Talk:National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States/Archive 1

Full speech?
Can someone post the full Trump speech in the announcement section? ExclusiveWillows (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , that is something for Wikisource. I'll add it there for you if it hasn't been already, though. &#8213; Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖  00:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't believe so. ExclusiveWillows (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

diversion of military construction funds -- clarification tag
Post 9/11, Geo. Bush issued "Proclamation 7463" which diverted certain military construction funds to other uses or projects. Thus at least one of the earlier 58 emergencies involved the reallocation of funds 'irregardless' of what the source says. – S. Rich (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC) In the current case the Prez is diverting funds from other purposes after he failed to get the money from Congress. So, while one of the earlier proclamations involved previously allocated funds, the 9-11 diversion did not involve a failed request to Congress for a particular pot of money.21:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * the 9-11 diversion did not involve a failed request to Congress for a particular pot of money. And this one does. So in other words, this case IS different from the 9/11 proclamation and the current request IS unprecedented? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Title capitalization
Should the C in "concerning" be capitalized in the title of this article? Stapmoshun (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * per capitalization used In whitehouse.gov (posted In The el section), Yes. – S. Rich (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

"Democracy backsliding"
I challenged this entire section, which was a subsection of "Background", as inappropriate and POV, and I have removed it. For reference, here is the section I am talking about: This was general commentary about the state of "democracy" (small d) in America, and the sources are not mainstream or neutral; they all have a POV of their own. In adding this to the article we are basically saying, in Wikipedia's voice, that Trump is responsible for undercutting democracy in this country and that the Emergency Declaration should be seen as part of that. IMO we could include such commentary, but in the Reactions section rather than Background; it should be attributed to the source, and only to sources that specifically refer to this declaration in their analysis. Open for discussion here. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, maybe this should not be mentioned in background. But it is precisely the point (in sources) and that D. Trump undermines the US democracy by bypassing and defying the Congress. Perhaps to rephrase and include elsewhere? My very best wishes (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Like I said: IMO we could include such commentary, but in the Reactions section rather than Background; it should be attributed to the source, and only to sources that specifically refer to this declaration in their analysis. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What happened to the rename I did for "Accusations of Democratic Backsliding" ? &#8213; Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖  22:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Somebody changed the title to "Democracy backsliding". Shortly after that, the entire section was removed, title and all. Feel free to join in the discussion here about whether, and where, to include that kind of material. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think that it was fine as long as it was content neutral., why did you change the section heading? &#8213; Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖  00:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought that would be a better title (no objections to restore). I think this text should be restored exactly as it was, I do not see it as anything problematic. My very best wishes (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Since the beginning of the presidency of Donald Trump, ratings of U.S. democracy had already sharply plunged in the United States.  According to the 2018 V-Dem Annual Democracy Report for the United States, there has been "a significant democratic backsliding in the United States [since the Inauguration of Donald Trump] ... attributable to weakening constraints on the executive." Independent assessments by Freedom House and Bright Line Watch found a similar decline on checks on executive power, along with a significant decline in overall democratic functioning.

MVBW, the problem is that to include this section under “Background” is non-neutral and Original Research. This material would be fine for an article about Trump’s effect on American democratic institutions, if such an article were written. But the subject of this article is the declaration of national emergency. None of these references say anything about the use of national emergency; they couldn’t, since they were written before it happened. To include this as background for this article is to say, in Wikipedia’s voice, that this national emergency declaration is an example of Trump undermining democracy.

There will undoubtedly be - probably already are - people saying something like that in commentary. Fine; include their comments, attributed to them, in the reactions section. But to start out the article by saying “It is an established fact that Trump undermines democracy, and we are pointing it out in this article because this action is clearly (obvious to us, anyhow) another example of it” - that is the worst kind of Synthesis and Original Research. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What Melanie said, plus the WP:SOAPBOX look. In addition, please note that Freedom House actually assessed that democracy in the United States has been declining for many years (from index 94 in 2009 to 86 in 2018), so that attributing this slide solely to Trump is a misrepresentation of their findings. — JFG talk 02:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that degrading democracy in the US generally belongs to other pages, however this particular declaration is an important part of the process. How exactly this needs to be phrased and sourced is another matter. My very best wishes (talk) 03:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

"Some analysts"
Is there a reason that "some" see the declaration as expanding executive power? Shouldn't the word "some" be removed here? ExclusiveWillows (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The word "some" is there because other analysts disagree, see . w umbolo   ^^^  15:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, that makes sense. Thanks! ExclusiveWillows (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)