Talk:Protests against the Trump administration family separation policy
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Protests against the Trump administration family separation policy 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 rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Anticipating the sequel
editNews is already making rounds of people planning to protest the child internment after the Executive Order yesterday. When we cover those it may not be appropriate to cover that here because it would no longer be separation being protested (except of course for the continued separation of those already separated yet to be reunited) and rather about the idea of interning children via the defense department (jail adjacent) as opposed to DHHS.
Protests against Trump administration family internment policy perhaps? ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Families Belong Together
editSee Talk:Families Belong Together re: Families Belong Together and whether or not there should be a standalone article for this group and series of protests. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Requested move 11 January 2019
edit- 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. Consensus is clearly in opposition to the proposed move. bd2412 T 00:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Protests against the Trump administration family separation policy → Protests against the Trump Administration Zero Tolerance Immigration Policy – I am proposing this move to meet two needs; accuracy and neutrality. The Title implies that there was an explicit Family Separation Policy; that is not true, and instead the effect of the actual policy, the Zero Tolerance Policy, was to separate families, and as so renaming this as "Zero Tolerance" would be more accurate. This also leads us to neutrality; if there is no "Family Separation Policy", then titling this article with that name is not a neutral title. NoCOBOL (talk) 07:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The title of the program is an invented Orwellian marketing vehicle. What the public and certainly the victims of the policy know it for is the family separation aspect.
The title may simply be the name (or a name) of the subject of the article, or it may be a description of the topic.
Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.
OK, here are some WP:RS [1] Time [2] USA Today [3] Washington Post Need I go on? There are plenty of sources. Trackinfo (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)- That seems to be an example of WP:CHERRYPICKING. While it is true that it is named as the "Family Separation Policy" in multiple articles, it is referred to as the "Zero Tolerance Policy" in others, including some from the same source. For instance: WP:RS [4] CNN [5] Politico [6] Washington Post. Given that there is significant coverage using both terms, it is our responsibility to decide which name more accurately reflects Wikipedia's status as an encyclopedia, and here it is policy to use the official and more neutral name. NoCOBOL (talk) 09:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - The current title reflects the main article, for which I also opposed a similar title change. The current title is more recognizable. The current title meets WP:COMMONNAME and is suitably neutral. Families were indeed separated, and it was intentional - MrX 🖋 13:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. The title of the article Trump administration family separation policy is a contentious issue, so per WP:NDESC, non-neutral but common names [...] may be used within a descriptive title, and the title of this article should reflect the title of that article. I supported changing the title of that article two times, one of those was in a requested move that I started myself, but many editors cited Democrat talking points so the requested moves failed quickly. I expect many more similarly partisan arguments here so this RM will definitely fail – please withdraw your RM, thank you. wumbolo ^^^ 15:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: I originally closed this as "not moved," but given the ongoing request here I've decided to revert myself. Calidum 22:29, 18 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.