Talk:Trump administration migrant detentions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rationale for creating this article[edit]

Thought of writing this in case someone nominates for deletion or a merger with Trump administration family separation policy. There is indeed a lot of overlap with that article, but here's the key difference. Not all migrants arrive in the United States as families. This is clearly stated in page 3 of the July 2019 DHS OIG report. In the table, you can see 3 categories of migrants: (1) Unaccompanied Alien Children, (2) Family Units, and (3) Single Adults. The family separation policy obviously only applies to (2), and does not apply to (1) and (3). This article covers detentions for (1), (2), and (3). starship.paint (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Starship.paint (talk). Self-nominated at 04:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: No - Hook is just within length limit.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: StonyBrook (talk) 06:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article is not neutral, editor who marked it as such is participating in the AFD and as such should not be participating in the DYK nomination. Further, you just have to read the article to read the slant, further, an article that is subject to an AFD should not be at DYK. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Says the editor who nominated it for deletion after it appeared here, and then slapped a tag on it. You'll have to quote it chapter and verse to make that case. I think it is written well and impeccably sourced, but unfortunately political topics such as these will always rub someone the wrong way. I reviewed the article because I was already familiar with it. You are also dancing here at two weddings, but can you point to a policy that disallows an editor who voiced an opinion at AfD to review it at an open DYK nom? StonyBrook (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's most certainly not written well and impeccably sourced, and it most certainly is not neutral. Whether or not you can review it is irrelevant, the article is at AFD and should not be at DYK. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@StonyBrook: - thanks for reviewing. Proposed shorter ALT1. Article was at DYK before AFD, this can be put on hold, but perhaps you can approve ALT1 if it’s good enough? starship.paint (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Starship.paint If the hook was based on the quote Border Patrol agents told us some of the detainees had been held in standing-room-only conditions for days or weeks. then maybe it needs to reflect those words more closely. StonyBrook (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@StonyBrook: - you're right. Sorry about that. ALT2 proposed. starship.paint (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck ALT2 also. Judging from all the controversy this nom has raised, it's prudent to keep Trump out of the title wherever possible. He is probably not micromanaging this situation. StonyBrook (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How about this StonyBrook? starship.paint (talk) 04:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ALT2b looks ok to me. StonyBrook (talk) 05:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, let's wait for the AfD result then :) starship.paint (talk) 09:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@StonyBrook: - AfD result: kept. Anything else? :) starship.paint (talk) 07:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added a minor inline cleanup template that will surely be addressed forthwith, but other than that it looks fine. A neutrality issue has been alleged, but not proven, and to some people no remedy of the language seems able to allay their concerns. This indicates that there are people who find the subject itself disconcerting and uncomfortable, but I don't think that takes anything away from it being a general interest topic that many others will find interesting and informative. If it's neutral enough for AfD it should be good enough for DYK as well. StonyBrook (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that this is ready. The article's neutrality is readily apparent. The sources used are primarily all left wing sources or sources with an agenda. It is not a balanced article. It is also not a quality article, it does not read well at all. That is passed quality control just show that the person who passed it just wants this article on the front page. Sir Joseph (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We can agree that the article's neutrality is readily apparent. I disagree with your comment about sources when I see many high-wire RS (NYT, WP, ABC, BBC, PBS etc.) being quoted throughout the article, with a questionable one removed upon request. Are there any sources to your liking reporting on detention conditions at the border? Do they confirm, disprove or deny any of the claims being made? If so, would you mind telling us what they are so they can be worked into the article? What is the basis for your claim that this article that carefully summarizes past presidents' records on detentions; that directly quotes the president about the border; that quotes his wife, the VP and others about what they have seen with their own eyes at the border to not be balanced? Even if it were true what you say that it is not a quality article, according to DYK rules, articles do not have to be of very high quality to be posted here. And what you say about the front page does make sense because every single person who ever approved a DYK article wanted to see it go there. That includes the newbies. StonyBrook (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I meant non-neutrality is readily apparent. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stated matter-of-factly, no evidence provided, no response given to any of the above concerns, but with two freshly slapped-on cleanup tags to the article header and with no instruction booklet from you on how to get them removed. StonyBrook (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Joseph, you are apparently well-versed on this topic, since you were able to look at my article and assess that it has factual errors and neutrality problems. Perhaps, with your expertise, you can start producing reliable sources that would help solve the factual and neutrality problems, because I believe as of now, you've produced a total of zero sources, while the sources I found must be over 90 already. starship.paint (talk) 03:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest. This article shouldn't exist. There are many articles that this article could be a part of, but you chose to make an advocacy article. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir Joseph: - this isn’t an advocacy article. It’s a recent history article. Anyway, even if it was an advocacy article, then it should be obvious and easy for you to point out specifically exactly where the problems are, maybe even highlight every instance so that I can address it. But, I pinged you twice on the article talk page and you didn’t respond. That, and this statement does not seem collaborative. In light of your most recent actions, I will remove the tags. If you have no interest in improving the article, and have already exhausted AFD, better go to Deletion Review. starship.paint (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

2019 discussion[edit]

@Sir Joseph: - you added the POV tag and assert the article is not neutral. How so? Which sections? starship.paint (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of the article for one. In addition, you use for the most part primarily left wing sources. It reads as if to be biased against Trump, not to educate the user about the issue. It's as if you wrote it for advocacy, not journalism. For example, Newsweek is generally not considered to be reliable by most news media anymore, they are now a more tabloid source, and that is but one of the sources used. You basically started this page with an agenda, not with a topic. You then used leftist sources to use what they claim the other side says and then they refute the claim. That is POV.

For starters, try expanding the existing article, and then see if it needs to be split off. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • (1) Tone. Where? Be specific so that I can solve this problem you see. Examples. Sentences. Paragraphs.
  • (2) Newsweek. WP:RSP: generally reliable. Now, I've removed them anyway. Next? What else?
  • (3) basically started this page with an agenda - continue thinking that instead of WP:AGF.
  • (4) You then used leftist sources to use what they claim the other side says and then they refute the claim. - I can see only one instance where you could have perceived this. Pence’s visit when a journalist said there was a stench. I don’t think that’s a problem because the journalist was on the exact same visit as Pence.
  • (5) Expand the current parent article? No thanks. I have no obligation (and no time) to do that. You are welcome to do that. I have already proven that there is enough content for a split off. starship.paint (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Joseph: - when you're back, let me know if you're continuing this line of arguments here and in the below section. I removed the tags in the meantime. starship.paint (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have failed to correct the issue. For example, the Santa Clara law review. That one is not allowed, as far as I can tell. That is not a RS. Even if it is a RS, the Law Review is saying exactly what I said in my complaint. Again, you then use unacreddited or non-peer review or open source journals, or advocacy journals. That is not allowed. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some quotes from Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 80#Israel, Palestine and the United Nations / Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 165#BC Law Review - self-published, unreliable?. starship.paint (talk)
  • Bearian: virtually all law reviews and law journals are reliable sources
  • DGG: The actual articles written by legal scholars in established law reviews are citable as the highest level academic sources in the field
  • Eppefleche: For anyone who has knowledge of how law reviews work, and the regard in which they are held by judges and others in the legal community, the notion that they may not be RSs is somewhat startling. In law (at least in the U.S.), law reviews are the pre-eminent publications, held in far higher regard for reliability and quality than any other legal academic publication
  • Racepacket: I concur that student-edited law reviews are subject to extensive fact checking and should be generally assumed to be a reliable source.
  • David Epstein: Boston College Law Review appears to be a peer-reviewed academic journal (they publish both scholarly works by law professors and local student essays, so one needs to be careful, but the one you want to cite is indeed by professors not affiliated with Boston College

Kevin Johnson and Rose Cuison-Villazor are professors of law (legal scholars) from University of California, Davis and Rutgers Law School respectively. They were reviewed by editors at the Santa Clara University School of Law and the Santa Clara University School of Law. Also, if you agree with Professor Johnson's views, I'm not sure why you're using that as a complaint. The section is about comparisons and Professor Johnson makes a comparison. starship.paint (talk) 01:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also not sure history.com is a RS. Further, Newsweek should not be used as a RS, they are no longer what they used to be, and should not be used as a RS. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir Joseph: - I'll take off history.com. If you have a problem with Newsweek, take it to WP:RSN and strike it off WP:RSP. Ranting here does not improve the article. What are the other problematic sources? Is it so hard to list out every single one of them? You've obviously evaluated them already. starship.paint (talk) 01:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@StonyBrook: I removed the tags in light of this comment by Sir Joseph. I asked him to provide reliable sources of his own, he said [1] : I have no interest. This article shouldn't exist. There are many articles that this article could be a part of, but you chose to make an advocacy article. Coupled with the non-responses here, I don’t see how this can improve the article. This approach appears to be far from collaborative. starship.paint (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 discussion[edit]

@Starship.paint: If I may, I was perusing this article to better educate myself on the situation and I can't help but agree that the tone is not very neutral in some places, though Sir Joseph did not do a great job explaining. I can point out a few examples of places where I feel the article can be improved.

  • (1) "The Trump administration have transformed the view of immigrants from being a benefit to American society, whether legal or illegal, to portraying illegal migrants to be a threat to the United States' economy, security, and to the national identity." Transformed what view? By whom? "The view of immigrants [as] being a benefit to socirty" is a vague statement that implies that in 2015 it was agreed that illegal immigrants were objectively a benefit. Border control was an issue back in the Bush days (as far as I remember) so it's not exactly like the Trump administration invented anti-immigrant sentiment.
  • (2) "The United States has been described by many as a "nation of immigrants" but has not always treated immigrants well historically". This transfer is somewhat abrupt, you go from detailing the responsibility of CBP/ICE and then sudennly start talking about historical immigration. Perhaps it would be better to link to History of immigration to the United States? This section of historical background does not directly pertain to the Trump administration, yet many of your sources are articles regarding the current administration and its controversies.
  • (3)"In April 2018, Peter Sean Brown, an American adult citizen..." How does this story, besides a potential deportation, have anything to do with the migrant detention centers?

I do not find as much wrong with the article as Sir Joseph did, though. For the most part I find it was well sourced and did well to inform me about the situation. (I'm pretty new to Wikipedia contributing, so I apologize if I did any of this wrong. You seem very experienced) Dabluecaboose (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dabluecaboose: - first off, I hope you don't mind, I added a section header above to separate this from the 2019 discussion. starship.paint (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • (1) I will quote you what the source wrote on page 53 to 54, and you can verify whether I have followed the source. You have questions, but if the source does not answer them, neither can I.

Fifth and finally, as was mentioned earlier there have been a dizzying array of changes both proposed and implemented in U.S. immigration policy since the inauguration of President Trump in January of 2017. President Trump and his policy personnel have dramatically changed the view of immigration as a positive for society (an integral part of our history) and the economy, to viewing migrants, documented and undocumented, as a threat to economic and national security and, even more insidiously, the national identity (Pierce, Bolter, & Steele, 2018). With this changing view has come an amazing reversal of policy and procedure—stepped up enforcement against noncitizens in the interior of the United States. From January 20, 2017 to September 30, 2017, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) removed 61,000 migrants from the interior of the country, a 37% increase from those months in 2016.

  • (2) I've added section headers and the link that you proposed. What do you think?
  • (3) Hmm, Brown's case was him being mistaken as an illegal immigrant. So he was in a detention center for illegal immigrants. I see your point though, this article is on migrant detentions. I removed it as not relevant enough - though it's related, of course.

Thank you very much for bringing these up. I would very much like to her your responses. starship.paint (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughtful response! I really like the new headings and I think it clarified things significantly. Looking at the source for (1), it seems like it would be better to say "The Trump administration has changed CBP's view of immigrants from being a benefit to American society, whether legal or illegal, to portraying illegal migrants to be a threat to the United States' economy, security, and to the national identity." The original phrasing makes it sound like the Trump administration somehow changed the prevailing sentiment of most people, rather than internal direction/policy of a government agency. Dabluecaboose (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dabluecaboose: - the source did not say explicitly say it was CBP's view, it instead credits President Trump and his policy personnel. The source references Pierce, Bolter, & Steele, 2018, which at the end of its executive summary and the start of the introduction, refer to the president and his allies and the White House, and previously the longstanding and bipartisan consensus among the leaders of both major political parties. Together, they are credited as politicans and policymakers. Therefore, I have changed the text to: The Trump administration have transformed the executive branch policymakers' view of immigrants... I would like your input - is "executive branch" redundant? I know Congressmen are lawmakers, but if they are not policymakers, then "executive branch" would be redundant. I'm not familiar as I'm not American. Thanks. starship.paint (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint: Apologies for the late response! The executive branch (headed by the President) is completely separate from Congress. Trump would have no power to change "policy" in what congress thinks/does. My main concern was the vague language ("The Trump administration have transformed the view of immigrants") made it seem like Trump had somehow changed prevailing American sentiment, as opposed to internal policy direction. I think the "Executive Branch" blurb is useful and accurate. Thanks! Dabluecaboose (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious[edit]

Sir Joseph, explain, please. How is this academic source Immigration and Civil Rights in the Trump Administration: Law and Policy Making by Executive Order from the Santa Clara Law Review dubious? Author is Kevin R. Johnson. University of California, Davis School of Law. Dean and Mabie-Apallas Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o Studies. H-Index 40.00. starship.paint (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It says that non-white immigration until the 1950 was restricted. That is dubious. Need I remind you of the millions of Jews, among others who came to the US from the late 1800's onwards? Immigration to the US skyrocketed in the late 1800's. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you consider the Irish, Italians and Jews non-white, as many did consider them then. But the context of the source's assertion is today's times when that is no longer the case, even amongst the likes of Jared Taylor who says "Jews look white to me." StonyBrook (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So the US in the 1800's knew the future? Sir Joseph (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to your own strawman 1800s argument. The U.S. in the past let in some kinds of non-whites but not others. But here we are talking about a contemporary source speaking in contemporary terms, where the 1800s groups are retroactively all considered white. The issue at hand are the real non-whites, and there's nothing dubious about their history in the U.S. StonyBrook (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joseph - please forgive me for my gaps in American knowledge. I'm neither a citizen or resident of America. As for the question if Jews were considered whites historically in America, I did a search and found this source from The Atlantic. [2]. starship.paint (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From the earliest days of the American republic, Jews were technically considered white, at least in a legal sense. Under the Naturalization Act of 1790, they were considered among the “free white persons” who could become citizens. Later laws limited the number of immigrants from certain countries, restrictions which were in part targeted at Jews. But unlike Asian and African immigrants in the late 19th century, Jews retained a claim to being “Caucasian,” meaning they could win full citizenship status based on their putative race. - Emma Green, The Atlantic, 2016

There's also a Pew Research poll in 2013 that found that 94% of Jews polled described themselves as white. Page 46 starship.paint (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Factual accuracy[edit]

@Sir Joseph: - what are the specific factual inaccuracies in this article? You apparently know about the topic, yet you don't actually edit and improve the article ... or even point out what exactly the problems are. starship.paint (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently knows about this topic. Specific problems with the statements and/or sources in this article must be addressed by the tagging editor or tags should be removed as being disruptive. StonyBrook (talk) 05:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the tags in light of this comment by Sir Joseph. I asked him to provide reliable sources of his own, he said [3] : I have no interest. This article shouldn't exist. There are many articles that this article could be a part of, but you chose to make an advocacy article. Coupled with the non-responses here, I don’t see how this can improve the article. This approach appears to be far from collaborative. starship.paint (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

End of the policy?[edit]

The article is written in the present tense, as though the Trump administration is still ongoing. There is no information newer than December 2020 and nothing at all about what has changed in the Biden administration, if anything. Has the policy been ended? What has been done in the area of immigration policy in the last half year? Since this is about Trump administration policy this needn't be very detailed, but something is needed. Hairy Dude (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trump_administration_migrant_detentions&oldid=1209089287"