4
47.203.22.234
Guest
The word "deported" is being misused: Reply
[td]:::::::* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph...ministration&diff=1308369334&oldid=1308367491[/td] [td]:::::::This is how you introduce that government response, neutral, and in proportion and weight to the totality of this very expansive article. β <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-style:normal">[[User:Very Polite Person|Very Polite Person]] ([[User talk:Very Polite Person|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Very Polite Person|contribs]])</span> 02:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[/td]
[td]:::::::This is how you introduce that government response, neutral, and in proportion and weight to the totality of this very expansive article. β <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-style:normal">[[User:Very Polite Person|Very Polite Person]] ([[User talk:Very Polite Person|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Very Polite Person|contribs]])</span> 02:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[/td] [td]::::::::So I can't give the government's press release? Point to me any guideline that supports that. Since DHS is handling deportations, I think their official response is extremely important in the article, even more so than statements from Tom Homan or Marco Rubio.[/td] [td]::::::::If you were concerned about a "dry and neutral tone" the article wouldn't have inflammatory press statements like this from the ACLU: ''"Once again, the government has used deceptive tactics to deny people their rights. These outrageous actions must be condemned''". We also wouldn't have comparisons to concentration camps or a whole section titled: "ICE history of racism". Or references to CECOT when no Americans have been sent there. If you were concerned about NPOV then the article would have already had the government's view of the issue clearly stated. As it is, a reader really needs to hunt for it. I can improve that, but I know it won't stick. I can already tell this is a politically driven article with the [[WP:OWN]] problem, and every minor change I make will be altered or reverted within seconds.[/td] [td]::::::::And that's not even the core problem! Getting back to my original point, "deportation" has a meaning. This reminds me a lot of the long debate on the Jan 6 wiki page about word "insurrection" to describe the riot instead of the current "attack". A lot of people were strongly for it, and they can source it, but since no one was convicted, much less charged with insurrection, they couldn't credibly use that description. When SCOTUS unanimously ruled that states couldn't label Trump an insurrectionist to keep him off the ballot, they basically gave up the effort. I'm sure it will pop up again though.[/td] [td]::::::::Same problem here. Again, "deportation" is a colorful colloquialism, like "insurrection" is, and the media sometimes uses them descriptively. But these words also have specific legal definitions, and no one in this article meets that definition. There is not ONE SINGLE source that says any known US citizen had a deportation order filed against them under the Trump administration. This article is a shitshow and I'm going to recommend it be deleted or rolled into another article.[[Special:Contributions/47.203.22.234|47.203.22.234]] ([[User talk:47.203.22.234|talk]]) 01:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[/td] [td][/td]
[td][/td] [td]== Havre news story ==[/td]
[td]== Havre news story ==[/td]
Continue reading...
| Line 221: | Line 221: |
[td]
β Previous revision
[/td][td]
[td]:::::::* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph...ministration&diff=1308369334&oldid=1308367491[/td]Revision as of 01:21, 30 August 2025
[/td][td]:::::::* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph...ministration&diff=1308369334&oldid=1308367491[/td] [td]:::::::This is how you introduce that government response, neutral, and in proportion and weight to the totality of this very expansive article. β <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-style:normal">[[User:Very Polite Person|Very Polite Person]] ([[User talk:Very Polite Person|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Very Polite Person|contribs]])</span> 02:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[/td]
[td]:::::::This is how you introduce that government response, neutral, and in proportion and weight to the totality of this very expansive article. β <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-style:normal">[[User:Very Polite Person|Very Polite Person]] ([[User talk:Very Polite Person|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Very Polite Person|contribs]])</span> 02:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[/td] [td]::::::::So I can't give the government's press release? Point to me any guideline that supports that. Since DHS is handling deportations, I think their official response is extremely important in the article, even more so than statements from Tom Homan or Marco Rubio.[/td] [td]::::::::If you were concerned about a "dry and neutral tone" the article wouldn't have inflammatory press statements like this from the ACLU: ''"Once again, the government has used deceptive tactics to deny people their rights. These outrageous actions must be condemned''". We also wouldn't have comparisons to concentration camps or a whole section titled: "ICE history of racism". Or references to CECOT when no Americans have been sent there. If you were concerned about NPOV then the article would have already had the government's view of the issue clearly stated. As it is, a reader really needs to hunt for it. I can improve that, but I know it won't stick. I can already tell this is a politically driven article with the [[WP:OWN]] problem, and every minor change I make will be altered or reverted within seconds.[/td] [td]::::::::And that's not even the core problem! Getting back to my original point, "deportation" has a meaning. This reminds me a lot of the long debate on the Jan 6 wiki page about word "insurrection" to describe the riot instead of the current "attack". A lot of people were strongly for it, and they can source it, but since no one was convicted, much less charged with insurrection, they couldn't credibly use that description. When SCOTUS unanimously ruled that states couldn't label Trump an insurrectionist to keep him off the ballot, they basically gave up the effort. I'm sure it will pop up again though.[/td] [td]::::::::Same problem here. Again, "deportation" is a colorful colloquialism, like "insurrection" is, and the media sometimes uses them descriptively. But these words also have specific legal definitions, and no one in this article meets that definition. There is not ONE SINGLE source that says any known US citizen had a deportation order filed against them under the Trump administration. This article is a shitshow and I'm going to recommend it be deleted or rolled into another article.[[Special:Contributions/47.203.22.234|47.203.22.234]] ([[User talk:47.203.22.234|talk]]) 01:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[/td] [td][/td]
[td][/td] [td]== Havre news story ==[/td]
[td]== Havre news story ==[/td]
Continue reading...
