Wikipedia

Talk:Trump administration family separation policy/Archive 4

< Talk:Trump administration family separation policy
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Platonk in topic Edit explanation
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Requested move 7 July 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago47 comments23 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 17:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Trump administration family separation policy → Trump administration zero tolerance immigration policy – The last requested move did not have a set move target so I'm proposing moving to the most popular alternative title, since it did get a significant number of votes, in order to receive input from the people who voted for a third option. wumbolo ^^^ 15:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose This article is about family separation specifically, not the overall zero-tolerance policy. –dlthewave ☎ 17:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Dlthewave. The common name for the subject of this article is "family separation policy". Wasn't it clear from the move request less than two weeks ago that this proposed name had little support?- MrX 🖋 17:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and WP:COMMONNAME but would prefer Trump Administration Immigration Policy as a compromise. That way, both the zero tolerance policy and family separation (which is not an official policy name, as far as I understand it) can be categories within the article, highlighting neither in the article title. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
We already have Immigration policy of Donald Trump which has a Zero-tolerance policy and family separation on the Mexico border section. –dlthewave ☎ 19:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, then. I suggest we talk merging this article with that one. Wumbolo? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
The topic of this article is a discrete facet of the administration's policy; Trump administration zero tolerance immigration policy should be redirected to that article though. —innotata 01:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The first sentence of this article says "The Trump administration family separation policy, described by the Trump administration as part of its "zero tolerance" policy, was an aspect of U.S. President Donald Trump's immigration policy." That seems to define it as a separate aspect of the zero tolerance policy, and since it is the portion that has received the most public outcry, family separation seems to merit an article of its own. However, I would like to see a reference in the first sentence that supports the claim that the Trump administration indeed described the family separation policy as part of its zero tolerance policy. The only statements I've seen have claimed that family separation is not part of the zero tolerance policy per se but rather part of the policies that are being enforced with zero tolerance. Alternatively, the phrase "described by the Trump administration as part of its "zero tolerance" policy" could be revised to "enforced by the Trump administration as part of its "zero tolerance" policy." Llewkcalbyram (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, but suggest alternative - Coming at this fresh, its clear, from the sources that are the least impacted by daily punditry, that this is not a "family separation policy", but rather family separation as a result of both a zero tolerance policy and long-term border enforcement, so the current title is factually incorrect, POV, and must be changed. One might as well try to make the case that any major urban center has a "family separation policy" with regards to parents who are arrested/detained for criminal activity. Clearly, in the pundit sources, the use of language is geared to be politically-charged, and Wikipedia shouldn't likewise fall prey to that. But this article is not strongly about the actual "zero tolerance policy" itself, but more about the reactions to the impact of that policy. As for this being about Trump, the History section makes clear that family separation has occurred, though more rarely or at least rarely-reported, under other administrations. I suggest move to Family separation of migrants to the United States as the most concise way I can think of to word this, but I also would support OP's move as definitely more WP:NPOV and more accurate than the current one. The suggested merge to Immigration policy of Donald Trump would also meet the NPOV goal, as I get the impression this topic is chock full of WP:RECENTISM, and, while it was full of sound and fury for a time, should probably be tempered by the wisdom of time to be something a bit more concise. Likewise, the related article Protests against Trump administration family separation policy should be merged, but should at least be renamed based on how this RM turns out. -- Netoholic @ 06:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
"One might as well try to make the case that any major urban center has a "family separation policy" with regards to parents who are arrested/detained for criminal activity" <-- for misdemeanors? I don't think so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes for misdemeanors. Felonies are not the only instance where the commission of crime by a parent causes their child to become a ward of the state while the parent is in jail. Assault#United_States mentions that those charged with simple assault are usually classified as misdemeanants, for example. There is an NY example:
  • in New York if a person threatens another person with imminent injury without engaging in physical contact, that is called "menacing". A person who engages in that behavior is guilty of aggravated harassment in the second degree (a Class A misdemeanor; punishable with up to one year incarceration, probation for an extended time, and a permanent criminal record) when they threaten to cause physical harm to another person, and guilty of aggravated harassment in the first degree (a Class E felony) if they have a previous conviction for the same offense
When someone is incarcerated for assault, I'm pretty sure they don't put their kids in the cell with them, thus there would be family separation for misdemeanors already. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Making that as a broader article may make sense but this one about the policy put in place by the current administration should remain. —innotata 01:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the phrase "zero-tolerance" is a political euphemism which doesn't describe the situation. The article's title should concisely and accurately indicate what the policy is about.—AMcDermot (talk) 06:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Incorrect. "Zero tolerance" is a term that's been around since the early 1970s and has always referenced an enforcement of law(s). Just as it does now. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per AMcDermot.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support- the current name of the article implies the existence of a non-existent policy. As I explained in the previous discussion there isn't a "family separation" policy. Also, people citing common name should actually read what it says "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered; see § Neutrality in article titles, below." Its an inaccurate title and should not be used even if some reliable sources do use it.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. To those who oppose and say that it would change the scope since the family separation policy is only a "part" of the zero tolerance policy, in that case the scope should be broadened to the zero tolerance policy, in order to avoid a POV funnel. wumbolo ^^^ 15:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Opposed per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV. "Zero tolerance" is largely used in quotations marks when covered by the press; see snippets:
  • Trump's "zero tolerance" policy sowed confusion from start ... CBS News-Jul 1, 2018
  • Backlash Continues To Grow Against 'Zero Tolerance' Policy ... NPR-Jul 2, 2018
  • Church cages Holy Family to protest 'zero tolerance' policy ... KRON4-Jul 3, 2018
  • Border Crossings Dropped Nearly 20% Under Trump's 'Zero Tolerance' Policy ... TIME-Jul 5, 2018 Etc.
This are WP:scare quotes denoting that the outlet wishes to separate itself from the language used by the administration. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my comments in the (very recently closed) requested-move discussion - no rationale for another RM so soon after the closure of the last one. Neutralitytalk 16:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article is about the effect of Trump's policy. (Not too happy about opening this issue again so soon after the last attempt to change the name either...) Gandydancer (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per WP:Commomname and WP:POVtitle . The argument for common has been made. However, changing the title would also be POV. Wikipedia would enforce the administrations branding is the policy. This is what wp:rs’s call it and it should remain. Also, close discussion per WP:snow.Casprings (talk) 10:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
    @Casprings: actually WP:POVTITLE allows common but POV titles. wumbolo ^^^ 14:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
    @Casprings: The argument for common has been made. Can you please elaborate/summarize the argument? wumbolo ^^^ 11:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose—As noted by numerous sources, family separation is the central novel element of Trump policy that emerged to public light in mid-2018. It is the act adjudicated in the legal cases, and the matter (allegedly and unsuccessfully) suspended by the Executive Order titled "Affording Congress an Opportunity to Address Family Separation." There is a huge ramp up from 21% prosecution of adult border crosses to 100% (minus minors), and perhaps now to 100% minus all minors and parents. But this is not the focus of reliable sources and can be adequately addressed at Immigration policy of Donald Trump. I'd also urge people to edit and improve Immigration detention in the United States.--Carwil (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The policy of not jailing children with parents who are jailed is a policy which has existed for decades. The actual POLICY is perhaps best abbreviated as Trump criminalization of illegal immigration (since not everything illegal is criminal, a distinction most people are probably not aware of). If Trump decided to make jaywalking a criminal offense tomorrow, this would inevitably result in jaywalking parents being separated from their children because we would not send the children of jaywalkers to prison with jaywalkers, but that would not make the policy itself to separate families. There comes a point where you need to choose a more accurate term despite mass media inflammatory jargon. ScratchMarshall (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Many families being separated are asylum seekers, not illegal immigrants, mind you. —innotata 01:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
      • @Innotata: these "asylum seekers" are not asylum seekers; they're illegal immigrants who crossed the border illegally. Real asylum seekers go to a port of entry. Source: [3] wumbolo ^^^ 11:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
        • @Wumbolo: You can break a civil law and still have valid asylum case. Immigration is a civil proceeding, not criminal, hence why asylum seekers aren't entitled to attorneys in court, nor can police deport/arrest/ask someone's citizenship status. All that said, even port of entries are denying people per: [4] Shushugah (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
        • @Wumbolo: In fact the source you indicate says: "Anyone who declares they are seeking asylum at a U.S. port of entry is then moved ..." and does not say anything about those who first immigrated and then asked for asylum. Actually, Article 31 of the Refugee Convention states: "The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence." And the United States ratified the 1967 Protocol of the Refugee Convention in 1968, and thereby obliged itself to adhere to Articles 2 through 34 of the Convention (see WP article text, and the reference). However, its seems to be "not done" to file complaints for Non-compliance, or such complaints have no effect. --Chris Howard (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per common name policy. That some people don't like the common name -- see ScratchMarshall, above -- isn't Wikipedia's problem. --Calton | Talk 23:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
    @Calton: Common name policy says that the article title should be a commonly used name. Are you arguing that the current title is a commonly used name (in proportion to the proposed title)? wumbolo ^^^ 11:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what most of the editors here, including myself, are arguing. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 16:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@ScratchMarshall:As I've said before, everyone keeps citing WP:COMMONNAME as a reason to keep the current title even though it contradicts their argument. It says " Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered" (emphasis mine). So in other words, just because the media likes to use an inaccurate name, it doesn't mean that we should. No one has explained how the current title complies with that policy.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@Rusf10: you are right. Both WP:NPOVTITLE and WP:COMMONNAME are guidelines under Wikipedia:Article titles. People are giving far too much priority to CN when NT is probably just-as if not MORE important. I think people are probably arguing for a WP:POVNAME on the basis that:
  • "prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side"
However, this ignores the subsequent guideline of "circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality" which are:
  • Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later
  • Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious
Both of these guidelines apply here. I very much doubt the trendy 'family separation policy' slogan will be connected years later, as media furor dies down and people become aware that this is simply enforcing existing laws as Bush already did. There is also a far more encyclopedic alternative available, which is the suggested move. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose there's no identifiable single "zero tolerance policy", rather that's the stated overall approach of the administration manifesting itself beyond treatment of border arrivals, which probably should be covered in broader articles. Family separation of border arrivals is a distinct change in policy and topic of discussion. Agree with Casprings and Carwil. —innotata 01:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment 15 Opposes, and 5 Supports as of July 12, 2018 (with two being other name suggestions). This clearly will not achieve consensus at best, and at worst has marginal support. Shushugah (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - that better suits the naming guide criteria of more precise and recognizable, the conciseness seems about the same. The existing title is a bit of untrue or mismatch as there is no policy literally stating to separate families, the only policy about the topic is the E.O. to *not* separate children. I had earlier proposed 'BORDER SEPARATION OF CHILDREN' as more what the article content is about. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

clarifying what ZT actually did

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I think it's useful to look to some pre-2016 discussion to get a more historical view of when certain policies were in effect, to find out when they were implemented...

  • Kobach, Kris (29 April 2010). "Why Arizona Drew a Line". New York Times. since 1940, it has been a federal crime for aliens to fail to keep such registration documents with them. The Arizona law simply adds a state penalty to what was already a federal crime.

Does anyone know the name of any such circa 1940 law if it exists?

Does anyone know what year "illegal entry" was defined as a misdemeanor, in comparison to the above which is not about entry but rather a separat crime related to lacking documentation? There would probably be overlap between these 2 (those who enter illegally and lack documents) but also mutually exclusive populations (those who enter illegally who have documents, those who enter legally but lose documents).

I'd like to know what specific articles we have for these 2 notably important laws, and if we could feature them more prominently here, and discuss whether or not any changes were made to them or to their ramifications when enforced.

If these were already crimes then what aspects did 'zero tolerance' change? Was the policy actually criminalizing any new behaviors? Or does policy describe a decision to enforce existing crimes rather than choose not to prosecute them?

If it is the latter case, when was the decision not to prosecute existing crimes made, and do we have an article about that? Is it perhaps harder to pinpoint as it slowly accrued as a general policy of avoiding prosecution rather than a rapid reversal? ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

User:ScratchMarshall - This article does not have a link to the Zero-Tolerance Policy try this. Illegal entry and Reno v. Flores articles exist and may help. The specific law on illegal entry seems to be 8 USC 1325 here and more broadly if it is a felon entering it is an aggravated felony (8 USC 1101). The administration did not criminalize any new behaviour or change stated penalties as that is the province of enactment of law by Congress. The first offense being 'federal misdemeanor' was always just reflecting Misdemeanor of it being up to 6 months in jail, although typically the judicial decision seems time served, deportation, and a criminal record., and further offenses being Felony reflects the next step is up to 2 years jailed. (Except if the person was a felon then 8 USC 1101 makes crossing an aggravated felony, and immigration can be barred per 8 USC 1227. I think the administration recent policy was to increase the prosecutorial rigor, to refer more cases and separate more families. Prior administrations did some of that but under Bush it was initially done strongly but then generally avoided and under Obama it was generally done for repeat offenses. It seems to also vary day-to-day and region-by-region, and as assignments or projects happen -- so it may just be that on a given day the holding facility is full and they try to not refer anyone for prosecution.
This article does not provide the background of improper entry dip in 2017 then surge in 2018, and particularly that it has over time gone from about 3% families to 24.9% families. Elsewhere I've seen recent immigrants attributed to violence in the area of Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatamala, though many are simply going to seek an income. e.g. this (The Venezuelan disaster refugees are still being handled in neighboring nations, and the spike of refugees entering Canada illegally seem African and Haitian.) Hope all of this helps. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Decent finds!

Presently this article title sounds very sensationalist. If we have a long view of history then a neutral article would cover the spike/dip/spike of enforcing the law as observed under EarlyBush/LateBush+Obama/Trump as you describe. If Bush was enforcing the law early in his term then I'm wondering why there isn't a coordinate Bush administration family separation policy to cover that era. Or an Obama administration crime-ignoring policy for when federal crimes were not punished as written. Oddly enough while digging for information about Bush's policies, complaints from 2001-2009 were actually about events that happened under Clinton's watch. I've put together a draft for a Clinton administration family separation policy stub that could potentially be expanded as more information is discovered. ScratchMarshall (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

One of the sources lays it out clearly: Although past administrations cracked down on immigration, they used administrative detention (detaining families together, a practice which was heavily criticized) or made exceptions for families. The Trump administration began the practice of criminal detention, which resulted in parents and children being detained separately. The executive branch has a certain amount of leeway in how they choose to implement the law and they are responsible for those choices even if they are "just enforcing the law." –dlthewave ☎ 19:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Dlthewave - Obama separated families for repeat offenders. Generally Washington Post had those at about 20% of the general catches -- not sure if the percent with families was more or less than that. Between the percentage of families increasing and the percentage of catches prosecuted going way above 20%, the numbers increased from about 1,000 per year to about 1,000 per month. Not holding on to detained was criticized as "Catch and release" and it was a campaign pledge to stop it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:45, 13 July 2018
On my PC now, striking through sock edits. Doug Weller talk 16:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Holocaust comparisons

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

An IP has re-added material in this diff explicitly comparing this to the Holocaust in the lead. They claim a talk-page consensus, though there is no discussion on this page. I've rolled back their change, as I feel it violates several site policies; among them WP:BLP and WP:MOSLEAD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

My assumption based on the IP's edit history would be this for what they are refering to. Also note the IP's block log. PackMecEng (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
If there's expert commentary that likens the policy to the Holocaust or other repressive government actions, then it needs to go into the body first. Then, we can discuss whether its lede-worthy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

By 20 July, only 364 of 2,500-plus migrant children had been reunified

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/facing-deadline-government-reunified-364-2-500-plus-migrant-children-n893006. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Is there an editing point you'd like to make that will improve the article? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 12:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Some editors appreciate it when other editors leave links for a site that will help to improve our understanding of an article. I certainly do. Rather than leave snotty notes perhaps you could just not bother to read the suggested articles. It is important that editors should make an effort to get along with others rather than promote ill will. Gandydancer (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

  Not done it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. PackMecEng (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Video

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The video is basically propaganda, which doesn't belong on wikipedia. So far I can't find any consensus to keep it in. I have looked at the discussion and it is mixed. But I think it not NPOV. Afootpluto (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

NPOV

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

This topic is strongly emotional to many people, but the Wikipedia article needs to be NPOV. That is, this article needs to cover neutrally the various laws and events leading to the policy. It is also reasonable to include some reactions or criticisms. I recognize we have a problem maintaining this NPOV (and let me disclose that my own personal feelings are very POV that this is a BAD THING), but I think the article will be more useful and influential if it is presented as an encyclopedia article rather than an editorial. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I've done a lot of work on the article and I can understand that it may seem to be NPOV even though IMO the editors that have worked on it tried to keep it fair and factual. For one thing, the information that gradually emerged really was strongly sensational - sobbing and screaming children and crying mothers plus distraught others reporting on the circumstances - which may give the article, in some places, an almost tabloid-like reading. I for one made no attempt to keep such emotional information from the article when it was reported by reliable sources, though it may not seem "encyclopedic" to some readers. If you have ideas about how to make article changes or additions I hope you will share them with the other editors here. Fresh eyes are always helpful for such difficult subject matter. Gandydancer (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
It will be a big and fairly simple improvement if the lead is shorter and more neutral. For that to happen, material currently in the lead should be made available elsewhere in the article. I am willing to help but my area of expertise is closer to 17th c European art than to US politics. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, in part were you perhaps thinking this: Also, Attorney General Jeff Sessions defended the policy. Other administration officials argued that the policy was intended to deter immigration or be used as political leverage to force Democrats and moderate Republicans to accept hardline immigration legislation. ? Gandydancer (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree, there is a lot of issues with this article not being NPOV. Afootpluto (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Article size

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I am just curious if there is a way, or any way, to split the article? My reasoning is that such an important "blunder" (trying to be nice) of an administration using children as a bargaining chip for anything should not be so long of a read. As a father and grandfather I even have trouble thinking about it how this could have happened.
I gave the article a fast read because of the length and I dislike doing that. I think the lead somewhat too in depth but did not find anything that shouldn't be included in the article except possibly at least one video. I clicked on the picture of the first one and it switched to a blank screen with mostly inaudible voice, crying, and explanatory caption writing including a lot of "[Background noise]". I stopped half-way because I could not see any significance or improvement it makes to the article.
The entire decision was a horrendous catastrophe and I hope becomes a haunting legacy for those involved. The first video may have been included by consensus, but I would be remiss if I did not point out that "shock-and-awe" is not needed. As the saying goes: "A picture is worth a thousand words", and the article has those, so I cannot see any benefit certainly not at the top of the article.
I haven't even looked at any policies concerning videos but assume it is acceptable. The second video is actually that and conveys the atrocity. Aside from the packing of families in a cage, which federal law does not even allow the US to do with hardened criminals, the conditions were below those expected of some unimaginal third-world country, so certainly significant, relevant, and not placed at the very top to be a distraction. These are just my opinions, most certainly with no political agenda, so I hope it will be considered. Otr500 (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Support for asylum seekers jailed when presenting legally

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

We need better sources before including "numerous reports" of legally presented asylum seekers going to jail. One of the linked articles included no information on the topic, another off-handedly mentioned two examples but is not a good source for either.

This feels like political fluff rather than facts at this point, especially since officials have responded and that response was left out. Please find better sources and stop undoing without explanation. These sorts of things should be discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polisciatica (talk • contribs) 16:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Here are more sources, some of which cite official court records: Texas Tribune NPR Vox Texas Monthly ACLU NBC LA Times –dlthewave ☎ 17:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The Texas Tribune link is definitely a good one to make the case. "Numerous" is still too strong of a word for a few cases and the links cite the same cases multiple times. I'd say simple removal of "numerous" and addition of administration response would make this neutral and accurate. Polisciatica (talk • contribs) 20:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Improving this article

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I have been intimately involved with this article and for the last few days I have been making an attempt to update and clean it up. It is a nightmare to attempt this because the editors were working with an administration that on an almost daily basis gave alternate facts about its policy and the number of parents and children that its policy was effecting. As responsible editors we tried to fit the emerging facts, the new facts that did not agree with the old facts, and such, which is typical of the current administration's track record, into our article. It all resulted in an unnecessarily complimented and wandering article that pretty much matched what we had to work with (gov't spin). I'll keep trying to make it more presentable but it is not exactly a fun project and I don't expect that I'll do it very well at all as I am not willing to spend the time needed to turn this article into what I would like. Gandydancer (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

It troubles me that the efforts I engaged in in late June/July to edit the 3rd paragraph of this article so that it is less biased were all for naught. That paragraph is presently the same as it was in mid-June, before I contributed to the development of it. It seems that the efforts that Chris Howard and I engaged in, on the Talk page, to tone things down a bit were simply reverted once we had achieved compromise language and were no longer paying attention. Gandydancer's stewardship throughout development of this article, combined with partisan bias obvious in the comment I am replying to here, reference to this article as "our article" and "turn[ing] this article into what I would like" are all disturbing evidence that Gandydancer feels ownership of this article. The article remains a partisan look at the issue, rather than an objective treatment of it. Llewkcalbyram (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Please, please, please give exact and specific examples (not, for example "late June/July") of where you object, with RS, to support your disagreements. I have every interest in a fair and reliably sourced article. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
All right, I have tracked it down.
Chris Howard produced the agreed upon revision to the third paragraph at 12:09 on 29 July 2018 in this revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trump_administration_family_separation_policy&oldid=852500935
The latter revision was apparently undone by The Terrible Travis at 9:01 on 9 August 2018 with this revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trump_administration_family_separation_policy&oldid=854151102
After looking around for awhile I finally came to understand your complaint. Though I can't understand your complaint about me. Looking back I see that I was in agreement with your suggestions, not disagreement. As far as the changes made, I didn't change the wording and if I'd have picked up on it I would have reversed it. It seems that on one hand you are all pissed off at me for taking over the article and on the other hand pissed off because I did not note the change that upsets you. I'd suggest that this time you watch the article and reverse any changes yourself rather than come to the talk page and blame me or others. Gandydancer (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
It became clear to me back in June that I did not fully understand the pecking order of editors on this page. When my initial edit was summarily reversed and dissed by people, I took my efforts to the talk page and worked something out with an editor who seemed to take charge a bit. I was sorry both that the article struck me as biased and also that it would be an uphill battle to make it more neutral. I stand by my opinion that your comments in the "Improving this article" post struck me as biased about the current administration. Moreover they seemed to suggest that you were overseeing the page, as did your steady presence in the article's history.
I learned early on that it is futile for me to edit the page since what I try to do is reversed every single time. I suspect that a lot of the article was changed by editor The Terrible Travis and that a bunch of repair work needs to be done to redo the work that people did on the article prior to The Terrible Travis's reversion. Another thing is that the references in paragraph 3 were also changed as a result of discussions with Chris Howard, and I am still not sure I can just cut and paste the July 29 version of the third paragraph into the present version and not mess up all the references. I would almost suggest reverting the page to the July 29 version, but a lot of work has gone into it since then. I am at a loss of what to do. Llewkcalbyram (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

There never was any "Trump administration family separation policy"

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This whole article is based on falsehoods, false news stories, and misunderstandings. The Trump zero tolerance policy did not contain one word about separating families. The quote from Jeff Session in this article relating to this, is used to falsely imply that the zero tolerance policy was responsible, but if you read the quote then the last part of it reveals the ACTUAL cause of the separations: "If you cross the border unlawfully ... then we will prosecute you. If you smuggle an illegal alien across the border, then we'll prosecute you. ... If you're smuggling a child, then we're going to prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you, probably, as REQUIRED BY LAW." The only cause of those family separations was a 2016 court ruling on the Flores Settlement(which partly reversed a 2015 ruling). No policy of the Trump administration changed anything in this regard. The executive order that Trump issued that solved this crisis did NOT reverse, remove or change the zero tolerance policy in any way. It is still fully effective. The executive order only ordered the court to change the Flores settlement. Here is that relevant section from the executive order:

(e) The Attorney General shall promptly file a request with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to modify the Settlement Agreement in Flores v. Sessions, CV 85-4544 (“Flores settlement”), in a manner that would permit the Secretary, under present resource constraints, to detain alien families together throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration proceedings.[1]

Simply put, this entire wikipedia article is based on false narratives from the extremely politically polarized U.S. news media, that in this case was more concerned with assigning blame than to report correctly and fairly. I recommend that this article should be deleted. BreakingZews (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I consider it highly unlikely that this article will be deleted but if you want to try, you can nominate it at WP:AFD. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.vox.com/2018/6/20/17484300/read-trump-executive-order-family-separation-immigration-full-text

Lead images

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is obviously a very charged and emotional subject, but it's sort of jarring to have those three images in the page's lead. I don't think this appropriate for an encyclopedic entry on the subject, and I suggest we choose a single piece of media to represent the lead rather than having all three of those just sort of plastered up there. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 11 January 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago20 comments14 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. There is a clear absence of consensus for the proposed move, with argument and opinion tending against it. bd2412 T 00:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Trump administration family separation policy → Trump Administration Zero Tolerance Immigration Policy – The name appears inappropriate, with various neutrality issues as well as the title appearing to be factually inaccurate - there was never an explicit "Family Separation Policy", and though that might have been the effect of a policy, that should be discussed within an article about the policy, and split into its own article only if the article in question has become too long and a split at that point is appropriate. As such, I am proposing the name is changed to something more neutral, referencing the actual policy, "Zero Tolerance". I will note that I am not wedded to the proposed name; I believe that both it and the current name are a bit unwieldy, and a more concise way to state it would be appreciated. NoCOBOL (talk) 07:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: Here are a few examples of the term being used as the primary reference to the policy in reliable sources: [5] CNN [6] Politico [7] Washington Post. I should note that these are WP:CHERRYPICKED, but it is my intention to display that there is frequent use for both terms, and that as an encyclopedia we must then decide which one we wish to prefer, and policy holds that we should use the official and neutral term. NoCOBOL (talk) 09:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • There is no consensus on a common name, as I have shown above. Both are in common use, and that is why we have to move onto other naming policies to decide which takes precedence. Given that neutrality is only ever superseded when a non-neutral name is so common as to overrule it, I believe that the name change is needed. NoCOBOL (talk) 11:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I see. All the same, that lacks arguments brought here, and so I feel a discussion of those past discussions are just going to side-track from the discussion here. NoCOBOL (talk) 06:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose both titles meet WP:COMMONNAME, and the proposed title is actually used more slightly often in news media and the web in general. There is a tendency for left-leaning media to favor the current title. "Family separation" is more descriptive than "zero tolerance". I also don't find the OP's arguments (inappropriate; various neutrality issues; factually inaccurate) to be true. - MrX 🖋 12:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The title as it is now is based on politically charged and biased rhetoric in the heavily polarized U.S. media. This should either be renamed "Trump Administration Zero Tolerance Policy" - which has nothing to do with the family separations at the border, or this article could be renamed "Family Separations at the U.S.-Mexico border", and be about the family separations which since 2016 are primarily a consequence of the 2016 court ruling on the Flores settlement. There was never any "Trump administration family separation policy", that is simply false. BreakingZews (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article is not about his immigration policy in general., or the zero tolerance policy in general, which is a description of a single very broad statement. And , as even the nomination for the AfD on this article said " The Trump Zero Tolerance Policy did not contain one word about separating families" It's about the specific effect on one particular aspect of his policy, that has attracted world-wide attention, and which has tested the tolerance of even his supporters--probably the one thing that has done so the most. Its roots have some connection with previous matters, and this can be and should be discussed in the policy. The title does not necessarily assume he is principally to blame, just that it is principally associated with him. The reader will reach their own conclusion. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
    • The issue is that this speaks of a "Family Separation Policy", and the argument for keeping the name is that this is a WP:COMMONNAME for the "Zero Tolerance Policy". If your argument is that this is merely the family separation impact of the "Zero Tolerance Policy", then we need a separate name change request to alter the title away from "Policy", as that name is misleading as to what the article is about. NoCOBOL (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC
  • Oppose Both names are common, this one is more descriptive and relevant to the article content. Both terms refer to administration policies, though strictly speaking "zero tolerance" is the larger policy and this is the sub-policy. I would not object to a separate article on "zero tolerance" if it was well done.--Pharos (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. The current title is a WP:POVFUNNEL. The proposed title is more precise: while families were being separated for a few days, the zero tolerance policy is still discussed [8]. If we want to argue about the WP:COMMONNAME, you can read my original analysis on June 18, 2018 which took me 55 minutes, below. (These sources were generated from a predetermined list of sources.) wumbolo ^^^ 09:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
COMMONNAME analysis (June 18, 2018)
  • Support Wumbolo makes some good points and presented a helpful list of how much each is used. Also most of the article itself seems to use zero tolerance already. I am not sure why the push back. Also the argument that this article is broader then zero tolerance then it is also more broad than the current title so that is not much of a reason. I could see some reason behind splitting the article as mentioned above, one to zero tolerance and keep this one as more of the impact of the policy. That might let this keep the family separation but I would drop the policy part of the title perhaps. PackMecEng (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't like "Zero Tolerance Policy" at all—most of the sources seem to describe it as the family separation policy. If there is to be a change, it shouldn't be to this. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect Zero Tolerance Policy should be redirected to this page. The title shouldn’t be changed. Whether it’s factually inaccurate or not (at this point, it is accurate. The administration forcibly separated children from their parents because children couldn’t be detained, then put them in concentration camps.) it is the WP:COMMONNAME of the policy. Trillfendi (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
    And children couldn't be detained because of the Flores settlement. That's not a Trump policy, so the title is inaccurate, isn't it? wumbolo ^^^ 20:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, largely for the reasons already set out by DGG. The article is about the effect of decisions and procedures within the scope of a zero tolerance approach actually have on a particular group, namely on children and their caretakers, not about zero tolerance policy in general. --Chris Howard (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This article is about the notable topic of family separation. The broader "zero-tolerance" topic is covered within Immigration policy of Donald Trump. As a sidenote, this is not the place to debate whether or not it's a Trump policy. Editors contributing to this discussion should approach it from the mainstream viewpoint that the Trump administration's policies led to the separation of families. If folks feel that the family separation viewpoint does not fairly represent RS coverage per WP:WEIGHT, they should present reliable sources that say otherwise. –dlthewave ☎ 22:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Trying to update wording...

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I was going to go through the article and update the wording but what with the new information that says that children are still being separated from their parents even though Trump said some months ago that zero tolerance would no longer be in effect I keep running into snags. Perhaps best to not try to update the wording just yet. Gandydancer (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Your comment perfectly describes the problem with this article, the Zero Tolerance Policy had nothing to do with the separations of children from their families on the border. There is not a word about that issue in the Zero Tolerance Policy. And the Zero Tolerance Policy is still in full effect. The executive order that was supposed to end the separation of children from their families on the border(and to the best of my knowledge it has), only ordered/requested a change to the law(the precedence set by the flores settlement), not any change to any Trump policy. A court ruling in 2016 on the Flores Settlement is the only reason that children were separated from their parents under Trump. He has never had a policy that ordered those separations, and therefor the title of this article is absurd. TheOriginalVegan (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
None of your assertions are correct. Perhaps you should read the entire article. Gandydancer (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Everything I said is perfectly correct, this article is chock-full of political bias/errors and links to false media narratives. For example, if you had actually READ the executive order, then you would have seen that the only thing he actually changed with the executive order was that he ordered the Attorney General to "promptly file a request with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to modify the Settlement Agreement in Flores v. Sessions, CV 85-4544 ("Flores settlement"), in a manner that would permit the Secretary, under present resource constraints, to detain alien families together throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration proceedings". He did NOT change anything about his own policies, the "zero tolerance policy"(which many in the media falsely blamed for the family separations) was and is still 100% in effect. TheOriginalVegan (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 23 May 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago21 comments12 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 15:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Trump administration family separation policy → Zero-Tolerance Policy for Criminal Illegal Entry – President Trump announced and executed a Policy that he called the Zero-Tolerance Policy for Criminal Illegal Entry. Newspapers, news programs, pundits, and radio stations referred to it as Trump's Zero Tolerance Policy. The name of this Wikipedia article is not consistent with Wikipedia naming conventions WP:RM#CM as this is not the title of the policy, nor the common used term for it, but rather a complaint about the policy put forth by opinion writers and partisans. It would be the same thing to title the Wiki on Football as "The Head Injury Sport". The fact that a large amount of partisan media and politicians used this term often, still does not change the fact that we know the name of the policy, we have absolute proof of its title, and it has been used in reliable sources. Even the New York Times, which typically has printed negative articles about the Trump administration have referred to the policy by Trump's Zero Tolerance Policy, rather than the pejorative title used for this wiki. The official announcement of the Policy, contained on the Department of Justice page, did not mention the term "Family Separation" at all. It correctly titled the Policy "the Zero Tolerance Policy For Criminal Illegal Entry" https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-announces-zero-tolerance-policy-criminal-illegal-entry. The UCLA journal of Education and Information studies published a paper hyper-critical of the Zero Tolerance policy, yet they referred to it by its correct name. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/99f98163 The Human rights review in 2019 published a paper, again critical of the policy yet correctly naming it https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12142-019-0547-5 Politifact also consistently refers to the Policy by its correct name "Zero Tolerance Policy" https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/jun/06/what-you-need-know-about-trump-administrations-zer/ . The fact is that there is no "Family Separation Policy" and there never has been. Mis-naming this Wikipedia article to a criticism is simply not accurate. The criticisms can be handled in the text, but since we know the true title of the policy, and since it is the commonnly used name in reliable sources, and since the current name is not the title or the nickname for any policy at all, this Wikipedia article should be renamed. Doniboy71 (talk) 05:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose per WP:COMMONNAME In ictu oculi (talk) 07:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: per WP:COMMONNAME. There is no need for Wikipedia to follow the Trump administration's guidance on how to refer to its policy. Both the Politifact source and the Springer Human Rights Review source cited above put "Zero Tolerance" in quote marks – repeatedly – clearly distinguishing the administration's term from being their accepted way to refer to the administration's policy. The third non-government source cited above is a personal opinion statement, not a reliable source, and that statement also refers to the policy as the "border militarization policy", which is also unlikely to be chosen as the name of this article. I didn't notice any of the non-government sources cited above using the (complete) phrase "Zero-Tolerance Policy for Criminal Illegal Entry" – that's a red link, for goodness sakes! I suggest a speedy close to this RM, since it is just a waste of everyone's time, and similar RM discussions have already taken place before. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support per WP:COMMONNAME So now the people who created the policy and named it should be ignored? We know the correct name of the policy, it is directly cited from the people who created and implemented it. Multiple reliable sources use it. The citations above show without a doubt that people who support it and oppose it both use the full name or a shortened version of the name. It is not proper to simply make up a derogatory name or to grab one from opinion pieces speaking out against t and painting it a certain way. This article title makes it sound like the intent of the policy was to separate families...as a goal... we know that this was an immigration policy. This debate is in no way a waste of time. In fact I suggest a speedy close to this RM in favor of changing the name, since it is so very obvious that the article has been incorrectly named and the rename request simply puts the completely and totally verifiable name in place. I really don't understand why we would leave it as incorrect. Doniboy71 (talk) 07:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Richard-of-Earth, though I don't think I am beating a dead horse at all. I see no consensus, no refutation of my points, no alternate proposal, and no reason to name a Policy incorrectly when we have the actual policy name available, and in common usage from reliable sources. My question was not about which way this process was leaning, but about whether or not WP-RFC was an appropriate step to take in general. Thanks Doniboy71 (talk) 07:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
No, it would not be appropriate to start an RfC for an ongoing move request.- MrX 🖋 11:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, MrX. I will defer to your experience Doniboy71 (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support The only real reasons why this page is called TRUMP administration family separation policy is political bias and false media narratives. Trump has NEVER had an family separation policy. The Zero Tolerance Policy is simply about following the law to the letter, it says nothing about family separations. The reason why there was an increase in family separations under Trump is due to a court order in 2016 on the Flores Settlement. The order ruled that accompanied children should be released while the same should NOT apply to their mother/parent(s). It had nothing to do with any policy of Trump. Besides, family separations have been occurring under several other administrations and therefor labeling this article with Trump's name is an example of blatant political bias. TheOriginalVegan (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read the Obama section of our article and note how the situation was handled previous to the Trump presidency. Gandydancer (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
That is irrelevant, because that was before the 2016 court ruling which is the biggest reason for why there has been an increase in the number of family separations, and again, Trump's policy was simply to follow the law. TheOriginalVegan (talk) 13:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post-closure comments

WP:OFFICIALNAME. actually supports the name change. The term "Zero Tolerance" is the most commonly used by reliable sources, and is the official name.Family Separation is used more as a criticism, and by opinion pieces. Doniboy71 (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality

Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

This article is completely and totally false. There is no Trump Policy for Family Separation. Period. Any mention of one should be followed by the official name, or number of the Policy. It doesn't exist. The Trump Zero Tolerance Policy for Immigration was a policy, and that policy did, briefly, result in the separation of children from families, just like American children are separated from families when the parents go to jail. The only citations are from left-wing opinion publications looking to blame Trump for laws that were enacted decades before he ran for President. IN any examination of Neutrality one would simply need to ask: "Why did the author of this Article invent a Policy name?" If the only answer is to paint Donald Trump in the worst possible light, then it fails the neutrality test. This Article should be completely deleted. Barring that, it should be renamed to Trump's Zero Tolerance Policy. Doniboy71 (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Doniboy71, Hi, the only way to argue for changing the title is by arguing about whether the title that you are proposing is the commonly used title in reliable sources or not see WP:COMMONNAME. It doesn't matter if the title is not a neutral point of view see WP:POVNAME. Now, I can't tell if "Trump's Zero Tolerance" is the most commonly used name on reliable sources or not. I found both titles are reported in reliable sources and I am using my phone so I can't see Google scholar or Google books hits amount to tell which one is mostly used. Usually Google scholar and Google books give reliable results.--SharabSalam (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for engaging rationally. A search of Google Scholar showed 7 results for the exact phrase "Trump's Family Separation Policy" and 8 results for "trump's Zero Tolerance Policy". Obviously not a lot of help there. The fact is that the Policy was called Zero Tolerance. Family Separation was a complaint about the Policy, some claim a result of the policy, while others claim a result of existing laws that were exposed due to the Zero Tolerance Policy. Either way, at no time did Trump call it the Family Separation Policy, and isn't a President or other Politician allowed to name his own policy? There is no need to tile the article after the pejorative, when the actual Policy name is known and the negative impact can be discussed within the text. Also, there is Congressional testimony from the Homeland Security director during the time this Policy supposedly existed who testified under oath that it was the Zero Tolerance Policy, not family separation. The New York Times, who have consistently painted the current administration in the worst possible light, admitted itself that the policy was a Zero Tolerance Policy, and called Family Separation a consequence of that policy. The Wikipedia text can discuss the partisan views on both sides about whether or not the consequences were intended or accidental....but I think we have to admit that the Policy was never called Family Separation, and that wasn't the main goal, thwarting illegal immigration was. To keep the name as it is obfuscates the truth. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/18/us/politics/dhs-kirstjen-nielsen-families-separated-border-transcript.html Doniboy71 (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Also, the official announcement of the Policy, contained on the Department of Justice page, did not mention the term "Family Separation" at all. It correctly titled the Policy "the Zero Tolerance Policy For Criminal Illegal Entry" https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-announces-zero-tolerance-policy-criminal-illegal-entry Since we know the official name of the policy, I do not see any reason to use the pejorative name given to it by partisan opponents. Thanks. Doniboy71 (talk) 08:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Doniboy71 You can request to rename this article by adding this code to the buttom of this talk page
{{subst:requested move|NewName|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. Do not sign this.}}
Replace NewName with the name you want the article to be renamed to and put the reason after |reason= as explained in the code. See WP:RM#CM for more information.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Doniboy71 I completely agree with you that the name of the article is wrong and should be changed. But you are actually wrong about the Zero Tolerance Policy. It has nothing to do with family separations and is still 100% in effect. The only reason for the increase in family separations under Trump is due to a court ruling on the Flores Settlement in 2016, which ruled that accompanied children should be released while the same should NOT apply to their mother/parent(s). It had nothing to do with any policy of Trump. Trump was simply following the law. TheOriginalVegan (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
TheOriginalVegan Interesting point. In the interest of making this article as accurate as possible I have been focusing solely on the first glaring inaccuracy that I saw, the title. However, after rereading the article I am forced to wonder: Is this an article about a Trump policy with an incorrect title? Or is this an article about the phenomenon of family separation at the border, that somehow only mentions Trump in the title and adds the word "policy" even though it has sections covering other Presidents? The History Section on Bush begins by mentioning "Zero Tolerance" outright. This is a very long article with many different parts to it, so some jumping around is not surprising. But I am definitely confused about what is being covered, why its titled this way, and why the defense of the emphasis on Trump. It sounds like your debate could be with a large part of the article on the whole, as well as many individual sections. Thank you for your input. Doniboy71 (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand the closing of the Change Name Request. The result is that the name change is rejected due to the conversation? What conversation? I thought it wasn't supposed to simply be a vote based on numbers. Many people opposed, but offered no reasoning. What was the reasoning behind the outright rejection? We know the real name of the policy, we know that reliable sources use it or use a variation of it, and we know that there is no policy that matches the name of this article... So we still like the incorrect name??? Why? I'm supposed to assume good faith, but how can I? I guess we should rename "The Affordable Care Act", the "Can't Keep your Doctor Policy"...that's about on par with this. Doniboy71 (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Every person who opposed gave a reason based on established Wikipedia policy. - MrX 🖋 20:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
No, they didn't. You yourself simply opposed based on others arguments. Seriously, why do you oppose naming the article after the name of the actual Policy? What is your reasoning for ignoring the real name and using a fAke one? There is no such thing as the Trump Administration Family Separation Policy. It doesn't exist...never has. Why, Mr. X, do you insist on the name being incorrect>? Is it due to a political bias? Do you like the negative connotation? Because it certainly isn't about accuracy or making this the best article it could be. Doniboy71 (talk) 06:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Challenge coin

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

There is a new piece from ProPublica about a new and unofficial challenge coin that Border Patrol agents have been distributing. - Mainly 14:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Related to the family separation policy and its consequences. - Mainly 14:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

"Separation policy" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Separation policy. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 19#Separation policy until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

ridiculously tendentious article title & first paragraph

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Absolutely everyone in the US who commits a jail-worthy crime goes to jail without their children. Every president since George Washington has done that. It is not a "Trump administration" policy at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:B00:29B5:4855:54AA:D6C5:75D1 (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The above comment ('everyone in the US who commits a jail-worthy crime goes to jail without their children') is not a useful comparison as such a separation is temporary whereas the separation caused by the Trump administration policy has been shown to be permanent in many cases. --218.214.183.100 (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

House Committee on Oversight and Reform report on child separations

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

New report on child separations, read it here. Too busy to add it to the article myself. Media reports covering this: NBC, Fortune, CBS. starship.paint (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

This entire article is based on misinformation

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

1. Such family separations have occurred under previous Presidents, and therefore the article should not be specifically named after Trump. [1]

2. Trump has never had any specific “Family Separation Policy”, another reason why this article title is highly misleading. Contrary to common misrepresentation in the media, the “Zero Tolerance Policy” had nothing to do with family separations, but was only about following the law, to prosecute those who break the law by entering the country illegally. [2]

3. The family separations discussed in the article were a direct consequence of a court ruling on the Flores Settlement on July 6th, 2016, while Obama was President. Trump had no role or involvement in that.[3] TruthZero (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://apnews.com/26b88518310f47018b724e200b28e88f/Origins-of-family-separation-issue-stretch-back-many-years
  2. ^ https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-announces-zero-tolerance-policy-criminal-illegal-entry
  3. ^ https://www.aila.org/infonet/flores-v-reno-settlement-agreement

This article is pure political propaganda

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Trump has never had any policy of separating children from their families. The Zero Tolerance policy is about following the law, about prosecuting those who break the law. It has nothing to do with family separations, and is not the primary cause of those separations. The family separations were a direct consequence of the 2016 court order on the Flores Settlement, that demanded that children be released while the "same should not be afforded" to their mother/parents. A court order that came while Obama was President. The Executive order that President Trump announced to end these family separations did NOT stop or alter his Zero Tolerance Policy at all(the Zero Tolerance Policy had nothing to do with the separations of families) but only requested that the Attorney General have the Flores Settlement altered(he ordered the AG to "promptly file a request with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to modify the Settlement Agreement in Flores v. Sessions, CV 85-4544 "Flores settlement", in a manner that would permit the Secretary, under present resource constraints, to detain alien families together throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration proceedings").

This article is based on pure political propaganda from media reports hostile to the current U.S. President, and ignorance of the actual facts.


The title of the articles is therefor false. Also every single sentence in the beginning of the article is false:

The Trump administration family separation policy is an aspect of US President Donald Trump's immigration policy - Wrong. Trump has never had any policy of separating families.

The policy was presented to the public as a "zero tolerance" approach intended to deter illegal immigration and to encourage tougher legislation. - Wrong. The Zero Tolerance Policy is only about following the law, it is the LAW that demands those separations.

It was adopted across the entire US–Mexico border from April 2018 until June 2018, however later investigations found that the practice of family separations had begun a year previous to the public announcement - Because it had NOTHING to do with the Zero Tolerance Policy, but was a direct result of the ruling on the Flores Settlement in 2016.

Under the policy, federal authorities separated children from parents or guardians with whom they had entered the US illegally. The adults were prosecuted and held in federal jails, and the children placed under the supervision of the US Department of Health and Human Services. - Wrong. This was a consequence of the 2016 court order on the Flores Law, not due to any policy of the President. TruthZero (talk) 05:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

“ Wrong. The Zero Tolerance Policy is only about following the law, it is the LAW that demands those separations.”

The law demands those separations if the subjects are prosecuted criminally. It does not demand that *all* subjects found crossing the border illegally be criminally prosecuted. No law demands such a thing. This is entirely at the discretion of the executive branch. The zero-tolerance policy is the Trump administration making the discretionary choice to treat *all* cases in such a way that the law *requires* family separation. So it’s not “only about following the law”. Pervious policies were fully in accordance with the law. It’s a policy that makes family separation the default action, rather than discretionary. Thefoxyfox (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Wrong. It's even in your own words, "*all* subjects found crossing the border ILLEGALLY", if it is illegal, then the law demands it be prosecuted. The Obama administration chose to ignore the law in many cases, but, in contrast, the "Zero Tolerance Policy" simply made clear that the law should be followed. There is not a word about family separation in the Zero Tolerance Policy. Trump has never had any policy in that regard, before he signed an executive order, ordering the attorney general to file a request with U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in the Central District of California to modify the Flores Settlement and allow detained migrant families to be held together "throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings ... or other immigration proceedings". The executive order that ended the family separations did NOT change his zero tolerance policy or any other policy of his administration, simply because those policies were not the cause of those separations. TruthZero (talk) 11:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
@TruthZero: Article talk pages are for specific edit proposals referenced to reliable sources. They are not for general discussion of the subject or your personal theories about the subject. Please learn our policies and guidelines before jumping into articles about controversial subjects. - MrX 🖋 11:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I think your comment should be directed to Thefoxyfox user, and his opinion that I was responding to. I have not offered any theories or opinions, but just pointed out documented facts(read the text of the Zero Tolerance Policy, read the 2016 ruling on the Flores settlement, read Trump's executive order regarding family separations/Flores settlement, etc). This article is political propaganda. TruthZero (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

REQUEST FOR DELETION DISCUSSION

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

This article is typical of most political and cultural areas of Wikipedia where a group of left wing editors push propaganda as fact, then defend it at every turn using as much Wiki red tape as possible. Every complaint is dismissed because of some violation of protocol, but when someone does manage to jump through the right hoops, the left-wing editors simply unite to reject the move. The complaint above is legitimate and it was dismissed with the ridiculous phrase, "Article talk pages are for specific edit proposals referenced to reliable sources.". So here is a specific edit proposal.. Delete the entire Article immediately... There is no room for Propaganda like this. The title is completely made up. It is not real. There is no way to edit the article and make it a viable, intelligent, fact-filled piece. Every sentence is based on a silly premise that is so stupid that the author should be embarrassed. Every second that it remains up hurts the credibility of Wikipedia itself. I request the removal of this false article. Doniboy71 (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doniboy71 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Couldn't possibly agree more. This article is an embarrassment for Wikipedia, and demonstrates extreme political bias. TheOriginalVegan (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Agree as well. It promotes a false and far left ideology that Trump was responsible for something that he literally inherited, provable through court and news documents during the Obama administration, which is 100% verifiable unarguable fact. It's akin to making an article claiming Hitler was cryogenically frozen. It's absurd it's remained up for as long as it has.173.59.11.121 (talk) 03:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed should be deleted the policy began under the Obama administration very biased articl Scabrosus (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Past tense is incorrect

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The policy of family separation continues to the present day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:2BF0:7A80:6CD9:2637:7248:B6EA (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Family separations at the border do continue today, but that's NOT the zero tolerance policy. Those separations are for the same reasons they have always been done, for example when the parent is wanted for a felony, or when DHS suspects human trafficking or abuse. The zero tolerance policy ended by court order. If you have evidence otherwise, then please contact the courts.96.241.129.33 (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
POV pushing
The Zero Tolerance Policy had absolutely nothing specifically to do with the family separations. Trump has never had any "family separation policy". The Zero Tolerance Policy only demanded that those who break the law by entering the country illegally be prosecuted according to the law. The family separations were primarily a consequence of a court order on the Flores Settlement in 2016, while Obama was still President. Trump issued an executive order(Executive Order 13841) to stop the family separations by ordering the Attorney General to "promptly file a request with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to modify the Settlement Agreement in Flores v. Sessions, CV 85-4544 ("Flores settlement"), in a manner that would permit the Secretary, under present resource constraints, to detain alien families together throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration proceedings.. TheOriginalVegan (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
False and unVerified. SPECIFICO talk 01:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Exactly what are you claiming is false? What I wrote is 100% factual. Read the original wording of the Zero Tolerance Policy, read the 2016 court order on the Flores Settlement, read the wording of Trump's executive order 13841. TheOriginalVegan (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit explanation

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Re my edit [25] that seems to have sparked a revert-war today:

I had found an appropriate and reliable source to replace the generally unreliable citation by Daily Wire, and I started to edit the content and discovered that this article had already covered the material. The article is quite rambling and the part about 'release whole families' and Flores case is already covered elsewhere in the article, which is why I deleted the part I did. The text just didn't add anything of value to the article and, frankly, just because Shapiro said something is not newsworthy/noteworthy in and of itself. Platonk (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trump_administration_family_separation_policy/Archive_4&oldid=1156106981"