Talk:Trump wall

Capitalization of wall

I think it should be lowercase as long as it is not the official name (such as the case in for example Hoover Dam). Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Merge from Build the Wall

The Build the Wall only consists of two minor sections on the actual slogan. Also, the article title is inherently not Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It would fit better as a subsection of Opinions and responses in this Trump wall article, so that people can read about it in its context. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Merge – No reason for a content fork there. — JFG ^talk 04:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I've performed the merge now. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Fix This

This sentence says "In August 2017, while speaking at a rally in Phoenix, Arizona, Trump said he would close down the U.S. government if necessary to force Congress to pay for the wall.[44] He was harshly criticized by prominent leaders of his political base such as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh for failing to secure $5 billion in funding for the wall in the previous fiscal year's appropriations bill.[45][46]. The sentence about the harsh criticism should be put somewhere else in the article when it's talking about December 2018 regarding the events leading up to the shutdown. Also, mention that Trump unfollowed Ann Coulter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.163.6 (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Obviously Trump wasn't president in 2016 and the cited articles for harsh criticism from prominent leaders of his political base seem to be from December 2018. In this case, I believe the sentence should be put somewhere else in the article. 72.76.163.6 (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Fix required* --- I think it's important to include that "We build the wall" is under investigation for wire fraud and their "constructed wall" has an open gate in the middle of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1516:8590:DC06:3F5:7E12:5460 (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Also fix this please = ORIGINAL "which will have a destructive habitat on subterranean ecosystems as well as surface ones that are sustained by groundwater." NEW "which will have a destructive effect on subterranean ecosystems as well as surface ones that are sustained by groundwater." 86.24.122.136 (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

it fake

trump wall dos not exicte becouse if you go on google maps you can sey no wall so it is not real — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjpoulj (talk • contribs) 14:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – bradv🍁 14:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Partially Agree

This is a really long article about "The Wall" with zero actual information about the physical wall. It reads like a political opinion piece, not a factual information write up of a physical structure. And, simply saying "it's not done" doesn't cut it, why not have a section (which should be the ONLY section probably, not all this political talk) about the physical structure? I came to read if it existed, where it was being built, how much of it was done even if it was just permits and planning, etc. That's the information I was hoping to learn, not a rehash of the political debate. the "Structure" section is really really weak, where are photos, where are details about what it's made of, how tall it is, anything like that? That section should be beefed up.

How is "The Associated Press reported "upwards of 200 organizations had expressed interest in designing and building" the wall for CBP" ANYTHING to do with the physical structure? That's just political debate, maybe planning history. It's NOT about the structure, it's a messy discussion of planning. That whole section is just pathetic. It should not be political rhetoric. It should be locations and structures, geography and architecture details about what actually exists.

Political Talking Points Need Be Removed

Like the previous editor I came to find specifications and locations and was confronted by a rehash of predominately anti-wall sentiment. The daily (sometimes questionable) mews sources are rife with this monologue. A description of the wall by dimension, quality of steel used and any details regarding the cap would all have been appropriate. Instead.. drivel. This article is everything wikki is negatively accused of; pseudo-factoids arranged to meet an editorial agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.116.1.24 (talk) 06:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

AGREE - This page needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view by an editor that is disinterested in US politics. Washuchan73 (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2020

Add the year at the start of the last paragraph in "Effectiveness". In my opinion, the exact day is not/no longer that important (and anyway mentioned in the references), so I'd suggest changing "On November 2, it was reported..." to "In November 2019, it was reported...". 2001:67C:10EC:574F:8000:0:0:30 (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Thjarkur (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2020

stem-the-tide-of-illegal-immigration/</ref> In Hungary, for example, the number of illegal immigrants dropped from 4500 per day to 15 after a 175-kilometer long, four-meter high fence was constructed in 2015 '''where Hungarian Soldiers are authorized to shoot people illegally climbing the fence.'.<ref> https://www.kormany.hu/en/governm. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) 63.228.98.80 (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

efficacy in containing spread of COVID-19, add ?

Regarding the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director Robert R. Redfield contradicted Trump’s claim that his border wall will contain the coronavirus. Trump tweeted that his wall is "Going up fast […] We need the Wall more than ever!" Hour later, Redfield testified to lawmakers that he was unaware that physical barriers along America’s borders would help halt the spread of the coronavirus in the U.S.

• Quint Forgey CDC director breaks with Trump on claim that border wall will help stop coronavirus; The president had tweeted that Americans “need the Wall more than ever!” 03/10/2020 Politico.com

X1\ (talk) 06:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

New subsection for construction progress- number of miles built

Hello. Would people be kind enough to add figures on construction progress in terms of total miles built? For example, on so and so date XYZ miles have been completed. The government or some agencies release figures from time to time. The last one I saw was 131 or 135 miles in total built. There are also figures for the amount of miles being built. Having a table would be a good way to organize this information and having graphs may be an effective way to further present the data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilic (talk • contribs) 09:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is what I have found. Sources include: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]

2019 Mar. 15th. 38 miles built

2019 Jul. 2nd. 46.7 miles built

2019 Jul. 22nd. 52 miles built

2019 Oct. 7th. 71 miles built, 162 miles under construction, 276 miles in pre-construction [15]

2019 Oct. 21st. 74 miles built, 159 miles under construction, 276 miles in pre-construction

2019 Oct. 26th. 75 miles built

2019 Oct. 28th. 76 miles built, 157 miles under construction, 276 miles in pre-construction [16]

2019 Nov. 4th. 78 miles built, 158 miles under construction, 273 miles in pre-construction [17]

2019 Nov. 11th. 81 miles built, 155 miles under construction, 273 miles in pre-construction [18]

2019 Nov. 18th. 83 miles built, 153 miles under construction, 273 miles in pre-construction [19]

2019 Nov. 25th. 86 miles built, 150 miles under construction, 273 miles in pre-construction [20]

2019 Dec. 9th. 90 miles built, 146 miles under construction, 273 miles in pre-construction [21]

2019 Dec. 16th. 93 miles built, 143 miles under construction, 273 miles in pre-construction [22]

2020 Jan. 2nd. 96 miles built, 140 miles under construction, 273 miles in pre-construction

2020 Jan. 15th. 101 miles built, 133 miles under construction, 342 miles in pre-construction

2020 Jan. 27th. 110 miles built, 192 miles under construction, 247 miles in pre-construction

2020 Feb. 4th. 115 miles built, 224 miles under construction, 237 miles in pre-construction

2020 Feb. 12th. 119 miles built, 220 miles under construction, 237 miles in pre-construction [23]

2020 Feb. 17th. 121 miles built, 218 miles under construction, 414 miles in pre-construction [24]

2020 Feb. 24th. 126 miles built, 213 miles under construction, 414 miles in pre construction

2020 Mar. 2nd. 131 miles built, 208 miles under construction, 414 miles in pre-construction

2020 Mar. 9th. 135 miles built, 204 miles under construction, miles in pre-construction [25]

2020 Mar. 16th. 139 miles built, 200 miles under construction, 414 miles in pre-construction

2020 Mar. 23rd. 142 miles built, 197 miles under construction, 414 miles in pre-construction [26]

2020 Mar. 30th. 147 miles built, 203 miles under construction, 403 miles in pre-construction [27]

Hope this can be added and expanded soon. (Lilic (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC))

Significant progress. AppliedCharisma (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

But nobody wants to post this stuff. Why is that? On a side note, I dug up much more data to have a more complete table. This data would enhance the article very much. (Lilic (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC))

Please do go ahead and fix this very confusing and incomplete (and mostly unsourced) table.MikeR613 (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Mostly unsourced? There are lots of sources. Maybe some links died or changed since it was first posted. Most of the data is from twitter updates from US government officials. This is surely a sufficient source, as it is how the government disseminates news on this. Currently construction is up to at least 275 miles of border wall. (Lilic (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC))

The updates above are irrelevant now, because the U.S. Customs And Border Protection agency has released an official page to track the construction progress of the wall. [28] The tracking page was released on April 22, 2020. [29] It should be featured prominently on the "Construction progress" subsection of the Wikipedia article, since it is an official government source of construction progress and is updated regularly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curtis2011 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Curtis2011 (talk) 00:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Yup. I added the current amount (275 miles) as of Aug 10. I note that I found an earlier number in archive.is from Apr 22 - 170 miles. MikeR613 (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

And updated for September 1 (307 miles). Moving right along, looks like. MikeR613 (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: I added it in the Introduction, but the Construction Progress section badly needs rewriting. It is sourced to an article from February, then the table has all kinds of stuff from later, unsourced. And nothing like the total that I mentioned.MikeR613 (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Btw, I don't know that the updates above are irrelevant. The cbp.gov website doesn't seem to have anything but a current overall total, so the timestamps are valuable. MikeR613 (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Something like the following would be ideal: Expansion timeline of the Moscow Metro, complete with a graph and various details.

Let's make such page? The construction has passed 275 miles now. This is a huge infrastructure project which is significant regardless of what one thinks of it. The new page should have distance in miles and kilometers, among other things too.

I propose the following name: Expansion timeline of US-Mexico Border Wall. (Lilic (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC))

Go for it! MikeR613 (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

There are a couple of places that mention that most of the wall going up (as of June or so) was replacement fencing. The data comes from a report by CBP director, uploaded here: https://www.scribd.com/document/466597105/CBP-Border-Wall-Status-Paper-as-of-06192020-FINAL. I noted that the director there makes clear that the replacement was for broken parts of the border fence - "in place of dilapidated or outdated designs", so I added that to the article. Without that the article makes it seem like those areas shouldn't really count. You can see some pictures in https://www.trumpwall.construction (good resource for timetable, by the way, needs updating though) showing how the "outdated" sections are effectively not really there at all. MikeR613 (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

People keep adding that "almost all" the wall that has been built is replacement. That may be true, but I don't know that it is properly sourced. The most recent source seems to be an AP article that dates to when only 200 miles had been built. I changed it to "most" and someone changed it back; they may be right but they need a source. MikeR613 (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

And again, someone changed the reference to remove the phrase "outdated or dilapidated", and just left that the wall is "replacement". This makes the page misleading, as above, and I've put the original phrase back.MikeR613 (talk) 06:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

That resource has been updated, so I added it to Further Reading. It adds a lot of details to the individual parts. MikeR613 (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Someone removed that reference, not sure why, "needs reliable source". It could be he didn't scroll to the right on the table on the bottom, where every entry is completely documented with its source. MikeR613 (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

What was there before should not matter, because the article is about what is there now.

A d-day barrier that prevents vehicles from going over, you know, those spike like things, that was considered a barrier. So the wall is replacing those too. It's comparing apples and oranges when people mention the previous structures. So, in the event of a new page, which is necessary, there shouldn't be mention of the various previous barriers. I'd make the page, but alas I am a bit bogged down with various things. (Lilic (talk) 06:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC))

The total number of miles is up to 307. The final page should include a column for kilometers too, so that non-American readers can easily grasp how the construction has progressed. (Lilic (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC))

I added kilometers in a couple of places, and a date in one place, and changed 321 mi. to 341 mi. - I don't know why the lower number was put in when CBP already changed their website to the higher one. MikeR613 (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Updated to 317 miles, Sep. 8. MikeR613 (talk) 13:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Updated to 341 miles, Sep. 29. MikeR613 (talk) 13:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Updated to 360 miles, Oct. 12. MikeR613 (talk) 20:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Updated to 371 miles, Oct. 20. Also, removed a timeline event from Sept 2019; it seemed to be redundant. MikeR613 (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Huh. I'm concerned that Charles Shirley changed the number from 371 to 400, based on an article that should say "nearly" 400 has been built (as this more complete article does say: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2020/10/29/dhs-and-cbp-celebrate-400-miles-new-border-wall-system). The CBP website still says 371, though it is time for an update there which would probably add ten miles or a little more. 400 is not sourced. MikeR613 (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

This comment is buried in a strange place. But, at any rate, a TV station in the Phoenix, Arizona area, KPNX, decided to "factcheck" whether Trump really did build 400 miles of wall. The article says, "According to CBP figures, 371 miles of the new wall had been completed earlier this month and the government is adding about 5 miles of wall per week. Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf announced Thursday the 400-mile mark had been met." The article is written by Joe Dana from KPNX TV Channel 12 Phoenix/Mesa, Arizona (12news.com) and you can read it here: Written version and see it here: Video version. So the Wikipedia article is correct. I will add the KPNX citation. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not a wall, it's a fence

Walls are solid. What's being constructed is the southern border is a fence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chavando (talk • contribs)

WP:COMMONNAME applies. Even Trump calls it a wall. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Source 46 under Effectiveness

Wikipedia states that:

"research at Texas A&M University and Texas Tech University indicates that the wall, and border walls in general, are unlikely to be effective at reducing illegal immigration or movement of contraband." The sourced article in question states:

"Dr Nadia Flores, a researcher at Texas Tech University and herself a former undocumented immigrant, has been tracking the movements of people from Mexico and El Salvador to the US. She has studied the systems by which immigrant communities, together with employers and landlords, help undocumented individuals thrive in the US and drive the continued flow of people. 'You have the demand for labour, and as long as you have the demand for labour and employers recruiting workers through these social networks, they are going to continue bringing people,” she said. “No matter whether you have a wall, these workers are going to find a way to cross and get to the US because they have this magnet attracting them.'

and

"Professor Dudley Poston who researches demographics at Texas A&M University, said studies both of historic and contemporary border walls made it very clear they simply do not work." I cannot find any mention of contraband in the sourced text. Also, it may confuse the reader that there are no University sponsored studies referenced, and only quotes from those who do research.

Maybe instead, we could site something like this "https://www.nber.org/papers/w25267.pdf" which states that if the U.S. had built a barrier along the entire length of border, that it would have had a relatively small impact on illegal migration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:42D0:4140:5DD2:97EB:41CF:9E19 (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Barnard Construction, political connection; add wikilink, or more substantial coverage?

BFBC, an affiliate of Barnard Construction (wikilink) since the Army Corps of Engineers awarded a politically connected Montana firm $569 million to build “17.17 miles” of the border wall.[30]

X1\ (talk) 06:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Do we need to add info that at least two tunnels were found because of the wall?

One of them in February and one not so long ago? 2A00:1FA0:4457:9AF7:5E4:7608:4657:5684 (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I would imagine tunnels are found along the border every now and then. If it shown this is something unusual, then maybe. Can you provide some sources that talk about it? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

"At the time, Mexican president Enrique Pena Nieto said his country would not pay for the wall" has false implications and leaves out important information

This statement, without more, falsely implies that Mexico has since reversed its position and paid for the wall. in fact, mexico has paid zero pesos for the wall at all times. Statement should be updated to say something like"...said his country would not pay for the wall, and in fact, Mexico has never paid for any expansions of the wall, which have been entirely financed by U.S. taxpayers, directly contrary to Trump's campaign promises." perhaps the wording above could be improved further still, but it's light years ahead of the garbage sentence in the article now, with its outrageously false implications that Mexico is now paying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.37.199.188 (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

But they gave 29000 soldiers to guard the wall, Trump put tariffs on the wall and (!) remember OPEC+ prices war with my country, Russia, and Saudy Arabia, where the prices on crude oil became negative? Mexico had agreed to reduce its production by 100,000 barrels per day and it was also in part because of the Wall. 91.78.221.238 (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Suggest adding the word “reportedly” due to anonymous sources

“Trump has privately spoken of fortifying the wall with a water-filled trench inhabited by snakes or alligators, and electric fencing topped with spikes that can pierce human flesh.[52]”

This section states this as a fact when the source describes it as anonymous reports with white house officials. Propose rephrasing to “Trump has reportedly privately spoken of fortifying the wall with a water-filled trench inhabited by snakes or alligators, and electric fencing topped with spikes that can pierce human flesh.”. Other synonyms (i.e. allegedly) work as well. Perhaps rephrasing for flow due to two “ly”’s being next to another. But I think it’s important to make the distinction.2600:1009:B115:1113:D5A0:4B95:D7D2:10E9 (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The statement has a reference. If there were a source stating that the veracity of the report is in question, then "reportedly" or some other disclaiming would be appropriate. --Bsherr (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

agree ! Solo-man (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Primary source

https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/along-us-borders/border-wall-system

Many of the sections listed currently appear at different lengths and a few are listed as completed. Normally primary sources are not idea, but for this particular scope, I suspect it would be more appropriate to use this primary source that seems to be updated more recently. 2601:602:9200:1310:C945:A0D9:7B1C:8889 (talk) 07:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

No problem with including that primary source. However, it only tells the total miles of fences/walls built. On Aug 10, 2020, that source says 275 miles have been built. It does not say how many miles replaced existing barriers and how many miles extended the border barrier system. Of the first 260 of those 275 miles, only 5 miles were in places that didn't already have barriers (San Antonio Express, https://www.expressnews.com/news/us-world/border-mexico/article/Border-wall-progress-15467427.php). So at most 20 out of the 275 extend the miles of border covered. Sobekjenkins (talk) 01:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree ! This page is not politically independent. It strikes as something to demean Trump rather than present facts on the Border Fencing between US and Mexio at the border. Solo-man (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Removed external link - no consensus for its inclusion

I have removed a link to a site called "trumpwall.construction," because there is no consensus for its inclusion and the site fails WP:EL. In pertinent part, WP:EL states that we should link Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article or that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. WP:ELNO states that we should not link to Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research.

The proposed link fails on several grounds. For one, it demonstrably does not contain neutral and accurate material - its propagandistic use of "fake news" and declaration that the now-banned-for-extremism subreddit r/The_Donald is "the greatest place on the internet" are significant clues. Furthermore, its entirely-anonymous authorship makes it unverifiable. In addition, the site has, by its own account, not been updated since January 2020, and this suggests that it is dead. There are no grounds to include this site as a link here, and several grounds which reject it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• As I pointed out to you elsewhere, the site is certainly not unverifiable, as each of the rows in the table contain (if you scroll all the way to the right - hard to find the scroll bar) links to the references. I imagine you missed those for that reason. I agree that the site has a partisan point of view, but the material itself is presumably accurate. The same is true for the "interactive map" - click on a segment and it gives a lot of detailed source information. I don't think that Fox News or Rolling Stone are rejected as reliable sources just because they are frequently partisan; the information they report is evaluated on its own merits. One indication of overall accuracy is that the total number of miles built, summing all the pieces, is very close to the official number from CBP.
• Furthermore, the site is now marked as dated Sept. 17 2020, which is yesterday. So the only remaining complaint is the partisan nature of the site, which as I said isn't enough in itself. And as I said above, this is the best reference I have seen for every detail on every single segment. MikeR613 (talk) 04:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a WP:PRIMARY source, which we usually avoid linking to, with WP:SECONDARY sources being preferable. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, not following too well. Why would it be a primary source? It's just a collation of available data on the various segments of the wall. And what secondary source do we have to replace it in that level of detail? MikeR613 (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not a primary source, but it is self-published. We try to avoid self-published sources. Also, because we insist on a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, linking to a source with a bias can impute that bias to the article. It may be helpful for improving the article to the extent that it can lead us to reliable sources for the information (as you say, it is referenced). But I think it should not be in the external links section. --Bsherr (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

the material itself is presumably accurate - on what grounds are we to presume this? We cannot. It's an anonymous unverified pile of partisan tripe. Any accurate information from actual sources can be used in the article itself based on those actual sources. We have no grounds to view this anonymous partisan blog as authoritative in any fashion, it contains nothing that shouldn't be in the article itself, and the fact that the site magically updated in response to an obscure talk page posting is suspicious at best. Do you have any relationship with this site? Are you attempting to give it prominent placement in Wikipedia in an effort to promote it?

The bottom line is that this site fails WP:EL guidelines and won't be included absent a clear consensus that it belongs. If you wish to create such a consensus, I invite you to open a request for comment and seek broader input. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Wall progress

There is a large table that in detail shows progress per part of the wall, but it outdates quickly, and at the moment I checked it (Oct. 15 2020) it was very outdated. I think a simple sentence, with a link to the official US CBP website, covers this part about progess, and the table can be removed. Unless someone is willing to update it monthly. I have been so free to remove it. It anyone wants to place it back, please update. CorCorCor (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)— CorCorCor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The progess part has now been removed completely and incorporated somewhere else, but basicly made unfindable. Oke, only one sentence fore this part might be not much for an apart segment, but this is important information, and it need to be easy findable. There is also much outdated information in text, throughout the whole article. For example, it is a few time mentioned what the progess was 1 years ago, but how it is nowadays is almost impossible to find. I think it is good to restructure that, update it, and put the most relevant information in de places that are most easy findable. CorCorCor (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)— CorCorCor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I disagree with the idea of removing the table - the link to CBP doesn't replace it, since that link doesn't have progress data, just where we are now. However, I don't know of a good solution to someone updating it frequently and I don't know of a good link with the information. I earlier suggested a place where the data is found, trumpwall.construction, and it gave full references for where it got its data - but people objected because it was clearly partisan. Also, it doesn't get updated frequently or consistently. I don't know that leaving nothing in its place is the best alternative.MikeR613 (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Why was the 360 miles figure from Oct 12 (CBP) removed, and replaced with one from Sept 21? That makes no sense. I reverted it. MikeR613 (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

MikeR613 Please stop doing that unless you have a reliable secondary source to support it. The current reference does not support the material you add. soibangla (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not the one who removed the correct reference. I've added it back. MikeR613 (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

About the US CBP site as a source: it is as far as I know the only one with the actual status. It is an official goverment site made to communicate the actual status to the generall public, so it seems to me an acceptable source. If anybody thinks it does not give a correct picture, please discuss, or ad information for nuance, but since there is now a lack of actual information, I use this link for actual information. CorCorCor (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)— CorCorCor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yes. All the other references used refer to that one reference. Even the claims that most/almost all of the wall is replacement refer there, tho I'm not sure what they see there. MikeR613 (talk) 06:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that the section heading was Funding granted and setbacks, even though it includes what is currently the only discussion in the main text of how much of the wall had been built. I added, and progress. MikeR613 (talk) 06:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

The lead is unreadable. To long, to detailed, outdated, and the most important things are unfindable. All the budgettary and other details can be found in the rest of the article, and have no place here. See: Lead_paragraph — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorCorCor (talk • contribs) 19:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC) — CorCorCor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Updating mileage

CharlesShirley, I explained adequately why I made the change: simply to keep the references in sync with the date in the text. It had nothing to do with my opinion. The version you insist upon is inferior because the reference isn't synced with the text. So be it. soibangla (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trump_wall&diff=984426512&oldid=984398105

It makes sense to keep the total as up-to-date as possible. If the reference gets out of synch, fix the reference, don't make the number wrong. MikeR613 (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The number of miles of wall is a very simple thing. There is no reason to keep the old number when it is updated. This is a no brainer. We are supposed to give accurate information and intentionally giving a false number makes no sense. This is something that we should all agree upon. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The number of miles of wall is a very simple thing... This is a no brainer. Except it really isn’t, and perceptive people understand why. LOL! soibangla (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, then, explain it to us non-perceptive people. All that is happening is that Wikipedia is reflecting the latest number from the only source there is. This number is one of the most important pieces of information in the whole article: how much wall has been built. MikeR613 (talk) 12:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I need assistance in perceiving your interpretation of the number. Please advise. I will just wait over here. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Update and add new chapter of Biden taking over

As you all probably know, Joe Biden has won the election and is set to become the next president of the United States. Hence I propose a new dedicated chapter to be added in with the succeeding Biden Presidency and outline all things that Biden has promised and done in regards to the wall. He already pledged to stop work on the wall construction. Nvtuil (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Moved back to Trump wall

I have reverted the unilateral move to Proposed expansion of Mexico–United States barrier of a few days ago - among other things, we can hardly describe something that happened in the past as "proposed".--Pharos (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Article false statement.

Trump actually stated: "Mexico will pay for the Wall directly or indirectly." Mexico paid for it indirectly, by sending 27,000 troops to the border, that wasnt free! Cop8675309 (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

You probably aren't active anymore, but Mexico did not even pay a single penny for the border wall as Trump promised which is another lie broken by his administration. That being said, I fixed your comment for you. You're welcome. Dinosauce2001 (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2021

Under 3.3 "Outcome" section, change "were" to "for" in last sentence of the only paragraph Bedrockbob (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Sentence seems to be unsourced OR (insertion [31] by Tuckerlieberman) so I'm going to remove it for now. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 01:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

It's fine to remove it. It's redundant. I don't remember if I wrote it ("the remaining 600 miles of unfenced border would need separate funding..."), but anyway, it just restates the implications of the previous sentence ("this would cover a little more than half of the approximately 1,300 mi (2,100 km) that had no fencing...") - 186.80.2.44 (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC) ...By the way, this is Tucker's comment. It got signed with my IP address. I didn't realize I wasn't logged in; sorry. - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Donument

H.R. 2390, The Donument Act, was proposed by Madison Cawthorn, making the wall the "Southern Border Wall National Monument". How would this be included in the article if this bill were to be successful?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

No response for a week, so I'll take that as meaning no objection.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I see someone did add it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2021

Please change "found found" to "found".

Section 3.3 paragraph 2 repeats the word "found". StorkFish (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for pointing it out. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 01:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Private effort // Bannon Trial

"All four have pleaded not guilty, and a trial is set for May 24, 2021.[178]"

Trial results need an update. Gprobins (talk) 11:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Rasmussen Reports

A Rasmussen Reports poll from August 19, 2015, found that 51% supported building a wall on the border, while 37% opposed.

Given the track record of Rasmussen, their embrace of Pro-Trump election denial, and their history of juking the stats, should we really be using them in this article? Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

the wall was started in the beginning of ‘900 century

see “us-mexico border fence” on wikipedia ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier ), it talks about the same wall, and how it was started and continued by both parties, including biden.

this article is political propaganda, that shouldn’t exist on wikipedia, and it’s also completely false. 

actually biden completed four gaps on the wall, and obama and clinton contributed for a large portion of it. I urge the creator of this article to delete it or modify it, and I’m reporting it, because as I said it’s false. 151.71.204.211 (talk) 11:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree, how do we get wiki to talk it down or change the title to US Mexico fencing at the border and perhaps link "Trump Wall" to the page then. Solo-man (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Previous administrations

The article's opening contains reference to "the Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush & Obama administrations". If surnames are appropriate for the first, second and fifth mentioned, is there a respectful similar form to differentiate between the two Bush presidencies? Perhaps 'Bush Sr' and 'Bush Jr' or 'Bush II'? 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:D5B1:8395:741E:1F03 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2023

‘Protest of the wall’ (background) would be better rephrased as ‘Protest against the wall’ ThePedantsRevolt (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The Biden administration announced they waived 26 federal laws in South Texas to allow border wall construction, marking the administration’s first use of a sweeping executive power employed often during the Trump presidency.

https://apnews.com/article/border-wall-biden-immigration-texas-rio-grande-147d7ab497e6991e9ea929242f21ceb2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.37.235.3 (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The proposed fenching between US and Mexico should neither be qualified using the name "Trump" and also should not be called a "Wall"

Wiki being independent of political leanings should not title the proposed fencing between US and Mexico at the border a "Wall". It is a misnomer. It is not a wall that is being build but more of a "fence" or a "barrier" rather than a "wall" which is characterised by brick and mortar. Also, qualifying any fencing or barrier between US and Mexico by using the name "Trump" is misleading as previous and the current administrations have contributed to building the barrier including the incumbent administration of Biden. The search on "Trump Wall" could lead to a topic on the proposed barrier but the page should not be titled so. Solo-man (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

agree here. surely we can come up with a better title than "Trump wall" Peter L Griffin (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)