| Revision as of 20:10, 16 April 2018 editSummerPhDv2.0 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers78,669 edits →Center for Immigration Studies: c← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 14:25, 1 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,294,330 editsm Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Talk:Mexico–United States border wall/Archive 1) (bot |
| (98 intermediate revisions by 47 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
{{Ds/talk notice|ap|brief}} |
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config|archive=Talk:Mexico–United States border wall/Archive %(counter)d|algo=old(365d)|counter=1|maxarchivesize=150k|minthreadsleft=2|minthreadstoarchive=1|archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Architecture |class=C |importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= |
|
{{WikiProject International relations |class=C |importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Architecture |importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Mexico |class=C |importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject International relations |importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject California |class=C |importance=mid |southerncalifornia=yes |southerncalifornia-importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Mexico |importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject California |importance=mid |southerncalifornia=yes |southerncalifornia-importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States |class=C |importance=mid |AZ=yes |AZ-importance=mid |NM=yes |NM-importance=mid |TX=yes |TX-importance=mid |MexAm=yes |MexAm-importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States |importance=mid |AZ=yes |AZ-importance=mid |NM=yes |NM-importance=mid |TX=yes |TX-importance=mid |MexAm=yes |MexAm-importance=low}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|ap|brief}} |
|
{{Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment |course=Misplaced Pages:Wiki Ed/University of San Francisco/Oral and Written Communication Section 17 (Fall 2016)}} |
|
|
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/University_of_California,_Berkeley/Environmental_Justice_Section_103_(Spring_2017) | assignments = ] }} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{old move|date=22 July 2023|from=Mexico–United States barrier|destination=Mexico–United States border wall|result=moved|link=Special:Permalink/1166837692#Requested move 22 July 2023}} |
|
== CNN poll == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Length discrepancy == |
|
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. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How can the intro state that it is 1954 miles and then the table in section 2 give a total of 1933.4 miles. We need consistency when somebody adds data involving numbers they need to check against the other sections of the article that already contain numbers to make sure there’s only one set given. But when people haphazardly add data without doing proper checking then we wind up with bad discrepancies that confuse the reader and add distrust in the article as we don’t know which one is accurate.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)</small> |
|
== Article Merge == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The information on the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages could reference the battle that took place on that fateful day. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)</span></small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
*The numbers come from different sources. In fact, the cited source for the 1954 mile figure goes on a length to address the fact that it's not an easily answered question, since all non-straight line borders can be measured by different degrees of specificity. Did you happen to read that source? It's interesting. Either way, it's not our job to make them consistent, that would be Original Research. If you want to cite an article that discusses this discrepancy, or one about how the length of the border in two different articles is off by 1% (1954-1933.4) 1.05%, just make sure it's relevant and cited, not our original research.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== 2024 Texas Border Crisis == |
|
::'''Oppose'''--] 05:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So this seems to be ramping up and doesn’t seem to be close to ending and maybe we should add a section about it? ] (]) 15:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
::'''Oppose'''--The barrier itself should have its own article as it falls within a classification of walls and fences collectively known a ]. The barrier itself is separate from the border. Both barriers and borders change over time and not not neccessarily correspond to each other.--] 15:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::'''Oppose'''--] 03:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::'''Oppose''' obviously. This article needs expansion. The wall is hugely notable. ]<sup>] ]</sup> 03:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::'''Oppose''' the articles are about different walls i suggest you shouldnt merge it.] 11:39am 6 October 2007 (ETZ) <small>—Preceding ] comment was added at 15:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
::'''Oppose''' Different topics. ] (]) 22:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: '''Agree''' The United States is not special. --] (]) 04:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Special ed, maybe ] ] 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 ], such that it warrants a freestanding article. ] 01:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Tortilla Wall == |
|
|
|
|
|
Which parts are called the Tortilla Wall? --] 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: . |
|
|
|
|
|
:This is a notable reaction to the barrier, and deserves mention in the article. --] 04:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I suggest merging the article Tortilla Wall into this one. ] 13:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Merger proposal == |
|
|
|
|
|
The article ] 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. --] 22:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Oppose merge''' See talk page of other article for massive opposition to this poor merger proposal. ] (]) 22:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::''Note'': there is no "massive opposition" to the merger proposal on ], 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. ] (]) 05:27, 19 February 2008 (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? ] 20:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
Also http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20061214-1922-bn14golden.html ] 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? ] 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. ] 03:00, 20 June 2007 (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/ <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
==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. ] 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 . (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... ] (]) 02:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
Is this truly the best article-name? Does anyone perceive any resemblance to ], ]? ], really? |
|
|
|
|
|
], ], claims that the ], the ], ends @ ]'s ], ]. I've been trying ]; however, no luck, yet. |
|
|
|
|
|
Please do help. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thank You, |
|
|
|
|
|
] Please do ] your ] on your ]. ] ]-]] 02:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
NOT TRUE. The fence is going to run parallel to and adjacent to his property. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] 17:14, 25 March 2009. |
|
|
|
|
|
== 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.] (]) 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. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== "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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
This action has led many environment groups and landowners to speak out against the impending construction of the fence. ) 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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
] (]) 02:09, 6 July 2008 (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 . the fourth paragraph reads: |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote> |
|
|
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. |
|
|
</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
Does this really need a citation, and if so, how do you cite poorly-documented jargon? - ] (]) 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<br /><br /> |
|
|
|
|
|
: 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.<br /><br /> |
|
|
|
|
|
: 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. --] (]) 00:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== 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? --] (]) 04:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Personally, I appreciate pictures and sometimes I get more out of them than the written articles! ] (]) 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) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== 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. ] (]) 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/us-southern-border-fence-tech-map <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
==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. (] (]) 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? ] (]) 12:33, 13 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? ] (]) 15:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Length == |
|
|
|
|
|
The intro is confusing. It talks of physical walls and "virtual barrier" . 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?] (]) 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.] (]) 04:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== External links modified == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|
|
|
|
|
I have just modified {{plural:3|one external link|3 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: |
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090805020755/http://news.newamericamedia.org:80/news/view_article.html?article_id=c17899ed7975f1ada871e1da0c8b52f2 to http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=c17899ed7975f1ada871e1da0c8b52f2 |
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090801200048/http://news.newamericamedia.org:80/news/view_article.html?article_id=4ab13dbeafea01c7a2e94c60ea38cb9e to http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=4ab13dbeafea01c7a2e94c60ea38cb9e |
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071021020708/http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engAMR510031998 to http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engAMR510031998 |
|
|
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/hidalgo_85227___article.html/border_fence.html |
|
|
|
|
|
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}). |
|
|
|
|
|
{{sourcecheck|checked=false}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 19:17, 10 November 2016 (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. |
|
|
] (]) 17:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)TomPC 18 Jun 2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
== External links modified (January 2018) == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|
|
|
|
|
I have just modified 2 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: |
|
|
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.customs.gov/linkhandler/cgov/newsroom/.../hidalgo_fence.pdf |
|
|
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/county_89794___article.html/hidalgo_wall.html |
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091130154132/http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/news_releases/archives/2008_news_releases/2008_fiscal/10152008_3.xml to http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/news_releases/archives/2008_news_releases/2008_fiscal/10152008_3.xml |
|
|
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120722010006/http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/news_releases/archives/2008_news_releases/oct_2008/10152008_7.xml to http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/news_releases/archives/2008_news_releases/oct_2008/10152008_7.xml |
|
|
|
|
|
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. |
|
|
|
|
|
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 04:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Center for Immigration Studies == |
|
|
|
|
|
I recently an attempt to exclude relevant information about the ] 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. -- ] (]) 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. - <span style="color:#D70270;background-color:white;">Sum</span><span style="color:#734F96;background-color:white;">mer</span><span style="color:#0038A8;background-color:white;">PhD</span><sup>]</sup> 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. ] (]) 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". - <span style="color:#D70270;background-color:white;">Sum</span><span style="color:#734F96;background-color:white;">mer</span><span style="color:#0038A8;background-color:white;">PhD</span><sup>]</sup> 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 ] IP editor. -- ] (]) 17:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: "Tout" as in "peddle, sell, hawk" wasn't neutral. We can work on a neutral "sensible" rephrasing. ] (]) 17:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: means ''promote'', which is what Trump was doing. Perfectly neutral. -- ] (]) 18:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: Are you a native english speaker? Read the second definition then look up the word "connotation." ] (]) 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? -- ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] and ]. 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 ]. ] (]) 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. -- ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. -- ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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." - <span style="color:#D70270;background-color:white;">Sum</span><span style="color:#734F96;background-color:white;">mer</span><span style="color:#0038A8;background-color:white;">PhD</span><sup>]</sup> 20:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
I've blocked the IP for edit warring. Please read the and decide if any wording changes are necessary. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I'll be honest, when I see an editor like ] above say something like {{tq|The fact that the Center for Immigration Studies is a hate group"}}, it really makes me doubt that he is operating in accord with ]. 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 ] against the CIS group in the minds of the reader. It is ] 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 ], doesn't need to be in this one. -- ] ] 20:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:BS. Restore. ]] 09:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{reply|Netoholic}} Please ], particularly with editors who have significant Misplaced Pages experience in countless topics. A "counter position" would strike a false balance. Look at our well-sourced article on the ] 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. -- ] (]) 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... ]] 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. -- ] ] 15:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::{{reply|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. {{u|SummerPhDv2.0}}, {{u|SPECIFICO}}, {{u|MrX}}, {{u|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. -- ] (]) 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. ]] 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. -- ] ] 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 ]. Find good sources, summarize their description of events in an NPOV manner, that's all. -- ] ] 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. ]] 17:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: Are you really trying to say that ''adding'' sources is "cherry-picking". I can't even fathom. -- ] ] 17:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::I'll be honest, when I see an editor like ] above say something like {{tq|"...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 ]. The original addition of the source , called the group "an immigration researcher". If {{u|Darryl.jensen}} cherry-picked the source to include the SPLC material, they're doing it wrong, especially when they later removed that very material. 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. - <span style="color:#D70270;background-color:white;">Sum</span><span style="color:#734F96;background-color:white;">mer</span><span style="color:#0038A8;background-color:white;">PhD</span><sup>]</sup> 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. ]] 21:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od|::::::::::}} |
|
|
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 ]. -- ] ] 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". - <span style="color:#D70270;background-color:white;">Sum</span><span style="color:#734F96;background-color:white;">mer</span><span style="color:#0038A8;background-color:white;">PhD</span><sup>]</sup> 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. -- ] ] 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 by the editor who first complained about he "hate group" moniker. I think we're done here. -- ]→ (]) 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. -- ] (]) 13:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I've removed the entire line. ] 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. --] ] 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 is just business as usual.- ]] 🖋 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. ] is that it is relevant. - <span style="color:#D70270;background-color:white;">Sum</span><span style="color:#734F96;background-color:white;">mer</span><span style="color:#0038A8;background-color:white;">PhD</span><sup>]</sup> 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. -- ] ] 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. ]] 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 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. -- ] ] 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?- ]] 🖋 18:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::{{u|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-immigra'''tion''', not anti-immigra'''nt'''. 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 ] situation. There is nothing more to do here. - <span style="color:#D70270;background-color:white;">Sum</span><span style="color:#734F96;background-color:white;">mer</span><span style="color:#0038A8;background-color:white;">PhD</span><sup>]</sup> 20:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
How can the intro state that it is 1954 miles and then the table in section 2 give a total of 1933.4 miles. We need consistency when somebody adds data involving numbers they need to check against the other sections of the article that already contain numbers to make sure there’s only one set given. But when people haphazardly add data without doing proper checking then we wind up with bad discrepancies that confuse the reader and add distrust in the article as we don’t know which one is accurate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by KarlderGrosse843 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
