This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Trump wall article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think it should be lowercase as long as it is not the official name (such as the case in for example Hoover Dam). Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
The Build the Wall only consists of two minor sections on the actual slogan. Also, the article title is inherently not Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It would fit better as a subsection of Opinions and responses in this Trump wall article, so that people can read about it in its context. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
This sentence says "In August 2017, while speaking at a rally in Phoenix, Arizona, Trump said he would close down the U.S. government if necessary to force Congress to pay for the wall.[44] He was harshly criticized by prominent leaders of his political base such as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh for failing to secure $5 billion in funding for the wall in the previous fiscal year's appropriations bill.[45][46]. The sentence about the harsh criticism should be put somewhere else in the article when it's talking about December 2018 regarding the events leading up to the shutdown. Also, mention that Trump unfollowed Ann Coulter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.163.6 (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Obviously Trump wasn't president in 2016 and the cited articles for harsh criticism from prominent leaders of his political base seem to be from December 2018. In this case, I believe the sentence should be put somewhere else in the article. 72.76.163.6 (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
trump wall dos not exicte becouse if you go on google maps you can sey no wall so it is not real — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjpoulj (talk • contribs) 14:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This is a really long article about "The Wall" with zero actual information about the physical wall. It reads like a political opinion piece, not a factual information write up of a physical structure. And, simply saying "it's not done" doesn't cut it, why not have a section (which should be the ONLY section probably, not all this political talk) about the physical structure? I came to read if it existed, where it was being built, how much of it was done even if it was just permits and planning, etc. That's the information I was hoping to learn, not a rehash of the political debate. the "Structure" section is really really weak, where are photos, where are details about what it's made of, how tall it is, anything like that? That section should be beefed up.
How is "The Associated Press reported "upwards of 200 organizations had expressed interest in designing and building" the wall for CBP" ANYTHING to do with the physical structure? That's just political debate, maybe planning history. It's NOT about the structure, it's a messy discussion of planning. That whole section is just pathetic. It should not be political rhetoric. It should be locations and structures, geography and architecture details about what actually exists.
Like the previous editor I came to find specifications and locations and was confronted by a rehash of predominately anti-wall sentiment. The daily (sometimes questionable) mews sources are rife with this monologue. A description of the wall by dimension, quality of steel used and any details regarding the cap would all have been appropriate. Instead.. drivel. This article is everything wikki is negatively accused of; pseudo-factoids arranged to meet an editorial agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.116.1.24 (talk) 06:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
AGREE - This page needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view by an editor that is disinterested in US politics. Washuchan73 (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I know it is political sensitive to mention first arguments contra of pro. But starting with "Research at Texas A&M University and Texas Tech University indicates that...", seems to me less relevant than mentioning concrete examples of border walls in the past, and their proven effectiveness or ineffectiveness. Like the Berlin Wall, de Hungary fence, the Ceuta fence, and the Israel border wall. CorCorCor (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)— CorCorCor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The changes made by Aspenbear paint a less complete picture than before. The first sentence was changed to 'Different sources draw different conclusions (...)', the wikipedia links to other contemporary border barriers are removed, but the Texas study is left in, which does not have much weigt (see my remarks above). It is also mainly about overstaying visa's, which is not the point here. I guess it might be removed completely. Basicly, there are almost no mixed findings. Most studies agree walls are effective against illegal border crossings, the only question is how (cost)effective. I changed it back to the old text. CorCorCor (talk) 14:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)— CorCorCor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Most studies agree walls are effective against illegal border crossings, the only question is how (cost)effective.That's a bold claim, and possibly false. Wikipedia should not make bold claims except where confirmed by WP:RS. You have not provided a WP:RS. Zazpot (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
not convincing.That's on you. You appear to be here only to push a point of view, using unreliable sources. In this talk page section alone, you have dismissed or ignored meaningful feedback from three separate editors. If you continue to act disruptively on Wikipedia, you could find yourself blocked from editing. Zazpot (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the year at the start of the last paragraph in "Effectiveness". In my opinion, the exact day is not/no longer that important (and anyway mentioned in the references), so I'd suggest changing "On November 2, it was reported..." to "In November 2019, it was reported...". 2001:67C:10EC:574F:8000:0:0:30 (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
stem-the-tide-of-illegal-immigration/</ref> In Hungary, for example, the number of illegal immigrants dropped from 4500 per day to 15 after a 175-kilometer long, four-meter high fence was constructed in 2015 '''where Hungarian Soldiers are authorized to shoot people illegally climbing the fence.'.<ref> https://www.kormany.hu/en/governm. ((cite web))
: Missing or empty |title=
(help) 63.228.98.80 (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director Robert R. Redfield contradicted Trump’s claim that his border wall will contain the coronavirus. Trump tweeted that his wall is "Going up fast […] We need the Wall more than ever!" Hour later, Redfield testified to lawmakers that he was unaware that physical barriers along America’s borders would help halt the spread of the coronavirus in the U.S.
X1\ (talk) 06:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Would people be kind enough to add figures on construction progress in terms of total miles built? For example, on so and so date XYZ miles have been completed. The government or some agencies release figures from time to time. The last one I saw was 131 or 135 miles in total built. There are also figures for the amount of miles being built. Having a table would be a good way to organize this information and having graphs may be an effective way to further present the data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilic (talk • contribs) 09:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
The updates above are irrelevant now, because the U.S. Customs And Border Protection agency has released an official page to track the construction progress of the wall. [28] The tracking page was released on April 22, 2020. [29] It should be featured prominently on the "Construction progress" subsection of the Wikipedia article, since it is an official government source of construction progress and is updated regularly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curtis2011 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Curtis2011 (talk) 00:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
There are a couple of places that mention that most of the wall going up (as of June or so) was replacement fencing. The data comes from a report by CBP director, uploaded here: https://www.scribd.com/document/466597105/CBP-Border-Wall-Status-Paper-as-of-06192020-FINAL. I noted that the director there makes clear that the replacement was for broken parts of the border fence - "in place of dilapidated or outdated designs", so I added that to the article. Without that the article makes it seem like those areas shouldn't really count. You can see some pictures in https://www.trumpwall.construction (good resource for timetable, by the way, needs updating though) showing how the "outdated" sections are effectively not really there at all. MikeR613 (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Updated to 317 miles, Sep. 8. MikeR613 (talk) 13:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Updated to 341 miles, Sep. 29. MikeR613 (talk) 13:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Updated to 360 miles, Oct. 12. MikeR613 (talk) 20:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Updated to 371 miles, Oct. 20. Also, removed a timeline event from Sept 2019; it seemed to be redundant. MikeR613 (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Huh. I'm concerned that Charles Shirley changed the number from 371 to 400, based on an article that should say "nearly" 400 has been built (as this more complete article does say: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2020/10/29/dhs-and-cbp-celebrate-400-miles-new-border-wall-system). The CBP website still says 371, though it is time for an update there which would probably add ten miles or a little more. 400 is not sourced. MikeR613 (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Walls are solid. What's being constructed is the southern border is a fence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chavando (talk • contribs)
Wikipedia states that:
"research at Texas A&M University and Texas Tech University indicates that the wall, and border walls in general, are unlikely to be effective at reducing illegal immigration or movement of contraband." The sourced article in question states:
"Dr Nadia Flores, a researcher at Texas Tech University and herself a former undocumented immigrant, has been tracking the movements of people from Mexico and El Salvador to the US. She has studied the systems by which immigrant communities, together with employers and landlords, help undocumented individuals thrive in the US and drive the continued flow of people. 'You have the demand for labour, and as long as you have the demand for labour and employers recruiting workers through these social networks, they are going to continue bringing people,” she said. “No matter whether you have a wall, these workers are going to find a way to cross and get to the US because they have this magnet attracting them.'
and
"Professor Dudley Poston who researches demographics at Texas A&M University, said studies both of historic and contemporary border walls made it very clear they simply do not work." I cannot find any mention of contraband in the sourced text. Also, it may confuse the reader that there are no University sponsored studies referenced, and only quotes from those who do research.
Maybe instead, we could site something like this "https://www.nber.org/papers/w25267.pdf" which states that if the U.S. had built a barrier along the entire length of border, that it would have had a relatively small impact on illegal migration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:42D0:4140:5DD2:97EB:41CF:9E19 (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
BFBC, an affiliate of Barnard Construction (wikilink) since the Army Corps of Engineers awarded a politically connected Montana firm $569 million to build “17.17 miles” of the border wall.[30]
X1\ (talk) 06:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
One of them in February and one not so long ago? 2A00:1FA0:4457:9AF7:5E4:7608:4657:5684 (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
This statement, without more, falsely implies that Mexico has since reversed its position and paid for the wall. in fact, mexico has paid zero pesos for the wall at all times. Statement should be updated to say something like"...said his country would not pay for the wall, and in fact, Mexico has never paid for any expansions of the wall, which have been entirely financed by U.S. taxpayers, directly contrary to Trump's campaign promises." perhaps the wording above could be improved further still, but it's light years ahead of the garbage sentence in the article now, with its outrageously false implications that Mexico is now paying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.37.199.188 (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
“Trump has privately spoken of fortifying the wall with a water-filled trench inhabited by snakes or alligators, and electric fencing topped with spikes that can pierce human flesh.[52]”
This section states this as a fact when the source describes it as anonymous reports with white house officials. Propose rephrasing to “Trump has reportedly privately spoken of fortifying the wall with a water-filled trench inhabited by snakes or alligators, and electric fencing topped with spikes that can pierce human flesh.”. Other synonyms (i.e. allegedly) work as well. Perhaps rephrasing for flow due to two “ly”’s being next to another. But I think it’s important to make the distinction.2600:1009:B115:1113:D5A0:4B95:D7D2:10E9 (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/along-us-borders/border-wall-system
Many of the sections listed currently appear at different lengths and a few are listed as completed. Normally primary sources are not idea, but for this particular scope, I suspect it would be more appropriate to use this primary source that seems to be updated more recently. 2601:602:9200:1310:C945:A0D9:7B1C:8889 (talk) 07:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
No problem with including that primary source. However, it only tells the total miles of fences/walls built. On Aug 10, 2020, that source says 275 miles have been built. It does not say how many miles replaced existing barriers and how many miles extended the border barrier system. Of the first 260 of those 275 miles, only 5 miles were in places that didn't already have barriers (San Antonio Express, https://www.expressnews.com/news/us-world/border-mexico/article/Border-wall-progress-15467427.php). So at most 20 out of the 275 extend the miles of border covered. Sobekjenkins (talk) 01:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
I have removed a link to a site called "trumpwall.construction," because there is no consensus for its inclusion and the site fails WP:EL. In pertinent part, WP:EL states that we should link Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article
or that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources
. WP:ELNO states that we should not link to Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research
.
The proposed link fails on several grounds. For one, it demonstrably does not contain neutral and accurate material
- its propagandistic use of "fake news" and declaration that the now-banned-for-extremism subreddit r/The_Donald is "the greatest place on the internet" are significant clues. Furthermore, its entirely-anonymous authorship makes it unverifiable. In addition, the site has, by its own account, not been updated since January 2020, and this suggests that it is dead. There are no grounds to include this site as a link here, and several grounds which reject it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
the material itself is presumably accurate- on what grounds are we to presume this? We cannot. It's an anonymous unverified pile of partisan tripe. Any accurate information from actual sources can be used in the article itself based on those actual sources. We have no grounds to view this anonymous partisan blog as authoritative in any fashion, it contains nothing that shouldn't be in the article itself, and the fact that the site magically updated in response to an obscure talk page posting is suspicious at best. Do you have any relationship with this site? Are you attempting to give it prominent placement in Wikipedia in an effort to promote it?
There is a large table that in detail shows progress per part of the wall, but it outdates quickly, and at the moment I checked it (Oct. 15 2020) it was very outdated. I think a simple sentence, with a link to the official US CBP website, covers this part about progess, and the table can be removed. Unless someone is willing to update it monthly. I have been so free to remove it. It anyone wants to place it back, please update. CorCorCor (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)— CorCorCor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The progess part has now been removed completely and incorporated somewhere else, but basicly made unfindable. Oke, only one sentence fore this part might be not much for an apart segment, but this is important information, and it need to be easy findable. There is also much outdated information in text, throughout the whole article. For example, it is a few time mentioned what the progess was 1 years ago, but how it is nowadays is almost impossible to find. I think it is good to restructure that, update it, and put the most relevant information in de places that are most easy findable. CorCorCor (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)— CorCorCor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Why was the 360 miles figure from Oct 12 (CBP) removed, and replaced with one from Sept 21? That makes no sense. I reverted it. MikeR613 (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
About the US CBP site as a source: it is as far as I know the only one with the actual status. It is an official goverment site made to communicate the actual status to the generall public, so it seems to me an acceptable source. If anybody thinks it does not give a correct picture, please discuss, or ad information for nuance, but since there is now a lack of actual information, I use this link for actual information. CorCorCor (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)— CorCorCor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I noticed that the section heading was Funding granted and setbacks, even though it includes what is currently the only discussion in the main text of how much of the wall had been built. I added, and progress. MikeR613 (talk) 06:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
The lead is unreadable. To long, to detailed, outdated, and the most important things are unfindable. All the budgettary and other details can be found in the rest of the article, and have no place here. See: Lead_paragraph — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorCorCor (talk • contribs) 19:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC) — CorCorCor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
CharlesShirley, I explained adequately why I made the change: simply to keep the references in sync with the date in the text. It had nothing to do with my opinion. The version you insist upon is inferior because the reference isn't synced with the text. So be it. soibangla (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trump_wall&diff=984426512&oldid=984398105
The number of miles of wall is a very simple thing... This is a no brainer.Except it really isn’t, and perceptive people understand why. LOL! soibangla (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
As you all probably know, Joe Biden has won the election and is set to become the next president of the United States. Hence I propose a new dedicated chapter to be added in with the succeeding Biden Presidency and outline all things that Biden has promised and done in regards to the wall. He already pledged to stop work on the wall construction. Nvtuil (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I have reverted the unilateral move to Proposed expansion of Mexico–United States barrier of a few days ago - among other things, we can hardly describe something that happened in the past as "proposed".--Pharos (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Trump actually stated: "Mexico will pay for the Wall directly or indirectly." Mexico paid for it indirectly, by sending 27,000 troops to the border, that wasnt free![citation needed] Cop8675309 (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under 3.3 "Outcome" section, change "were" to "for" in last sentence of the only paragraph Bedrockbob (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
H.R. 2390, The Donument Act, was proposed by Madison Cawthorn, making the wall the "Southern Border Wall National Monument". How would this be included in the article if this bill were to be successful?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "found found" to "found".
Section 3.3 paragraph 2 repeats the word "found". StorkFish (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
"All four have pleaded not guilty, and a trial is set for May 24, 2021.[178]"
Trial results need an update. Gprobins (talk) 11:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Given the track record of Rasmussen, their embrace of Pro-Trump election denial, and their history of juking the stats, should we really be using them in this article? Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
see “us-mexico border fence” on wikipedia ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier ), it talks about the same wall, and how it was started and continued by both parties, including biden.
this article is political propaganda, that shouldn’t exist on wikipedia, and it’s also completely false.
actually biden completed four gaps on the wall, and obama and clinton contributed for a large portion of it. I urge the creator of this article to delete it or modify it, and I’m reporting it, because as I said it’s false. 151.71.204.211 (talk) 11:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
The article's opening contains reference to "the Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush & Obama administrations". If surnames are appropriate for the first, second and fifth mentioned, is there a respectful similar form to differentiate between the two Bush presidencies? Perhaps 'Bush Sr' and 'Bush Jr' or 'Bush II'? 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:D5B1:8395:741E:1F03 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
‘Protest of the wall’ (background) would be better rephrased as ‘Protest against the wall’ ThePedantsRevolt (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
The Biden administration announced they waived 26 federal laws in South Texas to allow border wall construction, marking the administration’s first use of a sweeping executive power employed often during the Trump presidency.
https://apnews.com/article/border-wall-biden-immigration-texas-rio-grande-147d7ab497e6991e9ea929242f21ceb2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.37.235.3 (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Wiki being independent of political leanings should not title the proposed fencing between US and Mexico at the border a "Wall". It is a misnomer. It is not a wall that is being build but more of a "fence" or a "barrier" rather than a "wall" which is characterised by brick and mortar. Also, qualifying any fencing or barrier between US and Mexico by using the name "Trump" is misleading as previous and the current administrations have contributed to building the barrier including the incumbent administration of Biden. The search on "Trump Wall" could lead to a topic on the proposed barrier but the page should not be titled so. Solo-man (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)