Talk:Trump wall

Effectiveness

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.

Thanks for coming here to discuss. I have removed what you added to the article, but we can talk about it here. This material would need to have citations to Reliable Sources; can you suggest anything where people have written about this? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Of course there should be sources, and there where: I had included links to the Wikipedia pages about the border barriers I mentioned. Information about their effectiveness can be found there. For example about the effectiveness of the Hungarian border barrier the section "Impact on the number of illegal migrants entering Hungary". It contains a link to site of the Hungarian border police with statistics. It seems to me we should not copy all the sources mentioned there, bit simply link in the text to the wikipage about these barriers. CorCorCor (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

By the way, your remark was not accurate that my text was not accurate. I wrote: "...several examples of border walls or fences...". The Iron Curtain was in part a fence, but also in some parts a wall (the Berlin Wall for example can also be seen as part of the Iron Curtain). It is also a bit of the point, because it is not so much about whether it is a wall or a fence, but about if it is a physical barrier. The line between them can be thin. Many US border guards want a wall they can look through, like a wall made of steel slats, but then it quickly gets fence-like. Wall or fence is not the main issue, the discussion is about the efectiveness of a physical border barrier. CorCorCor (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)— CorCorCor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

One more point: I have some trouble with a vague Texas study being named first, and saying that the wall "like border walls in general", are unlikely to be effective. While millions of people in Europe have experienced themselves, that for example almost no one could pass the Berlin Wall, but when it fell, millions of people came litteraly a day later. How can one argue border walls don't work? Of course, the Berlin Wall was made to keep people in, the border wall in the US is to keep illegal immigrants out, but the principle is the same. A wall stops people. And there are many contamporary examples of very effective walls. So it seems we should not focus on some vague "Texas study", but see it broader. CorCorCor (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)— CorCorCor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The Iron Curtain is removed a few times from the list of border barriers. Argument from FloridaMan was: it was not a physical barrier. I saw the wiki page indeed said that. But when you look up pictures, it is a 7.000 km. long fence (and the Berlin Wall was part of it). So in part the term refers to something non-physical, but also to something very physical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorCorCor (talk • contribs) 10:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC) — CorCorCor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Unless the source discusses other border walls in the context of discussing this particular border wall (US-Mexico border), then it is a violation of WP:SYN to use them. I believe that several publications have discussed Israel's border wall as an example of why the Trump administration's wall has a good chance at being, at least, partially effective. So, those could be used. AppliedCharisma (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

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.

CorCorCor, I have reverted your latest edit. you have already been warned about adding non-WP:RS to Wikipedia.

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)

That claim I made in this discussion topic, and not (yet) in the article itself. But when you look at each contemporary barrier (Israel, Ceuta, US-mexico, Hungary, North-Macedonia), no study claims they don't work against illegal border crossings in the place they where built. The only discussion is about if illegal immigrants find other ways, cost-effectiveness, etc. CorCorCor (talk) 12:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)— CorCorCor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

About the trustworthiness of statistics from the Hungarian governement: It is a western democraticly elected government, so that is a source that can be used. If not, than no government statistic at all. Furthermore, general knowledge also plays a role. The whole of Europe saw millions coming in. Budapest central station had de facto become a refugee camp, for anybody to see. When Hungary built a fence, it stopped overnight, so there is also no reason to beforehand distrust that statistic. CorCorCor (talk) 12:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)— CorCorCor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

There is no reason why Wikipedia cannot link to the Tennessee Star as a source. The particuLar article is well sourced, much better than the Independent article which you did not remove, and the 'star' news network is a serious network. If biased, then no more then CNN of Fox, which also can be sources. CorCorCor (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)— CorCorCor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I have already addressed these points. Please re-read my previous comment. Zazpot (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately you have not, or not convincing. CorCorCor (talk) 11:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)— CorCorCor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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)

You appear to be pushing a point of view, by choice of sources. See also my previous remarks. You do as if the Independent article sums it all up, and leave out sources that support the opposite. Having said that, I changed the first sentence, and added a source about the Hungarian barrier, to cater to some remarks. CorCorCor (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)— CorCorCor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I refer you to my previous comments, which say all that needs to be said in reply. Zazpot (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Can one really compare walls a few miles long, or borders staffed by soldiers authorized to shoot crossers on site, to the US southern border situation? Aajax (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The wall does not belong to Trump

@Peter L Griffin and Solo-man: — Agree  The title Trump wall more than suggests that this is the official name. The term "Trump's wall" was coined by Joe Biden and was meant to be a derogatory phrase and to suggest that the wall was only something that Trump had dreamed up. It was a rather transparent attempt to trivialize the idea of a border wall. While Trump certainly deserves much of the credit for getting the wall started, the wall is not anyone's original idea, and does not belong to Trump. He is not the only one over the years who has asked for serious measures to combat the flood of illegal immigration that began long before Trump was part of the political landscape. The title of this article should be MOVED to US-Mexican border wall. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The proper mechanism is WP:RM, not a simple discussion thread. If you decide to do that, your hyphen will need to be an ndash per MOS. And note the existence of Mexico–United States border wall, which would make your suggestion a bit problematic anyway. That article is already "aware" of this article per its hatnote. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Mandruss — Many thanks. Rather than a MOVE perhaps it's best to MERGE Trump wall with Mexico–United States border wall, as the so called Trump wall article seems a little redundant, esp since Trump is mentioned some 64 times in the latter article. Again, the whole idea of a separate article whose title is "Trump wall" invokes many NPOV and partisan issues and all but abandons the idea of neutrality. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm neutral/DGAF aside from what I've already said. But good luck (I remember you from way back in the day; we certainly had some heated arguments, though I remember not what about). ―Mandruss ☎ 19:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

What about "Trump's wall policy" or something more along those lines? @Gwillhickers@Mandruss? I saw the NPOV tag and found it difficult to even find this conversation just now. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• There seems to be much difficulty with some individual editors in trying to get even simple summary statements in place regarding the wall and things related to the border. Biden, on his first day in office, stopped funding for the wall, and in the weeks immediately following reversed many dozens of border policies that were in place, and in the process closed down many check points along the border He may as well laid out a red carpet for illegal immigrants who saw Biden actions for what they were -- little regard for illegal alien crossings. Since then record numbers of illegals, approximately ten million, have entered the country.under Biden's watch, many of them on the terrorist watch list or are gang members, not to mention the epidemic proportions of human trafficking, drug and gun smuggling. In any case, anything you can add to this or any other Biden related article on the subject will have my support. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• There are plenty of sources covering these issues, some of which can be found throughout this section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  There already exists this page Mexico–United States border wall. Which is almost an exact duplicate of what you were originally suggesting. Do you think a merge of this page into that page would make more sense then since the name is already taken? Iljhgtn (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  So who needs to do or allow the merging. "Trump wall" is such a political misnomer and used to advance political ideologies unnecessarily through this medium. Solo-man (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  Any of us could. There does appear to be consensus for the move. I don't have time to do that now. Though maybe one day. I'd support someone else doing it though. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  I support merging Trump wall and Mexico-United States border wall under the name of the later. They are virtually identical. If someone opens a poll/discussion (which I don't know how to do) I will vote for a merger. Completely Random Guy (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

  Clear consensus appears to exist. The merge should move forward now. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  I agree! Completely Random Guy (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  I read about how to conduct a merge and I will start that process now. If I make any mistakes, to any admin or others reading this, please be patient and help correct for them or message me on my talk page if needed. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  In fact, most if not all of the relevant segments of this page are already found at Mexico–United States border wall, so I am going to merge as a redirect to this section Mexico–United_States_border_wall#First_Trump_administration_(2017–2021) Iljhgtn (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  Later on, during the presumed second Trump administration, the redirect end target can be altered if a new and better end target for the redirect ends up being made, but regardless consensus appears clear to merge this page as a redirect to the Mexico–United States border wall article. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

"Decision 3012"

The Futurama episode "Decision 3012", which aired in June 2012, seems to parody this proposal (among other things). Is it possible that the proposal has an older pedigree than is currently mentioned in this article? —Ruakh_TALK 05:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Vicente Fox statement

• On February 25, 2016, when Vicente Fox, who was president of Mexico from 2000 to 2006, was asked about his thoughts on Trump's plan to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it, he said, "I have to say that we are not, I am not going to pay for that f***ing wall." Later that day, at the Tenth Republican Presidential Debate, Trump refuted Vicente Fox's statement, adding, "The wall just got 10 feet taller, believe me."

I think we should add this because it was monumental to the discussion, and honestly, its just too funny to be left out. Here are sources:

• https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/25/politics/vicente-fox-donald-trump-wall/index.html
• https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-warns-mexican-president-wall-10-feet/story?id=37207947

HYTEN CREW (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Editorial Language

Per Wikipedia guidelines, the articles must be written from a neutral point of view and "as far as possible, without editorial bias".

The article defines the wall as a "critical" part of Trump's campaign. This is editorial, and nowhere on the reference article is the word critical mentioned. The use of the term "combat" is also an editorial choice. The article states that Mexico would pay with a "20% tariff on Mexican goods" and sites a blog post from an opinion piece that includes the words 'seems' in the title, clearly defining the post as opinion. The next source, #3, mentions the fact that Donald Trump said about the payment "There will be a payment. It will be in a form, perhaps a complicated form". There is no mention of this in the article, not fairly representing all views on the topic, much less statements about the topic from the individual whose name is in the title of the article. "All construction relied exclusively on US funding" is highly editorial. Money is fungible, this would be a tough statement to defend even if the article supported it. Mexico purchases US bonds, a mechanism through which it funds the US government. US funding is not an accurate statement and is editorial, it could talk about whos accounts the funds were disbursed from, but editorial language on a statement about which the author clearly lacks knowledge does not lend credibility to Wikipedia.

The "political struggle" for funding in paragraph 2 is editorial - it has no source and funding bills are often thousands of pages so this is a misrepresentation to attribute the shutdown to the funding of border enforcement.

This whole article is full of editorial language. NeutralPOVseeker (talk) 07:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)