:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose--John Kim 03:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose obviously. This article needs expansion. The wall is hugely notable. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 03:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose the articles are about different walls i suggest you shouldnt merge it.roadcrusher2 11:39am 6 October 2007 (ETZ) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Different topics. Tynetrekker (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree The United States is not special. --GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 04:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Special ed, maybe CybergothiChé ^{word to your mother} 16:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Setting aside the dilatory and acrimonious comments above, there is no justification for merger. The topic is important and notable, such that it warrants a freestanding article. Ergo Sum 01:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mexico–United States barrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

CNN poll

I think the last section about the 6-in-10 CNN poll should be removed. The last election cycle clearly showed how biased the polls of mainstream media are, especially CNN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.30.69.251 (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mexico–United States barrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Center for Immigration Studies

I recently reverted an attempt to exclude relevant information about the Center for Immigration Studies from the article. Trump refers to a study done by this extreme right wing hate group to bolster his border control arguments, and I think it is important to state the type of group it is to give proper context. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Including the label "hate group" is relevant here, as cited.

While those arguing one side or another of an issue will often attempt to add qualifications attacking a source, it should be noted that the source cited for Trump quoting the Center for Immigration Studies directly called them a "hate group". That I agree the label is highly relevant here, my support doesn't mean as much as the reliable source's. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I preserved the SLPC's "hate group" label as a compromise but reverted the copyedits which had no consensus and the unsourced "anti-immigrant" claim. 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I note you have received a discretionary sanctions warning, 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109/((u|Darryl.jensen}}. Rather than declaring a "compromise" and instituting it, I'd suggest a bit of discussion. The source is quite clear that the hate group with "political bias" "advocates for reductions in legal immigration". Heck, they're the "go-to think tank for the anti-immigrant movement with its reports and staffers often cited by media and anti-immigrant politicians". - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why a consensus would be required for simple, sensible copy edits. Hard to assume good faith with this SPA IP editor. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

"Tout" as in "peddle, sell, hawk" wasn't neutral. We can work on a neutral "sensible" rephrasing. 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

"Tout" means promote, which is what Trump was doing. Perfectly neutral. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you a native english speaker? Read the second definition then look up the word "connotation." 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm British, which almost certainly means my English is better than yours. And who gives a fuck about the second definition when the first definition is accurate? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Alright enough personal stuff. How can we be sure readers won't infer the 2nd definition? We can't so we should pick a better word. 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying I'm jensen when I told you I'm not? The issue here is pretty clear - the text said the group was "anti-immigrant" but the source it was cited to didn't, so I removed it. The rest sounds like a bunch of WP:OR and WP:SYN. Second: the source doesn't call CIS a hate group, it says the SPLC does, so your calling it a hate group toes the line of WP:BLPGROUP. 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

This wikilawyering is unusual in an editor with so few edits. Very suspicious. This group is an anti-immigrant group of racist xenophobes with close ties to white supremacist groups. No way is BLPGROUP a factor. Your edits are very troubling. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Since when is following policy wikilawyering? I notice you didn't respond to the policy issues, like "not supported by the source", which is a pretty big one. Be suspicious all you want but do it somewhere else. This page is for article improvement. 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Everything I added to the article, and everything SPECIFICO added, were according to policy. The fact that the Center for Immigration Studies is a hate group was mentioned in the source. Following a complaint by another editor, I made sure it had proper attribution (even though it was arguably unnecessary). In contrast, you have used policy to try to present this hate group in a more positive light. You then falsely claimed I canvassed, when I was clearly seeking advise about my own behavior. You have no leg to stand on. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Stop trying to obfuscate. "Anti-immigrant" was unsourced. CIS is a small org and BLPGROUP applies. "Anti-immigrant" was removed per BLPGROUP so you don't restore it without clear consensus. Simple. 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Wait, they aren't against the people, they are against the only action that defines them? That's a pretty fine line. I myself am anti-racism. I'm also -- surprisingly enough -- anti-racist. The hate-group is also the "go-to think tank for the anti-immigrant movement". Further, I'm not aware of the ADL being particularly concerned with groups that hate an action. The ADL site linked in the cited article is abundantly clear: "...what precipitated listing CIS as an anti-immigrant hate group for 2016 was its repeated circulation of white nationalist and anti-Semitic writers in its weekly newsletter and the commissioning of a policy analyst who had previously been pushed out of the conservative Heritage Foundation for his embrace of racist pseudoscience." - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for edit warring. Please read the subsequent discussion and decide if any wording changes are necessary. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll be honest, when I see an editor like Scjessey above say something like The fact that the Center for Immigration Studies is a hate group", it really makes me doubt that he is operating in accord with WP:NPOV. This matter is not "fact", it is the opinion of the SPLC - the only "fact" is that the SPLC considers them a hate group. The section currently under dispute is not phrased neutrally, and that SPLC opinion is currently positioned in that sentence to poison the well against the CIS group in the minds of the reader. It is WP:UNDUE to include it here, especially when no counter position is presented, and mention of the SPLC should be removed. Its there in the source article and in Center for Immigration Studies, doesn't need to be in this one. -- Netoholic @ 20:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

BS. Restore. SPECIFICO talk 09:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Netoholic: Please assume good faith, particularly with editors who have significant Wikipedia experience in countless topics. A "counter position" would strike a false balance. Look at our well-sourced article on the Center for Immigration Studies and you will see it is a widely criticized organization. The source we use in this article goes out of its way to point out that Trump is touting a study conducted by a hate group, so our article should reflect that. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

This is just fringe-validation. "Immigrant" is well-sourced and the outfit is described all over the place as an advocacy hate group. Except by, um, well... SPECIFICO talk 12:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Well then, the likely problem is that this one source seems to have been cherry-picked specifically for the purpose of including the SPLC mention. I've added an additional three major news sources which cover this, and none of them mention the SPLC. Also, you're still talking like someone that does not have NPOV in mind. -- Netoholic @ 15:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Netoholic: You continue to accuse other editors of bad faith and non-neutral editing, yet you are the only editor who continues to edit the article to remove the disputed text without first seeking a consensus, presumably because you are unlikely to find one. SummerPhDv2.0, SPECIFICO, MrX, Volunteer Marek and myself all think the "hate group" designation should be in there, because it was in the original source and it concerns Trump's justification for his actions. Perhaps you should self-revert and continue the discussion? It looks to me like we are moving in the direction of an RfC, which is a necessarily evil when a minority of editors are intent pushing an agenda. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Or a behavioral review. SPLC is not the only source that describes this organization as an anti-immigrant hate group. Note that this has been pointed out several times here and met only with deflection and denial. This is not a toughie. They're an anti-immigrant hate group in the eyes of the mainstream of the inhabited world. SPECIFICO talk 17:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, but that's covered in the article about CIS where these views can all be presented. It doesn't need to be re-fought here when the sources about this tweet don't agree unanimously that its worth mentioning. -- Netoholic @ 17:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I removed all the language which has recently been contentious, and added additional sources per above. I'd rather no "flavorful" adjectives or inflammatory language be used when its under disagreement between the sources and between editors. I don't want to see any agenda's pushed - by a minority or a majority - its not our role to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Find good sources, summarize their description of events in an NPOV manner, that's all. -- Netoholic @ 17:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

You may not cherrypick sources to whitewash article content. You may not edit war against the clear consensus on this article talk page. Somebody's gonna put the established consensus content back and you should not remove it. Go to NPOVN or BLPN if you are unable to accept this. SPECIFICO talk 17:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you really trying to say that adding sources is "cherry-picking". I can't even fathom. -- Netoholic @ 17:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll be honest, when I see an editor like Netoholic above say something like "...this one source seems to have been cherry-picked specifically for the purpose of including the SPLC mention", it really makes me doubt that they are operating in accord with WP:NPOV. The original addition of the source here, called the group "an immigration researcher". If Darryl.jensen cherry-picked the source to include the SPLC material, they're doing it wrong, especially when they later removed that very material.[2] Instead, it seems an editor added a reliable source to add a statement to the article, then didn't particularly care for everything the source actually says. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Well instead of rebutting the consensus he's saying that he doesn't understand, or can't fathom, WP policy. That's a statement about himself and his thought processes, but it's not a refutation of the consensus view. So I think it's time to restore the consensus text to the article and move forward. SPECIFICO talk 21:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Consensus is a process, not an unbending declaration to be made by someone who tag-teamed in as part of a recent edit war. The sentence is fine right now, as it accurately, and briefly summarizes the consensus of 4 major news sources, without including any labels which the sources don't agree on and doesn't provoke further tendentious editing. -- Netoholic @ 01:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, consensus is a process. An IP edit warring against several other editors is not working to build one, neither is someone stepping in, making their preferred edit and declaring it a compromise. A baseless claim of cherry-picking followed by outrage that someone would accuse you of the same is not consensus either, even if you confidently declare that your version is fine and a consensus of four sources (who don't seem to indicate that they've agreed to anything that I can see).

That "edit war", BTW, was (according to the editor blocked for it) not about the issue you are raising. They were arguing over "immigrant" vs. "immigration" but did a bad job making that clear and an even worse job of discussing it. In other words, the edit war had nothing to do with your argument, much as the choice of the source wasn't someone carefully choosing sources to sneak in the material you dislike, which that editor later accepted. In fact, you are the only editor so far complaining about the "hate group". - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not complaining about anything. I'm not advocating anything. I stepped in to remove extraneous labeling which was causing an edit war, wasn't necessary to communicate the point of that line, and was not the consensus of the sources. The current line is bare bones, something any reasonable editor on this page should have done rather than tag-team revert. You all had the chance to stop the edit war by simply removing the contentious wording, but instead traded barbs with IP editor by changing one irritating phrase to another. Sometimes, less is more. -- Netoholic @ 09:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

You see it as "extraneous labeling" but everyone else sees it as necessary context. It's the equivalent of saying "Hitler was a very fine gentleman, according to a study performed by this group of Nazis." It is important that we include this context, otherwise the information has no value at all other than to mislead the reader. The source thought it was important the study was performed by a hate group, and only you disagree with that. Bear in mind, the source (which you claimed was cherry picked) was originally added by the editor who first complained about he "hate group" moniker. I think we're done here. -- Scjessey→ (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I've restored the text that has resulted from the consensus formed here, although I kept Netoholic's better formatting of the reference. I've just realized that this aspect of the article (which is itself non-political) falls under the auspices of Arbcom's ruling on modern politics, so be aware discretionary sanctions may be used in the event of transgressions, including the 1RR. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the entire line. Scjessey has removed the additional sources just so that he could keep the incendiary labels. Now we can discuss whether this minor news item of the day even belongs, what sources to use, and how to word it before adding it back. This is the process of consensus. --Netoholic @ 16:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I support this material. The CIS has earned those "incendiary" labels as document by the SPLC. That Trump would cite an organization affiliated with white nationalism[3] is just business as usual.- Mr X 🖋 17:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Previously, you tried to remove the hate group designation based on several different arguments, including the false "cherry-picking" claim, which you've now repeated in your edit summary. (As discussed above, the claim that it was cherry-picked to include the hate group designation is simply wrong. Please drop it.) It would seem that removing the entire section is just another way to try to remove the material. The new claim that it is probably minor would seem to be contradicted by your earlier addition of multiple sources. :I personally understand that you do not want to include the material. The consensus here is that it is relevant. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I removed ALL recently contentious labeling, as it does not add anything to the actual point being made. I also added sources which were a mix of viewpoints on the topic. Only one source presented on this entire topic uses the particular "hate group" designation you're insisting on, and so yes, removing additional sources just to keep that contentious label is clearly cherry-picking. -- Netoholic @ 18:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

That removal is IMO blockworthy gaming and violation of the clear consensus here. The whole consensus version before the IP/edit-warrior disruption should be reinstated in the article. SPECIFICO talk 17:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Removing the line IS reverting to prior to the edit war - that line has been under contest almost since it was first inserted. Since the edit war started in earnest on April 11th, I suppose this April 6th version would seem to be the consensus version you're talking about. That being said, I doubt the line should be included at all until we have version which won't keep coming back to this edit war should be developed, with input from ALL the sources and wording which represents the consensus of those sources. -- Netoholic @ 18:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

That's not how it works. There is solid consensus for the current wording. If that changes, so will the article text. Aside from the IP who suspiciously edited from a Lithuania-based web host and is likely a sock of a blocked user, you are the only editor who disagrees with the wording. I think it's time to move on, don't you?- Mr X 🖋 18:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Netoholic: There was not an edit war. There were two edit wars. First, an IP (later blocked) warred without much explanation, later saying that the group is anti-immigration, not anti-immigrant. After they were blocked and given explanations that their argument was illogical, you began a completely separate edit war to remove that they have been designated a "hate group". No one had, to this point said the entire section should go, you came up with that when you found you were unable to remove one particular piece of the section, despite numerous arguments. No one other than you has argued for the removal of the fact that they have been designated a hate group. You are in a one-against-many situation. There is nothing more to do here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Netoholic: Horsecrap. SPECIFICO talk 02:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

And there it is. When you cannot win an argument on merit, I guess trying to get editors sanctioned is the only option. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

1990'sguy just removed the SPLC text again, against the apparent consensus. I would ask that the editor self-reverts and joins the discussion here. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

According to this more detailed article, the SPLC added the CIS to its list shortly after it published the report. However, I really don't see why we should list the SPLC here. It is only one out of many interest/watchdog groups, and one that is very controversial among even mainstream conservatives.[4] Including it here doesn't add anything to the article (just click on the CIS link and read about it), and it will look biased to readers (as in law, even the appearance of bias is something we should avoid). BTW, one editor who hasn't commented here "thanked" me for my edit, so I don't think there's a consensus for adding the phrase. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. It provides necessary context for Trump's comment, and the author of The Hill article evidently thought it was necessary too. If we fail to provide the context for Trump's questionable source of data, we are normalizing it, which is something we cannot afford to do. And seriously, why do we care if conservatives find the group controversial? Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, not reflect conservative thought. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, stop trying to declare a consensus, and just participate in building one that is fair to all viewpoints. The 3 additional sources you removed from that line should be reinstated, and the line phrased to summarize what all 4 sources cover with regards to this. Any minutiae/labels which are not in agreement among those 4 sources should not be included here. So far, only one source presented on this particular tweet even mentions the SPLC, and as such inclusion of such a spurious claim is WP:UNDUE. -- Netoholic @ 02:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Netoholic: We were in a situation where you were the lone voice against a group of editors, which is a de facto consensus. The additional sources you found were totally unnecessary, because the original source covered our text just fine. We don't need to overload the article with unnecessary sources, and you deliberately looked for sources that didn't discredit the hate group, which indicates an agenda. Then you tried to game the discussion by attempting to get me sanctioned. When that failed, all you can apparently do is WP:REHASH tired old arguments. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

If later editors feel there are too many sources, they can consolidate on the ones that reflect the majority of the other sources. I added sources of variety of viewpoints. Right now it's clear we need more sources because this section keeps being edited to include contentious labels not reflective of the overall media coverage. Doesn't your user page say - "If in doubt, leave it out. Consensus before contentious." ? --Netoholic @ 14:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

As I've said before, several times now, just as The Hill thought it was important to point out the study Trump was touting came from a hate group, so does a majority of editors (including me, @SPECIFICO, SummerPhDv2.0, Volunteer Marek, and MrX:), on this talk page. Your continued refusal to accept this apparent consensus is covered in WP:TEND. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

And me, 1990'sguy, Darryl.jensen, and 2a02:4780:bad:25:fced:1ff:fe25:109 disagree that the contentious labels are appropriate. WP:NOTDEMOCRACY anyway, so even if there was a majority on one side, that is NOT the same as "consensus"... and in this case, there isn't even a clear majority (since at least one of those on your list was canvassed here by you). WP:VERIFIABLE is a core policy - and that means we don't cherry-pick sources just based on what we think an article should say. We say in the articles what the consensus of the sources report. -- Netoholic @ 15:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

And as I mentioned above, another editor (who I won't name, at least for now, in case he doesn't want to get dragged into this dispute) "thanked" me for my edit. But as someone who just entered this discussion, what are the three other sources that were removed? --1990'sguy (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

To editor 1990'sguy: - They were added in this edit. -- Netoholic @ 16:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The other sources seem fine, especially the WaPo article, so I'm not sure why it was removed. Surely there were more news stories on this than these four -- I found two more: [5][6] The Washington Examiner article does not mention the SPLC stuff at all, and the AZcentral article only mentions it in a non-defining way (which would violate WP:COATRACK here). --1990'sguy (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Netoholic: Repeating what I've already repeated, because you just don't seem to get it, the source clearly was not "cherry-picked". You seem to have either not read what I said, did not understand or disagree but are unwilling to explain. If you can't back up your claim, it's time to drop it. Also repeating myself, the IP did not agree with you, they earned a block for edit warring on a different issue ("immigration" vs. "immigrant"). If you aren't willing to explain how this agrees with your different issue, please drop it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@SummerPhDv2.0: - the cherry-picking happened when these new sources were removed from the article and continues every time someone suggests they should not be re-added. I'd also argue that, since other sources were so easily available on this topic, that, virtually since the introduction of this line, additional potential sources were either ignored or just not investigated, which is like picking a cherry off the ground while not looking up at the tree full of other cherries available. -- Netoholic @ 17:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Your repeated claim has been that the initial source was "cherry-picked" to include information that the person who found the source did not use, laughably calling the group an "immigration researcher". They later decided they didn't like the source, given that it instead identified them as a right-wing, anti-immigrant hate group. If that is cherry-picking, I'm the pope. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I find that when one finds themself repeating earlier arguments because others "just don't seem to get it", its probably better to just simply move on because either 1) they don't get it before and probably won't if you try again, or 2) they fundamentally disagree with you and your points are failing to persuade. So its better to just move on. In that spirit - do you have any valid reasons why we cannot re-add the 3 removed sources to this section? -- Netoholic @ 18:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

You can have your new, totally unnecessary sources in the article. But the important context that the Center for Immigration Studies is hate group must remain. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

"must remain" - are you giving orders now? Or is that a threat of further edit warring? By what policy are you giving such a rigid dictate? -- Netoholic @ 17:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a well articulated reason for the removal. It's well sourced and pertinent.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

As far as this edit [7], the sources are fine for the most part, but how does it makes sense to source a claim about the wall paying for itself when everysingle one of these notes the claim to be false? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh that one's easy. Please consult your Breeder's Guide. Tomorrow's edit will be to add "per cited source" misinfo from the fringe. SPECIFICO talk 19:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Updated and added RS's

For anyone's information, I have updated some outdated content, added new, and added RS's. --GDP (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the bad sourcing and biased right wing opinion. Much better now! -- Scjessey (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Mexico-US Barrier

Under the section Trump Administration: "A Pine City Manufacturing Co" Can we identify the manufacturing co that builds the'virtual wall'?

Is the material to be used in Trump's border wall identified and is it domestic or imported?

Thank you for any information you can provide. Noreen2601:644:8900:661:897C:EF9C:C4EE:EE86 (talk) 07:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Kilometers..?

It is 3145,0 km..not 3,145 km..vaikka eihän siellä pilkkuja nussita.. Jeerok (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

In American English, 3,145 km = three thousand one hundred forty-five. Levivich (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

State of Union address about Mexico-US Barrier

Can we add 2019 State of Union address about Mexico-US Barrier? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Use of FY (eg FY 2007)

I do not believe FY is a well-known abbreviation. At a guess it might mean "Financial Year", but even then I doubt that is standard in different countries. 217.130.245.188 (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)TomPC 18 Jun 2017

Fiscal Year, which for the United States government would be from 1 October 2016 to 30 September 2007. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Mexico has border fencing as well

Mexico has a border wall on its northern border. There should be coverage of the other side of the border at an equal level. TMLutas (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Sources? Pictures or it didn't happen. Dicklyon (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Not seeing it in images of the United States border - I see just one wall system. I see posts about Mexico wanting/having a wall on their southern border is all. e.g. Daily Mail to stop Central American border crossings. Though most images I see are not serious ones, and Snopes mentions a false meme claim about it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Trumps wall - how much has been built so far ..

Not seeing a mention re Trump administration built walls last year... BBC - Trump's wall: How much has been built so far? so I'll add a note about it ... Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Got a revert. Since it was a delete rather than improvement/update about what went on in 2018, I’ve tried again with clearer emphasis that this is prior design being constructed during the Trump administration. Look, SOME topic stuff happened, the current flaps is not the only thing in the topic. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

It's WP:SYNTH. There's no "however" in the source, and the source is in fact debunking the claim that Mexico is paying for any of it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

So? A “however” is easily adjusted, did not need revert. I have taken out the word “however” and left it as just saying the early 2018 amount was for about 100 miles of new and replacement wall of prior designs. I made no edit re Mexico paying for any of that. I’m just using BBC ‘how much built’ focus of it summarizing wall how much built or renovated info at the Mexico-US border barrier during Trump administration. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, based on this week's activities by We Build the Wall, 3/4 mile of Trump's Wall has now been built, albeit by private industry, not the government. AppliedCharisma (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I've added a mention that 371 miles has now been built, according to the CBP website (which is the ultimate source for any information on this.) Also that when people say "replacement", they mean - again according to CBP - replacement of broken or outdated parts of the wall that presumably weren't working well. If that is not mentioned, the article gives a false impression of what the replacement wall is doing. Also, removed one of the timeline references (Sept. 2019); seems like there're enough. These changes mirror the information already shown on the Trump Wall article. MikeR613 (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)