Talk:Trump administration family separation policy/Archive 3

Forcible drugging of children.
Reports are emerging that children being detained in these facilities are improperly being forcible injected or otherwise administered drugs to control their behavior. See, e.g., Camila Domonoske, Richard Gonzales, "What We Know: Family Separation And 'Zero Tolerance' At The Border", NPR (June 19, 2018); Matt Smith and Aura Bogado, "Immigrant children forcibly injected with drugs at Texas shelter, lawsuit claims", ''Texas Tribune (June 20, 2018). This should probably be addressed. bd2412 T 20:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Jesus Christ. This goes from bad to worse. If this is real and can be corroborated, it most certainly needs to be addressed here. The NPR cite's only reference to this is the quote "some advocates say certain facilities improperly administer psychotropic medications."; the Texas Tribune article goes into much more detail. A court case is mentioned: are the court documents public? -- The Anome (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Update: This is the link given in the Texas Tribune article: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4525292-420-2-Exhibit-Vol-2-Exs-21-30-Pages-109-73.html -- The Anome (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * "Jesus Christ" doesn't even begin to describe it. This is utterly shocking.- MrX 🖋 21:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional source:. A fly-by-night IP account is trying to remove this info from the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Where does the NPR source talk about forcible injections? The other sources listed are low quality. 205.251.151.42 (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 *  A pending lawsuit alleges immigrant children housed there were held down and forcibly injected with drugs, rendering them unable to walk, afraid of people and wanting to sleep constantly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't the quality or volume of sources; it's that all the sources are reporting on a single lawsuit. As long as the content added is clear about this, the material should be fine with only the Texas Tribune as source (it's not a high-circulation newspaper but is generally reliable); another source to demonstrate "mainstream coverage" for notability would also be appropriate.  I support including this material, but don't see a need to revert this until the page is semi-protected. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 21:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't remove it if it was clear they're allegations in a single lawsuit not fact or investigative reporting. Does one lawsuit really deserve its own section though? 205.251.151.42 (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

More sources:, .Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * While these are still unproven allegations at this point, I think there is now sufficient reporting on this from WP:RS to meet the notability criteria for mentioning the existence of the allegations. I foresee a lot of investigative journalists descending on Texas in the next few days. -- The Anome (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

More sources .Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Are there any other articles this might intersect with? Forcible drugging of minors in any other law enforcement situations? http://www.aapsonline.org/press/sellback.htm for example mentions "Is it an appropriate use of the state's power to allow CPS to forcibly medicate children against the parent's wishes? Several instances have been reported to AAPS, one from a woman who has fled the country rather than allow her child to be medicated with Ritalin." Not sure if there's enough for a broader or separate article yet. ScratchMarshall (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

* * MOVED * *  As this case was for years prior to the forced separation, it is not in the scope of the article topic and not limited to the children of such separations. So I have moved it to the more general Immigration_policy_of_Donald_Trump Also note that this lawsuit is at least partly during the Obama era. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Pinging participants ... User:ScratchMarshall, User:Volunteer Marek, User:The Anome, User:power~enwiki, user:MrX, User:BD2412 - Casprings reverted a move to based on consensus so let me ask: since this class-action lawsuit (filed 16 April 2018) is making claims for actions from 2014 thru 2017 (and still ongoing), predating the separation policy and not limited to those children, should it be moved to the general Immigration policy of Donald Trump or does it belong to the Trump administration family separation policy ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If it predated this policy why would it be in this article? PackMecEng (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Given that 2014-2017 is mostly Obama's term I would say this belongs in the broader Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States until something more specific like immigration policy of Barack Obama is made. Trump wasn't sworn in until 2017 so I don't see why a suit also including 2014/2015/2016 should receive focus on an article about Trump's policies specifically. ScratchMarshall (talk) 04:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The Moonie Times is not WP:RS
Two editors believe that content sourced to a publication that regularly publishes falsehoods and far-right conspiracy theories belongs in this Wikipedia article. I don't. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2018 (UTC) If source is the only issue here are a couple LA times, Washington Post, and NY Times the only counter offered is that data seems limited and they feel it is a small percentage. PackMecEng (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Concur. Not WP:RS.Casprings (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Split
Presently Trump administration zero tolerance policy and Trump administration zero tolerance immigration policy both redirect here, but this is a far broader issue which deserves its own article. I believe we should have a overview to explain the background of what changes were made (civil > criminal), when they were made, and then with a note at the end linking to the present page.

This present page could then link back to the ZTP article so that it is a clear before/after relationship with policy creating separations. ScratchMarshall (talk) 07:22, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I see no good reason for a split at this time. Gandydancer (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Do not split: fine as it is now, with a redirect here. Also, see the recent RM discussion with the ZTP being floated as the name for this article, but it did not pass. Best to keep it all contained here. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Do not split, to me it appears that the zero tolerance policy and family separation are one in the same. Until Trump says otherwise, I'd say leave it be.Trillfendi (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Do not split Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Do not split: I see no real reason to atomize content unduly. Neutralitytalk 01:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Do not split They are the same policy, and the status of whatever version 2.0 will be is still far from clear. This content belongs together.--Pharos (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: We already have Immigration policy of Donald Trump, which covers the "zero tolerance policy". I'm in favor of renaming the current article, though that's a separate issue, one which probably won't be resolved while this is still a hot-button issue. FallingGravity 05:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Do not split, everything is concise except for the comprehensive reaction section (which is appropriately at the bottom anyways) Shushugah (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Paragraph for protests
We should probably have a Summary style paragraph on Protests against Trump administration family separation policy.--Pharos (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * There is Occupy_ICE which is currently incomplete, but can be included as a 'main article'. Or are there other protests, or wiki articles that would be more appropriate? Shushugah (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

ProPublica video
I have moved the video back to its relevant section. Is there an encyclopedic reason for a "recording of crying children separated from their families" to be at the top of the page, above or in place of a set of photos showing an overview of the children and the detention facility? 93 (talk) 03:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a very notable freely-licensed video. It belongs next to the lead, maybe below the images. Also, it is accurate, unlike so much propaganda and misattributed images that have been spread. w umbolo   ^^^  09:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not for the lead, should be in the section about the video. PackMecEng (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a very powerful audio indeed (and I have only been able to bear listening to it twice, once when I first heard it and once when I entered the info on it - it's just too heart-wrenching and I start to cry). But I agree that it is best to not put it in the lead.  Gandydancer (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Lead-worthy:It is the most notable piece of media that relates to this subject. No question it should be in the lede.Casprings (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Lead-worthy: It was played in Congress, etc. It's symbolic in nature at this point, so should be in the lead. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Lead-worthy I won't argue it. It is unique, that is for sure.  Gandydancer (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Lead worthy per K.e.coffman.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Lead-worthy - This is the single-most iconic media associated with this historically bad policy. The audio has even been used at a protest at Kirstjen Nielsen's residence. My preference is that it not be at the absolute top of the article, but perhaps under a single well-chosen lead image.- MrX 🖋 02:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose in Lead: Fails MOS:LEADIMAGE: "It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image‍—‌such as of a person or place, a book or album cover‍—‌to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page." Having to play the audio clip defeats the entire purpose of visual confirmation of arrival. The delay caused by having to listen to the clip subverts the entire rationale behind LEADIMAGE.– Lionel(talk) 10:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense and is also irrelevant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I mean if we want to cite MOS:LEADIMAGE as an issue there bullet point two is a good example "Lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred. For example, using an image of deportees being subjected to selection as the lead image at this version of Holocaust is far preferable to the appropriate images that appear later in the article that show the treatment of the prisoners or corpses from the camps." which I am pretty sure this qualifies under. PackMecEng (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Commment I notice in https://nypost.com/2018/06/18/shocking-audio-captures-border-agent-joking-as-separated-migrant-kids-cry/ "Pro Publica did not disclose exactly what facility the audio comes from, but says it is of 10 Central American kids aged between 4 and 10 years old and was recorded last week, about a day after the separation." Does PP explain how they ascertained this information? Did USBP inform PP of the ten minor's ages and continent of origin, or did that come from asking them directly? I don't think this is necessarily the "most notable" thing. The discredited image used on the cover of Time was also rather notable and a competitor. We should feature that alongside the audio along with an explanation of its context. ScratchMarshall (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * RE the comment, "I don't think this is necessarily the "most notable" thing." On Meet the Press this morning it actually was called the turning point of the opposition to the Trump decision, the point that turned both parties and the American public against the decision to separate parents from their children.  Also re your concerns that there is no background info on the tape, you need to bother to read the sources in our article.  Gandydancer (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have noticed the audio/video tape being constantly mentioned in the news alongside the actual policy, perhaps it should have a few lines in the lead reflecting that? 93 (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with that.Casprings (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Not in Lead - sensationalizing sound effect for emotionalism? No no. Not a tabloid.  WP:LEAD does not say 'anything editors want to call lead-worthy' or 'inflammatory eye-candy', it says to summarize the article contents.  A lead image should be representative.  MOS:LEADIMAGE  Markbassett (talk) 04:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Lead-Worthy With the INS forbidding photos of the facilities being taken, not letting congressmen enter the facilities, much less video recordings, this audio recording was the first glimpse the nation had with the consequences of the family separation policy. Samboy (talk) 07:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose in Lead - Put it in the section about the video itself. Reliable government pictures at the top is best. Using the video makes the article seem biased. There's also a Voice of America video which works fine. Nice4What (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose in Lead the number of pictures and video in the lead is already excessive.XavierGreen (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Commment per the MOS:LEAD, there is no mention of video or audio, and majority of visitors will not click to play it, so let's treat the still in the video as the image in question. It is a non sensationalist screenshot of two children. The video itself is definitely one of the most important pieces, but the pictures below of children in detention centers with metal blankets are more descriptive on their own, and confirms for the visitor they are at the right page. The MOS:LEAD should be updated for guidelines about videos, in which case this would absolutely be most important video to depict. So I would support keeping it in lead, but putting it below the other images and expanding MOS:LEAD. Shushugah (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Created discussion in MOS:LEAD I opened issue in MOS:LEAD about adding videos, join discussion there Shushugah (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support in lede under other images  Noteworthy yet improper as main visual here. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 13:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not lead-worthy. Wikipedia is not a blog, news site, or clickbait infotainment venue. A/V content should be placed where it is contextually relevant.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

which children not separated under ZT prior to EO
For example the notable June 12th John Moore photograph of Honduran child where sources report no separation, they were kept together. Does anyone know the criteria that led to this? If it was a universal zero tolerance policy to jail all adults who illegally immigrated (thus transforming formerly-accompanied minors into unaccompanied ones) then how was it that Sanchez was not jailed/separated? Do any sources explain the criteria for exceptions and how often exceptions like this were made? This happened BEFORE the executive order, so it's hard to understand what went on. Was it maybe only a babies/toddler exception for 0-2 year olds? ScratchMarshall (talk) 07:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I have seen various remarks as to exclusions -- about being under 12 or under 10 -- and outside speculations about other cases such as the children's facility was full. Alternatively, there have been remarks about separations happened fairly commonly for children age 6.  It may be that other factors figure into separations at early ages, hard to tell through the mess of coverage.  Relatively few claims for young children may just be that there are few young children crossing.    Markbassett (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Trump admin ran 'pilot program' for separating migrant families in 2017
"numbers provided to NBC News by the Department of Homeland Security show that another 1,768 were separated from their parents between October 2016 and February 2018, bringing the total number of separated kids to more than 4,100" - Source. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Jesus, just when you think it couldn't get any worse. Though Susan Collins hinted at this and the couple that does foster care in Michigan said that the 6-year-old boy that they were caring for had been separated from his father six months previously.(info in our article).  Gandydancer (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Are these secret numbers or does NBC actually provide a full report that these numbers are based on so we can read where they originate in proper context? ScratchMarshall (talk) 05:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should read the NBC news report. Gandydancer (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans - This is a rerun and an Obama era item Think discussions here already touched on the October 2017 period, the story NY Times came to out of analyzing the ORR statistics was 700 families, not 1,768 children. That story got substantial coverage, and is loosely related back to the topic of this article. This NBC piece seems rather careless but offtopic also as 1,768 is all causes going back into 2016. This is well before the Trump administration policy, even predating the 'pilot program' and partly during Obamas term. The Obama administration reportedly separated families only for repeat offenders (Washington Post said generally that is about 20%) or concerns of health or safety. Reportedly they did not track that separately, but the smaller figure of about 1000 per year in the El Paso region seems possible but unclear. Suggest rediscussing the accuracy of this one. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Removal of crying children recording and unverified-as-free YouTube video
I have removed the audio of children crying per this discussion. This recording is not only inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, but it's not specific to the Trump presidency. No doubt detained illegal immigrant children cried during the Obama presidency, the Bush presidency, the Clinton presidency. It's inflammatory and serves no purpose other than to exploit and turn this article into something you would read in a tabloid. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 02:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Likewise, I have removed the VOA video as it has not yet been reviewed by an administrator or reviewer to confirm that the above license is valid. Until reviewed, it is a possible copyright violation. See the file's page for more: -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 02:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * NOTE And, and I predicted would happen, it's been restored to the article without the reverter attempting any discussion here on the talk page, even though it was very clear in the removal edit summary that there is a discussion on it. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 02:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I do wish Trump fans would stop referring to other presidents. Trump is unorthodox. It's what his voters wanted. Someone who broke the mould. Now that he has, we should document that it's not all good. HiLo48 (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The video is still under discussion above in the ProPublica section. Also cut it out with the Trump fan stuff. It is disruptive and not helpful. PackMecEng (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Nor is the constant barrage of "Obama did it too" and "You can't say that about my hero". It really isn't transparent, and it's a very bad look for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 03:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Then take it to a drama board because this is not where to complain. PackMecEng (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Pot, kettle, black. As I said, it's not transparent. Trump fans wanted someone different. That's what they got. Let us report on him. He is not a god. HiLo48 (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * wrote: "... we should document that it's not all good" and "Let us report on him." That sounds like writing for the New York Times, not writing an encyclopedia. (Nothing against the Times btw, I've been a subscriber to the (gasp!) home-delivered print newspaper for a couple of decades or more.)  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  05:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am simply resisting a seemingly unending stream of requests to NOT report on the negatives of Trump's story. I have o idea what this has to do with the New York Times. HiLo48 (talk) 05:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: the discussion linked is from a different page. Here's the discussion on this page: ProPublica video. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Wrong article Winkelvi. This is the article about the Trump family separation policy. Of course this audio file is encyclopedic. Did you do a search first to see what our sources have to say about the audio recording? I appears not. HiLo48 is correct that comparing Trump to past presidents is not helpful.. - MrX 🖋 02:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead vs Pilot program and Collins interview
I've just deleted a para in the lead that seemed focused on numbers from the Collins interview and NBC story of 1,768 and Pilot program. While numbers are desireable and there was some mention in the article, it still had issues of WP:LEAD or WP:WEIGHT as well as inaccuracies and that perhaps lead changes need some prior discussion on doing so.

User:Gandydancer - I think you put in the 1,768 figure ... I'll remark that includes those unrelated to the Zero Tolerance policy, including some time of the Obama Administration -- the prior reports from NY had it at 700 families affected, which seems echoed in the Guardian and in local newspapers. That Obama and the Trump continuing Obama policies separated 1000 more may be approxiamtely true, but is OFFTOPIC for this article. Would you care to propose language for just the 'pilot program' ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans -- you seem to have gotten into the middle with a reflexive revert. Please undo that. If not, then please answer -- OK, so Obama also separated children, and the 30 June story above at Separation of legal asylum seekers was a daily press tidbit ... so why do you feel Obama deportations are relevant here or that the 30 June story should go into header ??? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, no reply but it's out of the Lead. I now see it below under in the Pilot program section. Since this 1,768 is partly Obama era (not par of article Trump administration) and predates / is not part of the section pilot program, I will delete that line and see how it goes. Markbassett (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Premise and question
I'm concerned about recent reversions and adding of content. Originally, the content contained original research ("Average of 45 per day"), that was changed (along with adding a direct quote from the article) and the content pared down to only reflect the HHS reports as well as the content in the attached reliable sources. That change was then reverted, with the wording changed so that HHS was excluded (an explanation for this would be good) and a very vague "government officials" added in its place.

See here "In April and May 2018, an average of 45 children were taken from their parents per day. According to the HHS, the policy led to the separation of over 2,300 children from their parents, though others said the figure may have been much higher." (version 1)

and here "According to the HHS, the policy led to the separation of around 2000 children from their parents over six weeks' time." (version 2)

and here "According to government officials, the policy led to the separation of more than 2,300 children from their parents." (version 3 - the current version).

Which version of the content is more appropriate and accurate in relation to the sources? -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 02:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Survey

 * None seem great - The last one seems the least bad.
 * The first one looks like OR or at least not in the cites, and 45 looks like maybe bad math or differing ideas of the timeframe -- Mother Jones and Vox say it was 65 per day and HoustonChronicle says 70.
 * The second one is a mis-attribution in saying HHS when it cites NBC reporting from analysis so should credit NBC, and I'm thinking the 2,000 and the 6 weeks is not the latest and most common numbers.
 * The third one should clarify "policy" to "zero-tolerance policy" as that's a bit confused in the article and it would be closer to the first cites phrase "zero-tolerance policy that was announced last month and led to the separation of more than 2,300 children" I note the second cite says "Officials have said that at least 2,342 children were separated".  I would suggest two changes.  (A) I think #3 sounds a bit vague verging on WP:WEASEL as it does not say which officials, what agency, when, or for what time period.   Looking about at BBC I see a more specific "U.S. Immigration officials say 2,342 children were separated from 2,206 parents from 5 May to 9 June" also echoed by others such as the Washington Post and Markey.Senate.Gov.   But I've not found a link of who/what said that.  The USA Today mentions CBP, CBS news mentions 2,047 said by Jonathan White of HHS, Houston Chronicle mentions Steve Wagner of HHS, WKYE mentions Azar of HHS, and dhs.gov has Southwest Border Migration Numbers from May but that's not a match.  (B) Use phrasing 'under' instead of 'led to' as that's how it is said 'under the zero-tolerance policy, 2,342 children were separated from 2,206 parents from 5 May to 9 June'.
 * Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Separated Parent's Removal Form
NBC says that Southern Poverty Law Center gave them this form from the US federal government. I do not know where the original copy of this document is or where the original journalism is.
 * https://twitter.com/CNNValencia/status/1013923482890055680/photo/1

If anyone finds or makes a nicely formatted document version of this then feel free to replace this lower resolution image version of it with a better copy.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  13:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * CNN says that they got the form from SPLC. I cited this in the article but I do not think this is the first article on the form. Both NBC and CNN credit SPLC so probably SPLC has the original information and should be the source to highlight.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I found the original and replaced the image with an actual document.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Bluerasberry - Context for the image is somewhat lacking. I'll adjust the label Completion of the "Separated Parent's Removal Form" may be part of the reunification process. To the label "Separated Parent's Removal Form" gives parent being deported the option of leaving their children behind. Since that's what it is said for... But we need some article text here and not just a bare image with no article content about it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Separation of legal asylum seekers
From paragraph 2:
 * whether apprehended during an illegal crossing or, in a number of reported cases, legally presenting themselves for asylum

2 sources are listed which allegedly support this.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/17/children-separated-border-flake-collins-650779
 * GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Jeff Flake of Arizona sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar this weekend seeking clarification on whether families are separated when they seek asylum and how often that occurs. The letter amounts to some of the strongest pushback the Trump administration has received from congressional Republicans for its policy.
 * "Secretary Nielsen recently appeared before the U.S. Senate and testified that immigrant parents and children who present themselves at U.S. ports of entry to request asylum will not be separated. Despite Secretary Nielsen’s testimony, a number of media outlets have reported instances where parents and children seeking asylum at a port of entry have been separated," the two senators wrote. "These accounts and others like them concern us."
 * Flake and Collins cited a Washington Post story about a Honduran woman seeking asylum being separated from her child in Texas and a case in California in which a Congolese woman was separated from her daughter for months.

The Collins-Flake letter does not actually report on cases. Rather it reports on reports of them. Although this helps in establishing notability of said reports, should we not be reporting the Honduran WashPo story and the Congolese case from Cali to provide context?

https://www.thenation.com/article/like-inside-mcallen-border-patrol-facility/
 * The legislators said they are particularly concerned about the treatment of asylum seekers.
 * One woman at Port Isabel said she’d turned herself in at a legal port of entry, only to be criminally prosecuted for illegal entry.
 * “It’s perfectly legal to, at a checkpoint, ask for asylum,” Merkley said.

I don't believe this is relevant at all, because this doesn't establish that this particular asylum-seeker had an accompanying child. Also, while Merkley is right that it's legal to ask at checkpoints, nothing about being "at" a legal port necessarily means you "legally presented" at it. Someone could, for example, try to sneak through an illegal port.

For that reason, I think we should replace "The Nation" citation with whatever 2 stories Collins/Flake were referencing, to bolster the Politico reference to give "a number of reported cases" context. For now, I will be changing that to TWO. "Instances" is later clarified to be that. "A number" is used in regard to "media outlets". ScratchMarshall (talk) 05:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * According to Sen. Collins (speaking on Face the Nation): "The Secretary of Homeland Security testified that if parents present at a legal port of entry with their children, with a claim of asylum, that the children would not be taken away. Yet, there are numerous credible media accounts showing that exactly that is happening, and the administration needs to put an end to that right off."  Gandydancer (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * That seems a verbal form of the letter which "does not actually report on cases. Rather it reports on reports of them." This is not as good a RS as the media account itself might be.  It may be reports of allegation by someone, possibly anonymously, but that would move it from 'reports of media reports of allegations' to 'allegations'.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Time cover controversy
I've noticed a lot of sources reporting on this, I think we should consider making a section for it under "Reactions". It wasn't just Time who used the image in question, all kinds of news sites have used it in their articles or video clips associated with children allegedly broken apart from their family, when the example in question is merely one who was set down briefly and then picked up again. Nearly identical titles from June 22 in slight variations:



Is this possibly covered elsewhere? ScratchMarshall (talk) 09:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we mention that event, not the error under Fundraising response so perhaps there? PackMecEng (talk) 13:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We should expand this material slightly and possibly even include an image of the time cover, which is under WP:NFCC.- MrX 🖋 15:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Here are some sources I found: The Snopes article I found looks at some of the early reporting on the photo in question, while the CNN and CBC articles look more into the controversy. TIME Magazine seems to be arguing that the photograph is symbolic of Trump's "zero tolerance" immigration situation as a whole, not just the family separation issue. Perhaps the photograph deserves its own article instead of boxing it into the family separation controversy? FallingGravity 15:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC) ::Is the argument here that a highly publicized mis-captioned image should be included in an encyclopedic article about the topic at hand? I would think that it not being an image of the topic would tend to disqualify it from inclusion in said encyclopedia article. Maybe if and when there's a separate "media coverage of…" article, there might be a case for due weight, but this seems both irrelevant and undue.--Carwil (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This would be a great lead image if we split this article into one about the Trump administration illegal immigrant separation controversy which resulted from the Trump administration zero tolerance immigration policy. The picture is certainly part of the controversy, if tenuously connected to the policy since the mother and daughter were never separated. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There is actually a dedicated article on the photograph: Jim Moore photograph of Honduran child, and we should prbably put most the details there.--Pharos (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * But that's the photo, not the Time cover. I did see the Time cover derided by a pro-immigration voice, as I recall for not respecting the immigrant plight shown by factual imagery, instead exploiting the image in a quick joke and money making. Markbassett (talk) 04:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The TIME cover is an adaptation of the original photograph, so details about the cover wouldn't be misplaced in that article. FallingGravity 22:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if that happens a lot. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * User:ScratchMarshall -- Photo mis-interpreation and/or willful misuse of a convenient image happens sometimes. Another instance here would be FactCheck.org mention of the Pena photo of 'sad child in cage' which was a child at a protest but was misinterpreted as one of the detained children.   Older example is The Gulf War had an iconic bird covered in oil put out when Iraq released oil into the Gulf -- but the Oil was hundreds of miles away and the bird was at the local port under a Navy bilge pumpout.   There also is occasional discussions in photo journalism ethics -- how much can one pose the people or post-process the imagery to focus attention or colorize things.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Well Documented Opinion is Still Not Fact
The two sentences ″The Trump administration justified its policy by falsely claiming that they were required by law to implement it and that Democrats were at fault.[4][5][6] Attorney General Jeff Sessions defended the policy, citing the Bible.[7] " seem to be stating facts but are actually stating opinion. I think they should be fixed to improve the neutrality of this topic and to prevent misleading people. (Sentences are in the second para, lines 3 and 4).

Regarding the first sentence: The AP article that was sourced quotes what Trump said, and it is not clear from any of it that Trump is saying "they were required by law to implement it and that Democrats were at fault." The interpretation of Trump's statements is not fact but rather opinion about what he said. One interpretation of what he said is that his administrration inherited the laws from a democratic administration and that if people wanted different laws to be enforced, they should pass different laws. Nowhere did Trump blame his zero tolerance policy, put into effect in April 2018, on the democrats. The BBC article assumes a certain reading of what Trump said in the way it phrases "The Claim". The Claim is already assuming a certain particular reading of what Trump said, about which there is room for interpretation. In a sense it is a straw man because that is the claim that is evaluated in the BBC article. I could not access the WaPo article because I do not have a subscription. I think it is a bad idea to provide sources that people can't access online if they are poor like I am. The AP source at least reports what Trump actually said.

In my first edit, I suggested simply adding the phrase "Several critics have argued that..." at the start of the first quoted sentence. However, that edit was summarily reversed with the justification that it was well sourced. It is true that the OPINION is pretty well sourced (except for the WaPo article which I could not judge) but that is not the point. The statement that Trump made a false statement is an opinion, and is backed up with sources that are also opinions. There are questions about the neutrality of media sources like BBC, WaPo and even AP, and factchecker sites are as subject to error and bias as other information sources. For neutrality and to avoid being misleading, the sentence requires either to be eliminated entirely or some indication that the statement is interpretation rather than fact.

The Sessions statement: once again provides a WaPo sources that can only be accessed online by people who can afford and want WaPo subscriptions. According to AP Sessions was responding to criticism from "a cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church [who] said that separating mothers from their babies was “immoral.”," In that context, quoting the bible takes on a totally different meaning, doesn't it? I would suggest eliminating this sentence entirely.

Llewkcalbyram (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The reliable sources (in news articles, not opinions/op-eds) state that Trump administration's claim was false. The AP, BBC, and Washington Post are excellent sources. The fact that you can't access WaPo is irrelevant (WP:PAYWALL). Neutralitytalk 21:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "... it is not clear from any of it that Trump is saying "they were required by law to implement it and that Democrats were at fault.". Actually, yes, it is very clear according to almost every reliable source on the planet. It is a fact Trump has made such claims on multiple occasions.


 * If you want to access WaPo online, get an adblocker, cookie blocker, and a user agent switcher.- MrX 🖋 21:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

How about the following edit: ″President Trump claimed that "“That’s the law and that’s what the Democrats gave us and we’re willing to change it today if they want to get in and negotiate.” but fact checkers dispute his statement[4][5][6] In response to a criticism of the policy from a cardinal in the catholic church, Attorney General Jeff Sessions defended it, citing the Bible.[7]" Llewkcalbyram (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * What are you asking?- MrX 🖋 22:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I am proposing that the sentences ″The Trump administration justified its policy by falsely claiming that they were required by law to implement it and that Democrats were at fault.[4][5][6] Attorney General Jeff Sessions defended the policy, citing the Bible.[7] " be edited to read ″President Trump claimed that "“That’s the law and that’s what the Democrats gave us and we’re willing to change it today if they want to get in and negotiate.” but fact checkers dispute his statement[4][5][6] In response to a criticism of the policy from a cardinal in the catholic church, Attorney General Jeff Sessions defended it, citing the Bible.[7]"

Failing that I would suggest taking out the word "falsely" and deleting "citing the bible" in the statement about Sessions. In that case, the quoted section would read ″The Trump administration justified its policy by claiming that they were required by law to implement it and that Democrats were at fault.[4][5][6] Attorney General Jeff Sessions defended the policy.[7] " Llewkcalbyram (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It's difficult to discuss two issues at once in a single paragraph of the discussion page. I don't see a basis for deleting the word "falsely" (let's discuss this later, I suggest). I could go along with amending the "Bible" statement by inserting, as first part of the sentence: "In response to a criticism of the policy by a cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church," on the basis of the reference you have indicated. --Chris Howard (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree to deferral of discussion of "falsely" until "bible" is settled. I agree with the amendment (inserting, as first part of the sentence: "In response to a criticism of the policy by a cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church). I also suggest replacing the WaPo reference 7 with the reference I supplied, making the later the new ref 7. Rational for that is that the AP article is straight news reporting and includes the context of Sessions comment (i.e. the cardinal's criticisms) whereas the WaPo article does not provide that context and is analysis rather than straight news reporting. Llewkcalbyram (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added it now, with reference to this discussion and your initiative. I have added the reference you have suggested as first reference, as it gives the context, leaving the other reference as well for the analysis. Thanks for having taken the initiative on all of this. Furthermore, as the lead is too long in any case, I have now moved the details about the Roan Catholic Church's criticism and Sessions's Bible citation from the lead (which is intended to be a summary) to the section "Religious groups", with the (new) first reference being the one used in the lead. --Chris Howard (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Now can we talk about the sentence "The Trump administration justified its policy by falsely claiming that they were required by law to implement it and that Democrats were at fault.[4][5][6]"? My problems with it are that (1) it is an interpretative restatement of what Trump said rather than direct quotes. As such, it is "putting words in his mouth" and there is room for disagreement on that interpretation; (2) "falsely" is a problem in that the restatement of what Trump said may be false, but if the restatement misrepresents what Trump said, then the falsity of the restatement, "proven" by the provided sources, is moot because it does not apply to what Trump actually said. For objectivity, it seems to me that Trump's actual words should be reported. Even if the word "falsely" is removed, which would be the simplest solution, the restatement may need revision so that it represents what Trump actually said and the sources used to support that. Trump's position was considerably more complicated and reasoned than this sentence credits. I wonder what this one sentence is really trying to do, if it needs to be there, and if the issue isn't a bit too complicated to be represented by a single sentence. Llewkcalbyram (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * That word, "falsely," has bothered me right along - even though IMO it is factual. In the first place it will forever bring "corrections" to the article and resentments to the talk page.  And in the second place it does make the article sound like it is biased, though I don't believe that to be the case.  I'd like to see some sort of change as well. Gandydancer (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I also find the current wording not ideal, but think that simply deleting the word "falsely" would just add to the confusion. And of course at least some critics did interpret Trumps statements in this way. So: I would also say yes to change the wording, but how exactly? In line with your (Llewkcalbyram's) suggestion, we could think of adding something like "On the basis of various statements by Trump, several critics have argued that...", possibly saying something yet more specific about the statements. --Chris Howard (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * WashPo says, "The Trump administration owns this family-separation policy, and its spin deserves Four Pinocchios." Gandydancer (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Trump and his administration made numerous false claims (deceptive statements; lies) about this entire situation and it has been widely reported as such. It's important that readers understand this stark reality and not some turd-polished version of it. This Washington Post article covers it quite well .- MrX 🖋 02:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I like the way the Wall Street Journal handles this issue:


 * "The Trump administration sought to blame Congress for the new policy of separating some families who arrive at the U.S. southern border, and it said only lawmakers could change that policy as part of a broader immigration overhaul, but Republicans and Democrats remained far apart on any deal. [] Republicans and Democrats are digging in, and a bipartisan assortment of lawmakers are rebuffing the White House’s assertion that it has no choice but to separate families."


 * I very much like saying "rebuffing the White House's assertion" better than saying "falsely" because the former reports the reaction of other people rather than making a judgement about the truth or falsity of Trump's statements. Can we just quote WSJ instead of using the problematical sentence? I would like to see the WSJ reference added in addition to the 3 we have now, or to replace one of them. WSJ too is a reputable source while representing a more conservative perspective than the present 3. Llewkcalbyram (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I think taking a literal quote of the WSJ would give it too much weight. Simply adding yet another source is not ideal and does not change much, but would not harm. The difficulty is that the government's communications on this have been entirely confusing. (As the Washington Post puts it: "It’s strange to behold Trump distancing himself from the zero-tolerance policy (“the Democrats gave us that law”) while Nielsen claims it doesn’t exist (“it’s not a policy”) and Sessions defends it in speech after speech.") Their statements have been so confusing that we do not even know which government statement to quote that would accurately represent the government's position. --Chris Howard (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes quoting WSJ is a lazy way around a rewrite of the sentence ""The Trump administration justified its policy by falsely claiming that they were required by law to implement it and that Democrats were at fault" but I hope that comparing the latter to the WSJ quote shows at least how much less neutral it is. For example, "The Trump administration justified its policy by..." is part of the confusion you mentioned, in that it is not clear which policy it is referring to - the zero-tolerance policy or the policy that is being followed with zero tolerance. One of them is Trump's and the other is law previously enacted by Congress. The WSJ seems to avoid this confusion, but also commits an error by implying that the "policy of separating some families" is new, when it is actually the zero-tolerance policy that is new, having been started in April, whereas the separation of families has been going on for a long time though not as frequently prior to zero-tolerance. The problem is to make a neutral statement that is accurate, without having to unwind all of that.


 * Here is an attempt to draft a replacement for the sentence at issue:


 * "The Trump administration claimed that its zero-tolerance policy was applying existing immigration law, and urged Congress to act swiftly to change it - a claim that was rebuffed by a bipartisan assortment of lawmakers." [I would put the WaPo, AP and WSJ references here, and drop the BBC source].
 * Llewkcalbyram (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * In fact the WSJ wording makes a stronger statement: that the Trump administration actually put the blame elsewhere (as if they had to separate families in order to enforce the law) and moreover the WSJ wording addresses more specifically the family separation. I'd like to make another attempt and suggest the following alternative:
 * "The Trump administration sought to blame Congress for the new policy, with President Trump referring to "the Democrats’ law" and calling for a change to existing immigration laws. Democrats, and many Republicans, spoke out forcefully against the policy. Critics emphasised that no law forced the government to separate families."(WSJ,AP reference, maybe more)
 * --Chris Howard (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * @Chris Howard - I think that would work. I agree with your reading of what Trump was saying (i.e. that they had to separate families in order to enforce the law) and your restatement seems like neutral reporting. I think having the WSJ and AP references might be enough to support your restatement. I would be happy with these revisions.

I wonder if the Sessions sentence, immediately following mentions of people speaking out, and critics, implies that only one person, besides Trump, spoke in favor of it, when a number of other people did too? That troubles me a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llewkcalbyram (talk • contribs) 20:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * @Llewkcalbyram, I've been thinking about your comment. Indeed at first glance it does seem to imply "one person spoke in favor of it". At second glance, he is speaking in his role of Attorney General, implying that he is speaking for the DoJ. We might, however, add to the beginning of the paragraph a brief indication that the administration spoke for the policy. The entire paragraph would then read as follows (with "ref" standing for the reerences that are presently in place):
 * "The Trump administration sought to justify the new policy while also blaming Congress for it, with President Trump referring to "the Democrats’ law" and calling for a change to existing immigration laws. Democrats, and many Republicans, spoke out forcefully against the policy. Critics emphasised that no law forced the government to separate families.[WSJ,AP] Also Attorney General Jeff Sessions defended the policy.[ref] Other administration officials argued that the policy was intended to deter immigration or be used as political leverage to force Democrats and moderate Republicans to accept hardline immigration legislation.[ref,ref]"
 * --Chris Howard (talk) 09:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * @Chris Howard, this looks good to me. The best reference for Sessions, IMO, is the AP article listed as both 1 and 2 below, as it mentions the context for Sessions bringing up the bible. Do we wait for more comments or go ahead with the revision? If we go ahead, please feel free to do it :) Llewkcalbyram (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok, I will go ahead. Further comments or suggestions can always still be taken on board afterwards. --Chris Howard (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ...Done. The text and references should be exactly as intended now. If not, please do not hesitate to correct it. --Chris Howard (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)