Talk for Article "Fact check: A viral tweet about Ivana Trump’s children’s birthright citizenship."

Talk about this Article

  1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    I’ve edited to start to talk about the actual meaningful content of the tweet, which is clearly not the ages of the children and so on, but an implied claim that Trump’s children would have been affected had the policies he is proposing been in place before they were born.

    This is clearly false, so I’ve rated the tweet, overall, as false.

    I’m still not comfortable with the amount of space that we spend on the relatively inconsequential question of the dates of birth of the children.

    The reason this all matters is that Trump is frequently accused of hypocrisy generally because Melania is an immigrant, and Trump takes a generally anti-immigrant stance. That criticism may or may not be fair, I have no strong view, but the point is that specific criticism of a specific policy using the same kind of rhetoric does fail to persuade if the underlying claim is simply false, which it is in this case.

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      I do agree with you that we should rate the overall claim, the reason I put some effort on the space to fact check the dates is just to show the readers that we did our homework and with regard to information related to dates, before jumping to the final conclusion, perhaps some still need to know feel comfortable that the dates are right. but I can try to shorten the space given to the dates.

  2. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    There are no sources at all regarding this fact-check.

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      There are quite a few in-line citations in the story and an additional government source linked in the right hand column. Can you see these?

  3. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    This is a terribly biased fact-check and WikiTRIBUNE’s fact-checking is being abused to spread fake news.

    The concluding line in the tweet, “Let’s cancel their birthright citizenship first.”, is an attempt to highlight the hypocrisy of Trump’s proposed changes by purporting that Trump’s own children would not be citizens if his suggested changes had been implemented at the time of their births.

    If this is not the implication, I am curious as to what is the relevance of the tweet? Cancelling “birthright citizenship” would make no difference to their citizenship status and is therefore of no relevance to anything.

    This is a viral tweet. 100K commenters and 319K views. And the implication of hypocrisy is clear.

    However, someone reading this sees both claims rated true, and then simply a “Legal context of the claim” which actually proves that the implication of the tweet is false.

    The only thing relevant for fact-checking is the implication that they wouldn’t be citizens.

    At present it is simply deceptive. Someone can now say: “WikiTRIBUNE rated it true!” – when its completely the opposite.

    I think it needs a broader discussion about consistent rules for fact-checking on WikiTRIBUNE. It is nothing more than a clever way to inflame political partisanship even more.

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Thank a lot for your very informative feedback, this is still an ongoing report not the final published one, it’s very normal for the community to engage in such debates till we reach to consensus. hard to say that WT is spreading fake news or biased,

      After reading your feedback on the talk page, I do agree with you that we should definitely point to the implication of the tweet and not merely checking the dates only, before I edited the last paragraph to show the reader the general legal context and give the reader the space to judge, it’s like saying here are the dates and here is the legal context and you the reader can decide.

      But now I hear your concerns, we may put a line showing how the tweet is misleading, please feel free to edit according to that.

      Edited: 2018-11-02 13:35:59 By Mohamed Salih (talk | contribs) + 1 Characters .. + 0% change.‎‎ (Note | Diff)

    2. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      I agree with your argument completely and have edited it to rate it as false, for exactly the reasons you mention.

      You would have been very very welcome to do this yourself of course! It’s a wiki!

  4. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    I want to comment on the ” Overall Fact Check: Mostly False” paragraph, I don’t think we should fact check the ” Let’s cancel their birthright citizenship first.” part, because it’s not a mere claim rather a sarcasm, but we can just add two or three lines to show the context. I will try to shorten the current paragraph, what do you think?

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      I think we can fact check it on the question of whether the sarcasm is in any way relevant. There is a clear implication that under Trump’s proposed policies, his children would not be citizens. That’s just false and the whole tweet fails on those grounds.

      If the author of the tweet defended themselves by saying “I never said it would affect his children!” then we’d have to say that they are guilty of a massive non sequitur.

  5. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    This article mentions that ” Mrs. Trump, who received a green card in March 2001 and became a U.S. citizen in 2006, has always maintained that she arrived in the country legally and never violated the terms of her immigration status”

    https://apnews.com/37dc7aef0ce44077930b7436be7bfd0d

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      This is irrelevant; the article and facts you referred to are talking about Melania Trump, the President’s third wife. Her only child with Donald is Barron. This tweet is concerning his first wife, Ivana.

  6. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    Hi Paul, thank you for your comment, the relevancy here comes from the fact that the tweet is viral as you can clearly tell and it contains lots of information, the public should know the veracity of the information, that is the main idea of fact checking claims. but I fully agree with you about the legal side you mentioned.

  7. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    This isn’t a relevant discussion. Ivana was almost certainly a legal resident when her children were born. The not-real-yet policy balloon is talking about birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented persons. Legal residents are the specific precedent issue ruled on by SCOTUS in 1898, and their children’s birthright citizenship was upheld. Stop giving this thing more wind.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Be the first to collaborate on our developing articles

WikiTribune Open menu Close Search Like Back Next Open menu Close menu Play video RSS Feed Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Follow us on Instagram Follow us on Youtube Connect with us on Linkedin Connect with us on Discord Email us