Template:Did you know nominations/Executive Order 13767

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by 97198 (talk) 05:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Executive Order 13767

(

)

Trump signing the order.

The U.S. Mexico Border.

~~... that President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13767 to create a physical wall in order to secure the southern border of US, and prevent illegal immigration (pictured)? Source: [1]~~
- ALT1:... that President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13767 to create a physical wall in order to "secure the southern border of US, and prevent illegal immigration" (pictured)? Source: [2]

Created by Junosoon (talk) and Gamebuster19901 (talk). Nominated by Gamebuster19901 (talk) at 15:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC).

@Gamebuster19901: There are a few problems with this. Aside of the hook link not being bold (which I have fixed), the article is only 1,366 characters long and thus is below the threshold. There is also a citation needed tag which would need to be replaced with an inline source. Also, I'm not too comfortable with the tag on the white house link because it appears to imply close paraphrasing, which would need to reword certain parts of the article. Once these are fixed, ping me and I'll have another look. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for pointing out some of the issues with the article, I'll get them fixed asap!

However, According to section 2.b. of the eligibility criteria, public domain material is allowed in articles, it just can't be counted towards the total character count. I'll expand the sections some more to help it meet the criteria. Thanks Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 14:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@The C of E: I believe the issues you have shown have been addressed as of now. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 16:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Side point Is it too late to sic Dicklyon on Trump for his idiotic capitalization of Southern Border? Now that would be a useful outlet for Dick's crusading zeal! E Eng 17:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

~~If you want, you can uncapitalize it, I just quoted it from the source. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 18:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)~~ Actually, that was a mistake on my part, I have corrected it. 18:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, good. Now then... ALT0 is untenable because it's inappropriate to state, in WP's voice, why Trump signed the thing -- there are too many other possibilities (stupidity, perfidy, racism, personal profit, and just plain meanness) that history will have to sort out. Even ALT1 uses a primary source for this key assertion of purpose, which is marginal (thought the quotations help). If you agree I suggest you strike them. Let me suggest:

ALT2:... that Donald Trump's Executive Order 13767 stated purpose is "construction of a physical wall on the southern border ... to prevent illegal immigration, drug and human trafficking, and acts of terrorism (pictured)"?

E Eng 18:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I think you're right, it's better to stick to the facts. How does this sound:

ALT3:... that President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13767, which mandates that a physical wall be constructed along the southern border of the US (pictured)? Source: [3]

Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 05:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Ready for a review of ALT3 since all previous concerns are adressed. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 15:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't get the along the southern border of the US (pictured) bit. The picture doesn't show the southern border of the US, though it might reasonably be said to show an act of terrorism. That's why I'd suggest ALT2 over ALT3. E Eng 16:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

When it's taken out of context like that, I could see the confusion. However, the (pictured) is applying to the whole sentence, and the caption of the image clearly states what it's showing. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 13:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

ALT4:... that President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13767 (pictured), which mandates that a physical wall be constructed along the southern border of the US? Source: [4]

How does ALT4 look? Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 13:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, now that we come down to it, I don't think the picture's worth much at all -- some guy at a desk signing something. And when you think about it, pretty much only people on Jupiter would be able to answer the question posed in all these hooks with anything other than "Of course I know!" Can't we have a hook on something actually new and interesting, like that the former commissioner says that the current system of patrol is better than a wall? E Eng 21:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Well first off, the President isn't just "some guy", secondly, If the phrase "signed Executive Order 13767 to create a physical wall in order to secure the southern border of US, and prevent illegal immigration" isn't suitable for Wikipedia's voice, then there is no way that the former commissioner saying that the current system is better would be suitable either, as that's even more subjective.

Also, DYK isn't about answering the question, it's about exposing new and improved content, and to encourage more editors to edit the article. see WP:DYKAIM Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 13:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not the subjectivity, it's the voice. It would be OK for Wikipedia to report that Trump says he signed it for such-and-such a reason (as opposed to reporting that he did it for those reasons), and similarly it would be OK to report that Mr. Ex-Commissioner says that the current approach is better. My point is that the latter will be news to most readers, while the former will be news to no one. E Eng 15:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

for Alt 4 or Alt 1 Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 13:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC).

~~Is Alt 1 or Alt 4 good for DYK, if not, how should it be improved?~~ What are some appropriate hooks for this DYK about Executive Order 13767? 14:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment An RfC for a DYK hook? Whatever next? And suddenly opening an RfC posing a choice between the two particular hooks you happen to be interested in, when other ideas are on the table, isn't appropriate. How about:

ALT5 ... a former US Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection has stated that the current methods of border patrol are preferable to a wall?

There are a few issues with that one, it doesn't have a way to link to the article. It's also just stating the opinion of just one person, and the article isn't specifically about that, even though it's within the scope of the article. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 15:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

E Eng 14:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

You're right, the RFC was not neutral enough, sorry I have corrected it. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 15:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about not mentioning the article in ALT5 -- got distracted by some spilled oatmeal. As to the hook vs. what the article is "specifically about", hooks often (even usually) highlight some peripheral, little-known fact rather than obvious things like, "Did you know that Picasso was an artist?" or "Did you know that the order to build a wall is meant to prevent illegal immigration?" And it's fine to express the opinion of just one person, as long as it's ascribed to that person. Anyway:

ALT6 ... a former US Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection has stated that the current methods of border patrol are preferable to the border wall called for by Executive Order 13767?

E Eng 15:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I see, I think I'm willing to go with something similar to Alt 6 if Alt 4 or Alt 1 cannot be used, though. I would also like to have a link to Gil Kerlikowske and a source if we're going that route, without making it too wordy.

perhaps ALT7 or ALT 8

ALT7 ... that a former US Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection has stated that the current methods of border patrol are preferable to the border wall called for by Executive Order 13767? [5]

ALT8 ... that a former US Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection has stated that the current methods of border patrol are preferable to the border wall called for by Executive Order 13767? [6]

Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 16:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying this just because you've warmed up to ALTs 6-8, but now that we're moving along here may I suggest you withdraw the RfC (though I don't know how that's done, actually). Do we really want to wait 30 days and have everyone and his brother chiming in on something which is typically left to the privileged few? E Eng 18:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment I thought the bot was screwing up when it summoned me here, but we really do seem to have an RFC for a DYK hook. Whatever will we come up with next. Since you both seem to be moving towards consensus, I would suggest closing the RFC (which should be as simple as placing the archive top and archive bottom templates, together with a note saying that you've come to an agreement). For what it's worth I'd agree with EEng that presenting new information is likely to be hookier than what Trump's been promising for a long long time. Vanamonde (talk) 09:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

"To end an RfC that is on the active RfC list, remove the RfC template. The RfC bot will remove the discussion from the central lists on its next run." WP:RFC. — Maile (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@EEng:I completely forgot about this due to real-life things. The only reason I remembered was because someone posted something on my talk page about it... sorry. I completely understand if you deny this because of the time elapsed. Anyway, since the picture in the article has been changed in the meantime, and the new dyk doesn't state anything about him signing the order, I propose this:

ALT9 ... that a former US Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection has stated that the current methods of border patrol are preferable to the border wall called for by Executive Order 13767? [7]

With Image 2 which I just added at the top of this nomination. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 04:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Reviewer needed to complete this now that RfC has been closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I certainly like any of ALTs 7,8, or 9. And I like the idea of using a map instead of the photo. E Eng 22:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

We still need a reviewer to do a full review of the article, since nearly 6000 prose characters have been added to an article that was below the 1500 minimum at the time of the original review. Since there were issues outstanding at the time of the original review, those should be rechecked as well. Thanks. I have added Neutrality to the credits, since he or she more than tripled the prose length of the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Coming a bit late to the party, sorry. The hooks ALT6 to ALT9 sound seriously POV by singling out the opinion of a former officer without mentioning that he was an Obama appointee. I would suggest this:

ALT10 … that President Obama's former US Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection criticized the efficacy of President Trump's proposed border wall as outlined in Executive Order 13767?

With this, readers can identify with one side of the other while WP remains neutral. — JFG ^talk 10:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Attributing the opinion is all that's needed, though it wouldn't hurt to "that Gil Kerlikowske, former US Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection has stated..." instead. However, if you want to go down the path you're starting with ALT10, it would have to read,

ALT11 ...that Gil Kerlikowske, who worked for Richard Nixon, called Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign a "major success" of the War on Drugs, and was Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection for Obama, criticized the efficacy of President Trump's proposed border wall as outlined in Executive Order 13767?

Do you see my point? E Eng 18:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I am working on a more thorough review, but as a preliminary comment I would observe that the "Implications and reception" section is almost uniformly negative coverage of the wall; are there no prominent sources that give potential positive impacts to the wall? Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 14:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

If this is the case than this nomination fails neutrality, should be tagged as such, and thus fails the policy requirement.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, first we need an answer to Ashorecetus' question: "are there no prominent sources that give potential positive impacts to the wall?" I would add that they need to be reliable as well as prominent. E Eng 03:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, excuse my poor word choice. Though on politicized issues its often not cut and dried which sources are reliable and which are not. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 02:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I might also mention that while articles must meetN POV, DYK hooks aren't articles. E Eng 03:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

However, as it does note right above this editing window, a hook must be neutral and does not focus unduly on negative aspects of living people. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course. NPOV is a fundamental policy of Wikipedia, and the DYK rules specifically say several times that hooks ought to be neutral. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 04:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

We routinely run hooks relating the opinions of particular persons. 200 characters can't be balanced like an article. But I agree the article's off balance. E Eng 04:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

At this point, I am going to have to say that the article still clearly needs some work, though it is long enough and new enough. The article is predominantly neutrally stated (i.e., all opinions are attributed to their sources), but there are some significant weasel words: Who are the "experts" and "critics" mentioned in the first paragraph of the Experts' response section? Also, the first paragraph of the International Responses section is uncited and does not relate to the rest of the section at all, since the first paragraph is predominately not criticism, and apparently "various international bodies" only encompasses Israel and Mexico. I am not sure whether ISideWith.com is considered a reliable poll source. On some minor organizational points, why is the response of officials from Mexico sandwitched in the middle of a paragraph on Netanyahu's response, and why is a Pew Research Poll included among Expert Responses (isn't it just measuring what the American populace thinks)? I will look at hooks when the above issues have been addressed. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 04:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Gamebuster19901 has not posted here since March 10, and has not responded to talk-page pings. It's been over two and a half months since this was nominated, and given the issues raised and the fact that this is the oldest extant nomination, I think it's time to close this. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)