![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I might just be an idiot, but I still don't really get what the complaints against the law are. Well, I get what they ARE, but could you make it clearer as to their concerns, and specific mentions of why they have concerns? Like, state that so-and-so feels 'this' will happen because of such-and-such in the law. I would put it underneath 'Reactions.' Like I said, it could already be in the article, but it isn't clear to me. All I see is people either believing it will lead to racial profiling or it's Nazi legislation, without really giving reasons WHY it would lead to racial profiling or that it's 'Nazi' legislation. And then replies to that, and then replies to THAT, if I make sense. Thanks. Masternachos ( talk) 02:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 18:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The links to the text of the law are right there as two bulleted items at the bottom of the "References" section:
The "External links" section's links will also take you there, along with the official record regarding the bills' passage. Wasted Time R ( talk) 10:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Eric holder criticized the billed, even suggesting the feds might bring a suit against arizona, yet he never even read the bill. Obama said cops could harrass someone having ice cream with their kids, when that is complete lie according to how to law is written. Due to the widesperead misrepresntation of the bill, it probably deserves its own section on "myths" about the bill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.31.229 ( talk) 20:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Now Janet Nepalitano says that the act is " a law she wouldn't have signed", and litterally within a a minute of that statement she, too, said she hasn't even read the bill. 66.190.31.229 ( talk) 12:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Paragraph 4, sentence 3 says "There have been protests in opposition to the law in over 70 U.S. cities,[14] including calls for a boycott of Arizona.". I somewhat question the neutrality of that statement. I'm certain (sorry, no cites) that there are possibly 70 thousand cities that are in protest of this law as well as 70,000 who are supporters.
The calls for a boycott is however a factual statement meriting representation in this article. Perhaps rephrasing the sentiment as "Supporters and detractors of this bill have been equally ardent leading to a significant number of calls for a boycott". Perhaps a bit cumbersome of a sentence but I'll endeavor to improve upon that.
DeadboltSecurity ( talk) 00:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC) DeadboltSecurity 2010-05-18
My error for leaving a sentence unpolished. "The bill has rallied numerous supporters as well as detractors, some of who have called for a boycott of the bill." Now the 'action' part of the sentence, boycott grammatically belongs to the detractors and not the supporters. My own admission that the proposed sentence was cumbersome was a weak excuse that I will forever endeavor to avoid.
JeffConrad - my point was not that the reference was not sourced but rather that it was not neutral. As stated, the sentence leads (not states... but leads) one to infer that entire cities... 70 of them... have called for a boycott... the whole city. The quantification of 70 furthers the strength of that inference without balancing the supporter's sentiment. That was all the point I was making.
In exactly the statement you said, "The current statement is accurate and sourced", it is (or was) not. I question whether anyone actually counted "70 cities".
InkFalls - The 70 thousand was obvious alliteration. Had I a said 70 hundred, well that would sound kind of odd, wouldn't it? But if you want to go down the twisty, windy path of critical thinking... I didn't say there was 70,000 cities in the US, did I? Sure, the original quote did but I did not.
There's somewhere north of, excuse me, my bad, somewhere greater than 19,000 cities in the US. From watching the news I see that austere leaders from Mexico, China, France and Germany have weighed in on the topic as well but we delve into the asinine to start counting cities because it's not really the point, is it?
All a moot point as Wasted Time R has rewritten the section and it looks marvelous... regardless of whether the word "many" is a "weasel word" (?) or not. I'll have to look that one up in my "Strunk and White". Good job, Wasted, it really DOES look very good.
The point is, all three of you are accomplished writers and impassioned that Wikipedia is critically reviewed and maintained. I thank all of you for that but as this was my first time contribution, having taken the time to read WP:DONTBITE... I might add, "don't bite the newcomers, sometimes they bite back." This only serves to make me loath to step into the middle of this ever again... I already have a 6-year old.
DeadboltSecurity ( talk) 02:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC) DeadboltSecurity 2010-05-19
DeadboltSecurity ( talk) 21:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC) DeadboltSecurity 2010-05-20
time to add a section on the boycott and anti-boycott? Some groups are already announcing numbers, several websites have been started. 67.246.175.103 ( talk) 23:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I changed my view on this, and have now created a separate "Boycotts" subsection. The existing "Protests ..." section was getting very long, and this additional subsection gives the article better structure. And boycotts, realized or not, are a more serious level of protest than many other forms. Wasted Time R ( talk) 03:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
What about the large number of people that have started using Arizona products as an anti-boycott, perhaps some info to that regard should be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.220.165.3 ( talk) 08:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I would propose that we revert the name of the article back to SB 1070. My primary reason is that I think that calling the legislation the "Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhood Act" is tendentious and misleading. I know that laws are often given strange names to give them greater legitimacy, but this one strikes me as a particular reach.
My secondary reason is that most sources do not refer to it this way. A quick Google search on SB 1070 revealed 4 million; while a similar search on "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" pulls in about 120,000 results. If we revert back, I think this article would rise to the top of results when people search for information on this topic. Tedperl ( talk) 17:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
The ACLU et al are not sources on the Constitutionality of this Act. They are protesters. SCOTUS is who decides Constitutionality and, as they haven't ruled one way or the other, there is no source on Constitutionality. So, if you wish to keep this section labelled "Constitutionality", then you must use relevant sources - which the ACLU (and Maldef and others) are -not-. If, on the other hand, you want to relabel this section to "Opposition", then the ACLU et al are relevant. I'm a pretty flexible editor. You can decide which direction you want to go - relabel the section or remove links to sources which aren't sources on Constitutionality. - 69.143.48.114 ( talk) 10:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
69.143.48.114 has moved stuff around so much that I can't follow the changes that have been made or know what's been added or deleted. The new organization makes no sense to me at all. It lumps what should be a description of the actual court cases filed so far in with several paragraphs of legal original research and with all the stupid Nazi stuff. 69.143.48.114's justification of this arrangement – that without the Nazi nonsense, no one would be filing suits against the law – is unsupported by a single source. (In fact, this is what organizations like the ACLU and MALDEF do – they see laws and governmental actions they don't like, and they take legal action against them, even if the general public is largely unaware of them.) I'm also having trouble accepting 69.143.48.114 in good faith. He or she shows too much knowledge of WP jargon to be a real newcomer; it's probably an experienced editor slumming with an IP address and knowing how to game the system. (Real editors can't edit war because their reputations will get tarnished; IP addresses don't care, because even if they get blocked, they just move to another computer.) Like Seb az86556, I think 69.143.48.114's real goal is to discredit sane legal opposition to the law my mashing it up with the Nazi morons. Unless there's a consensus among the established editors here to revert the article back to the pre-69.143.48.114 state, and then look at 69.143.48.114's suggestions on a case by case basis, I'm outta here too. Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I have read the Nazi section and think that it presents the facts in a totally logical succession and while I can understand the fears of the Nazi claims and claims of racial profiling being conflated with one another I do not feel that that has happened in this case. (by the way I am not a sockpuppet of 69.143.48.114 :P) Ink Falls 03:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Here's what the most important of the lawsuits (the ACLU/NAACP/MALDEF one) claims are (from the
ACLU press release):
That the Arizona law
This is what I mean by "sane opposition": no mentions of racism in general, or of Nazis or Apartheid or anything like that. You may or may not agree with the merit of the suit, and it may or may not win, but the article's section on the lawsuits should be addressing it at this level of seriousness, and leave all the other blather for the general "Reactions" section. What's more, the subsectioning as it stands gives the impression that no one has filed suit on the supremacy clause basis and everyone has filed on the racial profiling basis, which as this shows is false. Wasted Time R ( talk) 04:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
And here's what the City of Tucson lawsuit's claims are (from the Courthouse News Service):
Again, a sane legal action that you may or may not agree with and that may or may not win. No wild charges of racism, no Nazis or Jim Crow. This is what that section of the article should be about. Wasted Time R ( talk) 04:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
A handful of sentences picked out of an article falls well within Wikipedia:Non-free content.- 69.143.48.114 ( talk) 15:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Because the topic is alleged anti-Hispanic racism, a Hispanic Representative who says that there is no racism is relevant.-17:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 ( talk)
I've tried to finesse this dispute/edit war by adding this text: "Montenegro, who legally immigrated to the U.S. from El Salvador with his family when he was four, stated, "I am saying if you here illegally, get in line, come in the right way."[88]" This should get across the idea without doing the ethnic labelling that was being objected to. Wasted Time R ( talk) 17:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
The links for Miller and Gonzales go to the DOJ and not to the original cases. Most of the material has been copied and pasted almost verbatim; though I don't see a copyright issue, the statements are those of the DOJ and should be so attributed. I think it would be better to link to the actual cases, but they would obviously need to be examined directly by whomever made the change, and the editor's own conclusions stated (or the material restricted to direct quotes). Most of the U.S. Code citations in the Gonzales material are irrelevant because those sections aren't at issue with the Arizona law.
The material for Marsh v. U.S. was copied almost verbatim from Kris Kobach's article at the Center for Immigration Studies, so I there's still a copyright violation. Even if paraphrased, attribution would be needed absent some credible indication that the original case material had actually been consulted by the editor.
I also think the bolding should be removed and the cases mentioned in ordinary narrative (which is needed anyway), but it's probably best to resolve the other issues first. JeffConrad ( talk) 04:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I've tried to clean this up a bit by rearranging to present related ideas together. To remove some of the clutter, I moved the long direct quote from 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g) to a note; a consequence, of course, is that there is now one substantive footnote in what's otherwise a list of references. If others think that a simple link to the cited section would suffice, I'm fine with removing the note; I kept it mainly to retain some of the material added by 69.143.48.114. JeffConrad ( talk) 23:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I've tried to restore some sanity to the article's structure, while still honoring some of 69.143.48.114's objections to the previous structure. His/her new "Impact" section remains, but is now located after the "Reactions" section, since one feeds the other. The long "Protests and criticisms" subsection is now broken into three subsections, "Religious organizations and perspectives", "Concerns over potential civil rights violations", and "Protests". This gives the material some better organization than it did in the pre-69.143.48.114 stage, I think. The second of those contains all of the non-legal-case material that was in "Challenges to legality and constitutionality", which majority opinion on Talk held didn't belong there. "Challenges to legality and constitutionality" continues to have "Concurrent enforcement and the Supremacy Clause", which discusses the major constitutional question regarding the law, and also now "Court actions filed against the Act", which will discuss in detail the various suits that have been filed so far (I need to start expanding this coverage, along the lines of the sources I presented on them above).
I'm not wedded to the precise wording of any of these subsection titles, I'm just trying to get across the idea of what they cover.
As part of all this, I'm also trying to locate any material that got dropped during 69.143.48.114's shuffle, and trying to better cite any material that got added by various IPs or other infrequent editors. I'm still in progress on this task. Wasted Time R ( talk) 17:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
We're having a bit of an edit war over these additions by User:Azdarin:
These additions, regardless of how well they are sourced (and it is variable here) or written (even if the wording wasn't this slanted), are not relevant to this article. Considerations of the background of FAIR and Russell Pearce belong, not surprisingly, in the Federation for American Immigration Reform and Russell Pearce article. This is an article about the law, and at the end of the day the law stands on its own, regardless of the background of those who pushed for it. As a final observation, material introduced in WP articles by "Incidentally, ..." or "Interestingly enough, ..." is almost invariably off-topic. Wasted Time R ( talk) 03:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Don't know if anyone cares about this, but the statement from Russell on the Article of Faith was incorrect. It's the 12th Article of Faith that says, "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." 68.155.23.62 ( talk) 14:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The referenced source (Arizona Senate Bill 1070) does not contain the phrase "presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States" along the list of four acceptable forms of identification. I am really wondering where the whole paragraph comes from. pivovarov ( talk) 17:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
As I suggested, I think it's possible to get carried away with the number of notes supporting any single statement; if nothing else, the visual impact detracts from the article. But I also think it's unreasonable to impose an arbitrary limit on one particular statement and not on others. At present, we seem to go up to five notes, which I think is pushing it; perhaps we could agree on some reasonable limit and try to adhere to it. If that's done and some notes are accordingly removed, the removal should be done with care because some of the sources are more solid than others. JeffConrad ( talk) 23:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The large majority of this article doesn't discuss the Act, rather reaction to the Act (primarily opposition to it). This creates an imbalanced article. The article should be primarily about the Act itself and the part which is focused on reaction should be balanced between opposition and support. -23:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 ( talk)
well i guess it finally happened. An admin decided she/he didnt like the fact that the article didnt reflect their views so they froze it to end all debate. I guess they will start banning people who disagree with there political slant next. Another sad moment for wikipedia. 67.246.175.103 ( talk) 06:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I placed David Duke's comments on the subject. Discuss 67.246.175.103 ( talk) 00:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
. Nothing he says should be included here. You should be ashamed of yourself for promoting him.
This law is the kind of issue that virtually everyone has rendered an opinion on, and we can't and shouldn't include them all. While I wouldn't compare Sharpton with Duke, I don't think Sharpton's view on this matter is especially pertinent (even though I was the one who added it, back when the article was first beginning and reactions to the law were just coming in), so I've removed it. As for Duke, he was never in the U.S. Congress, but rather was in the Louisiana state legislature for a spell. And if the WP article on him is right, he's not actually a "professor" but rather someone who managed to get a doctorate-level degree from some antisemitic hellhole in the Ukraine and now teaches there. If the Ukranian WP has an article on SB1070 and wants to include Duke's opinion, that's fine with me. Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
"Jackson used "Hymies" to mean Jews and "Hymietown" to mean New York City while talking with the Washington Post reporter Milton Coleman in January 1984. Jackson denied making the remarks and then said Jews were conspiring against him. When he finally did acknowledge that it was wrong to use the term, he said he did so in private to a reporter.[30] Finally, Jackson apologized during a speech before national Jewish leaders in a Manchester, New Hampshire synagogue, but continuing suspicions have led to an enduring split between Jackson and many Jews.[30]
Among Jackson's other remarks were that Richard Nixon was less attentive to poverty in the U.S. because "four out of five [of Nixon's top advisors] are German Jews and their priorities are on Europe and Asia"; that he was "sick and tired of hearing about the Holocaust"; and that there are "very few Jewish reporters that have the capacity to be objective about Arab affairs". In 1979, Jackson said on a trip to the Middle East that Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin was a "terrorist," and Israel was a "theocracy."[31] Jackson has since apologized for at least some of these remarks. Later Jackson was invited to speak in support of Jewish Senator Joe Lieberman at the 2000 Democratic National Convention.[32]"
67.246.175.103 ( talk) 06:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
At the request of 75.47.144.77 ( talk · contribs) via a Files For Upload request here, I have uploaded 15 photographs from flickr, and put them here for the consideration of the article editors;
Seb_az86556 changed my edits, claiming that SB1070 specifically prohibits using race as a factor. This is not correct.
SB1070 says that law enforcement officers “may not consider race, color or national origin . . . except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.” A.R.S. 11-1051(B). According to the Supreme Court, the U.S. Constitution allows race to be considered in immigration enforcement: “The likelihood that any given person of Mexican ancestry is an alien is high enough to make Mexican appearance a relevant factor.” United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 886-87 (1975). The Arizona Supreme Court agrees that “enforcement of immigration laws often involves a relevant consideration of ethnic factors.” State v. Graciano, 653 P.2d 683, 687 n.7 (Ariz. 1982) (citing State v. Becerra, 534 P.2d 743 (1975)). Obviously, if the Arizona legislature had wanted to exclude race as a factor, all they would have had to do was say that police may not consider race, period. SB 1070 also does not say that police can consider race to the extent required by the state or federal constitution. SB1070 is a policy decision to use race whenever it is permitted. Love it or hate it, that's SB1070. Let me put my accurate changes back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrantCon15 ( talk • contribs) 02:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
In Mexico City there's going to be a concert for the opposition of this law. Should this be mentioned in the "protests" section of the article or not at all. Here's an article about it's in spanish though. http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/680466.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.117.244.219 ( talk) 23:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for posting it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.117.244.219 ( talk) 22:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it should be mentioned that it is taking the existing federal law and adopting it to the state. Or maybe it should mention that the law is less strict than a similar one in Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.133.237 ( talk) 04:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I applaud you for your fair non-biased addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.133.237 ( talk) 05:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
User:69.143.48.114 is attempting to introduce heavy subsectioning of the article, as evidenced by this revision here and later ones. I do not think this structure is warranted; it makes for short, choppy sections and a convoluted table of contents. The article is supposed to have a smooth prose flow, which this eliminates; see Wikipedia:Layout#Headings and sections for guidelines on this.
The content organization with these changes is also suspect: not all the lawsuits so far have been solely on racial profiling grounds, protests by entertainment celebrities is not a form of religious activism, and the comparisons to Nazi Germany have nothing to do with the suits against the law.
I tried reverting this mess, but just got reverted back. Would appreciate the views of the other experienced editors here. Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
While subsectioning as I've done might be unwarranted in a traditional newspaper or college paper style structure, the requirements of an open-ended, multiple editor, organic structure (ie. Wikipedia) are different from the requirements of a newspaper article or college paper style format (which typically have one writer/editor and, thus, are much more easily kept from spinning out of control). Again, I made the change because the lack of structure made for difficult reading, was already showing signs of being harmed from disorganization, and is an article format which leads to disintegration of structure. In my opinion, adding structure to a Wikipedia article is a good thing. -12:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 ( talk)
It seems your only motivation for this stunt is to have Nazi Germany as a bold section-header somewhere... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
That being said, any block of content which is lengthy, valid, and substantial should be highlighted. -13:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 ( talk)
Is there a way we can work towards consensus or are you simply intent on edit warring?
The reason I made the edit to racial profiling that I did is that the ADL's comment was hanging on at the end of the section and, thus, likely not to be read. By grouping the "pro" parts together and grouping the "cons" parts together, the ADL section is less likely to be missed.
You seem intent on simply reverting everything and anything you disagree with. That's article ownership. I believe it's possible to work with you to build consensus, but it's going to require you to meet me half way. Part of meeting me half way is to not simply revert everything and anything you disagree with, but to look for common ground. Are you capable of that? -13:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.143.48.114 (
talk)
Well if you do the corresponding page in Spanish Wikipedia is appallingly stubbish, especially when you consider that the law targets Mexicans and that Mexicans will be the victims of the racial profiling. So, si se habla espanol, puede ayudar con el articulo. Hell even feed it through Google translate. Lilly ( talk) 23:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Lol, why do they have the right to be told there is a law targeting them? They're breaking the law. That's like saying drug dealers have a right to be told there is a law that is targeting them. :P Ink Falls 19:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I went ahead and made a rough translation of the opening paragraph. I would encourage editors who are better at Spanish than I to correct and expand upon the present version. Whatever your political views, it is obvious that the law is of interest to Spanish speakers, and I think we can all agree that spreading the information is a good goal. Lesgles ( talk) 02:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I am a US citizen and I speak Spanish, so I will take a look at the article and see about translations, however, why wasn´t the poll that shows that 81% of registered Hispanic voters in Arizona being against the law not included? I am not much more than a newbie so I have much to learn still. I tend to read through and not edit much and am observing more than editing so when I translate if someone would volunteer to do the edit for me of the article. I was a bit offended by the they are illegal so they have no right to know. Not everyone who speaks Spanish is illegal. I am a citizen and so is my husband as are my children...one of those who have a right to know is my son fighting in Afghanistan...so I take special offense to what seems like barely covered racism to me. 190.6.195.98 ( talk) 01:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I might just be an idiot, but I still don't really get what the complaints against the law are. Well, I get what they ARE, but could you make it clearer as to their concerns, and specific mentions of why they have concerns? Like, state that so-and-so feels 'this' will happen because of such-and-such in the law. I would put it underneath 'Reactions.' Like I said, it could already be in the article, but it isn't clear to me. All I see is people either believing it will lead to racial profiling or it's Nazi legislation, without really giving reasons WHY it would lead to racial profiling or that it's 'Nazi' legislation. And then replies to that, and then replies to THAT, if I make sense. Thanks. Masternachos ( talk) 02:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 18:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The links to the text of the law are right there as two bulleted items at the bottom of the "References" section:
The "External links" section's links will also take you there, along with the official record regarding the bills' passage. Wasted Time R ( talk) 10:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Eric holder criticized the billed, even suggesting the feds might bring a suit against arizona, yet he never even read the bill. Obama said cops could harrass someone having ice cream with their kids, when that is complete lie according to how to law is written. Due to the widesperead misrepresntation of the bill, it probably deserves its own section on "myths" about the bill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.31.229 ( talk) 20:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Now Janet Nepalitano says that the act is " a law she wouldn't have signed", and litterally within a a minute of that statement she, too, said she hasn't even read the bill. 66.190.31.229 ( talk) 12:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Paragraph 4, sentence 3 says "There have been protests in opposition to the law in over 70 U.S. cities,[14] including calls for a boycott of Arizona.". I somewhat question the neutrality of that statement. I'm certain (sorry, no cites) that there are possibly 70 thousand cities that are in protest of this law as well as 70,000 who are supporters.
The calls for a boycott is however a factual statement meriting representation in this article. Perhaps rephrasing the sentiment as "Supporters and detractors of this bill have been equally ardent leading to a significant number of calls for a boycott". Perhaps a bit cumbersome of a sentence but I'll endeavor to improve upon that.
DeadboltSecurity ( talk) 00:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC) DeadboltSecurity 2010-05-18
My error for leaving a sentence unpolished. "The bill has rallied numerous supporters as well as detractors, some of who have called for a boycott of the bill." Now the 'action' part of the sentence, boycott grammatically belongs to the detractors and not the supporters. My own admission that the proposed sentence was cumbersome was a weak excuse that I will forever endeavor to avoid.
JeffConrad - my point was not that the reference was not sourced but rather that it was not neutral. As stated, the sentence leads (not states... but leads) one to infer that entire cities... 70 of them... have called for a boycott... the whole city. The quantification of 70 furthers the strength of that inference without balancing the supporter's sentiment. That was all the point I was making.
In exactly the statement you said, "The current statement is accurate and sourced", it is (or was) not. I question whether anyone actually counted "70 cities".
InkFalls - The 70 thousand was obvious alliteration. Had I a said 70 hundred, well that would sound kind of odd, wouldn't it? But if you want to go down the twisty, windy path of critical thinking... I didn't say there was 70,000 cities in the US, did I? Sure, the original quote did but I did not.
There's somewhere north of, excuse me, my bad, somewhere greater than 19,000 cities in the US. From watching the news I see that austere leaders from Mexico, China, France and Germany have weighed in on the topic as well but we delve into the asinine to start counting cities because it's not really the point, is it?
All a moot point as Wasted Time R has rewritten the section and it looks marvelous... regardless of whether the word "many" is a "weasel word" (?) or not. I'll have to look that one up in my "Strunk and White". Good job, Wasted, it really DOES look very good.
The point is, all three of you are accomplished writers and impassioned that Wikipedia is critically reviewed and maintained. I thank all of you for that but as this was my first time contribution, having taken the time to read WP:DONTBITE... I might add, "don't bite the newcomers, sometimes they bite back." This only serves to make me loath to step into the middle of this ever again... I already have a 6-year old.
DeadboltSecurity ( talk) 02:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC) DeadboltSecurity 2010-05-19
DeadboltSecurity ( talk) 21:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC) DeadboltSecurity 2010-05-20
time to add a section on the boycott and anti-boycott? Some groups are already announcing numbers, several websites have been started. 67.246.175.103 ( talk) 23:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I changed my view on this, and have now created a separate "Boycotts" subsection. The existing "Protests ..." section was getting very long, and this additional subsection gives the article better structure. And boycotts, realized or not, are a more serious level of protest than many other forms. Wasted Time R ( talk) 03:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
What about the large number of people that have started using Arizona products as an anti-boycott, perhaps some info to that regard should be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.220.165.3 ( talk) 08:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I would propose that we revert the name of the article back to SB 1070. My primary reason is that I think that calling the legislation the "Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhood Act" is tendentious and misleading. I know that laws are often given strange names to give them greater legitimacy, but this one strikes me as a particular reach.
My secondary reason is that most sources do not refer to it this way. A quick Google search on SB 1070 revealed 4 million; while a similar search on "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" pulls in about 120,000 results. If we revert back, I think this article would rise to the top of results when people search for information on this topic. Tedperl ( talk) 17:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
The ACLU et al are not sources on the Constitutionality of this Act. They are protesters. SCOTUS is who decides Constitutionality and, as they haven't ruled one way or the other, there is no source on Constitutionality. So, if you wish to keep this section labelled "Constitutionality", then you must use relevant sources - which the ACLU (and Maldef and others) are -not-. If, on the other hand, you want to relabel this section to "Opposition", then the ACLU et al are relevant. I'm a pretty flexible editor. You can decide which direction you want to go - relabel the section or remove links to sources which aren't sources on Constitutionality. - 69.143.48.114 ( talk) 10:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
69.143.48.114 has moved stuff around so much that I can't follow the changes that have been made or know what's been added or deleted. The new organization makes no sense to me at all. It lumps what should be a description of the actual court cases filed so far in with several paragraphs of legal original research and with all the stupid Nazi stuff. 69.143.48.114's justification of this arrangement – that without the Nazi nonsense, no one would be filing suits against the law – is unsupported by a single source. (In fact, this is what organizations like the ACLU and MALDEF do – they see laws and governmental actions they don't like, and they take legal action against them, even if the general public is largely unaware of them.) I'm also having trouble accepting 69.143.48.114 in good faith. He or she shows too much knowledge of WP jargon to be a real newcomer; it's probably an experienced editor slumming with an IP address and knowing how to game the system. (Real editors can't edit war because their reputations will get tarnished; IP addresses don't care, because even if they get blocked, they just move to another computer.) Like Seb az86556, I think 69.143.48.114's real goal is to discredit sane legal opposition to the law my mashing it up with the Nazi morons. Unless there's a consensus among the established editors here to revert the article back to the pre-69.143.48.114 state, and then look at 69.143.48.114's suggestions on a case by case basis, I'm outta here too. Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I have read the Nazi section and think that it presents the facts in a totally logical succession and while I can understand the fears of the Nazi claims and claims of racial profiling being conflated with one another I do not feel that that has happened in this case. (by the way I am not a sockpuppet of 69.143.48.114 :P) Ink Falls 03:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Here's what the most important of the lawsuits (the ACLU/NAACP/MALDEF one) claims are (from the
ACLU press release):
That the Arizona law
This is what I mean by "sane opposition": no mentions of racism in general, or of Nazis or Apartheid or anything like that. You may or may not agree with the merit of the suit, and it may or may not win, but the article's section on the lawsuits should be addressing it at this level of seriousness, and leave all the other blather for the general "Reactions" section. What's more, the subsectioning as it stands gives the impression that no one has filed suit on the supremacy clause basis and everyone has filed on the racial profiling basis, which as this shows is false. Wasted Time R ( talk) 04:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
And here's what the City of Tucson lawsuit's claims are (from the Courthouse News Service):
Again, a sane legal action that you may or may not agree with and that may or may not win. No wild charges of racism, no Nazis or Jim Crow. This is what that section of the article should be about. Wasted Time R ( talk) 04:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
A handful of sentences picked out of an article falls well within Wikipedia:Non-free content.- 69.143.48.114 ( talk) 15:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Because the topic is alleged anti-Hispanic racism, a Hispanic Representative who says that there is no racism is relevant.-17:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 ( talk)
I've tried to finesse this dispute/edit war by adding this text: "Montenegro, who legally immigrated to the U.S. from El Salvador with his family when he was four, stated, "I am saying if you here illegally, get in line, come in the right way."[88]" This should get across the idea without doing the ethnic labelling that was being objected to. Wasted Time R ( talk) 17:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
The links for Miller and Gonzales go to the DOJ and not to the original cases. Most of the material has been copied and pasted almost verbatim; though I don't see a copyright issue, the statements are those of the DOJ and should be so attributed. I think it would be better to link to the actual cases, but they would obviously need to be examined directly by whomever made the change, and the editor's own conclusions stated (or the material restricted to direct quotes). Most of the U.S. Code citations in the Gonzales material are irrelevant because those sections aren't at issue with the Arizona law.
The material for Marsh v. U.S. was copied almost verbatim from Kris Kobach's article at the Center for Immigration Studies, so I there's still a copyright violation. Even if paraphrased, attribution would be needed absent some credible indication that the original case material had actually been consulted by the editor.
I also think the bolding should be removed and the cases mentioned in ordinary narrative (which is needed anyway), but it's probably best to resolve the other issues first. JeffConrad ( talk) 04:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I've tried to clean this up a bit by rearranging to present related ideas together. To remove some of the clutter, I moved the long direct quote from 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g) to a note; a consequence, of course, is that there is now one substantive footnote in what's otherwise a list of references. If others think that a simple link to the cited section would suffice, I'm fine with removing the note; I kept it mainly to retain some of the material added by 69.143.48.114. JeffConrad ( talk) 23:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I've tried to restore some sanity to the article's structure, while still honoring some of 69.143.48.114's objections to the previous structure. His/her new "Impact" section remains, but is now located after the "Reactions" section, since one feeds the other. The long "Protests and criticisms" subsection is now broken into three subsections, "Religious organizations and perspectives", "Concerns over potential civil rights violations", and "Protests". This gives the material some better organization than it did in the pre-69.143.48.114 stage, I think. The second of those contains all of the non-legal-case material that was in "Challenges to legality and constitutionality", which majority opinion on Talk held didn't belong there. "Challenges to legality and constitutionality" continues to have "Concurrent enforcement and the Supremacy Clause", which discusses the major constitutional question regarding the law, and also now "Court actions filed against the Act", which will discuss in detail the various suits that have been filed so far (I need to start expanding this coverage, along the lines of the sources I presented on them above).
I'm not wedded to the precise wording of any of these subsection titles, I'm just trying to get across the idea of what they cover.
As part of all this, I'm also trying to locate any material that got dropped during 69.143.48.114's shuffle, and trying to better cite any material that got added by various IPs or other infrequent editors. I'm still in progress on this task. Wasted Time R ( talk) 17:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
We're having a bit of an edit war over these additions by User:Azdarin:
These additions, regardless of how well they are sourced (and it is variable here) or written (even if the wording wasn't this slanted), are not relevant to this article. Considerations of the background of FAIR and Russell Pearce belong, not surprisingly, in the Federation for American Immigration Reform and Russell Pearce article. This is an article about the law, and at the end of the day the law stands on its own, regardless of the background of those who pushed for it. As a final observation, material introduced in WP articles by "Incidentally, ..." or "Interestingly enough, ..." is almost invariably off-topic. Wasted Time R ( talk) 03:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Don't know if anyone cares about this, but the statement from Russell on the Article of Faith was incorrect. It's the 12th Article of Faith that says, "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." 68.155.23.62 ( talk) 14:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The referenced source (Arizona Senate Bill 1070) does not contain the phrase "presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States" along the list of four acceptable forms of identification. I am really wondering where the whole paragraph comes from. pivovarov ( talk) 17:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
As I suggested, I think it's possible to get carried away with the number of notes supporting any single statement; if nothing else, the visual impact detracts from the article. But I also think it's unreasonable to impose an arbitrary limit on one particular statement and not on others. At present, we seem to go up to five notes, which I think is pushing it; perhaps we could agree on some reasonable limit and try to adhere to it. If that's done and some notes are accordingly removed, the removal should be done with care because some of the sources are more solid than others. JeffConrad ( talk) 23:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The large majority of this article doesn't discuss the Act, rather reaction to the Act (primarily opposition to it). This creates an imbalanced article. The article should be primarily about the Act itself and the part which is focused on reaction should be balanced between opposition and support. -23:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 ( talk)
well i guess it finally happened. An admin decided she/he didnt like the fact that the article didnt reflect their views so they froze it to end all debate. I guess they will start banning people who disagree with there political slant next. Another sad moment for wikipedia. 67.246.175.103 ( talk) 06:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I placed David Duke's comments on the subject. Discuss 67.246.175.103 ( talk) 00:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
. Nothing he says should be included here. You should be ashamed of yourself for promoting him.
This law is the kind of issue that virtually everyone has rendered an opinion on, and we can't and shouldn't include them all. While I wouldn't compare Sharpton with Duke, I don't think Sharpton's view on this matter is especially pertinent (even though I was the one who added it, back when the article was first beginning and reactions to the law were just coming in), so I've removed it. As for Duke, he was never in the U.S. Congress, but rather was in the Louisiana state legislature for a spell. And if the WP article on him is right, he's not actually a "professor" but rather someone who managed to get a doctorate-level degree from some antisemitic hellhole in the Ukraine and now teaches there. If the Ukranian WP has an article on SB1070 and wants to include Duke's opinion, that's fine with me. Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
"Jackson used "Hymies" to mean Jews and "Hymietown" to mean New York City while talking with the Washington Post reporter Milton Coleman in January 1984. Jackson denied making the remarks and then said Jews were conspiring against him. When he finally did acknowledge that it was wrong to use the term, he said he did so in private to a reporter.[30] Finally, Jackson apologized during a speech before national Jewish leaders in a Manchester, New Hampshire synagogue, but continuing suspicions have led to an enduring split between Jackson and many Jews.[30]
Among Jackson's other remarks were that Richard Nixon was less attentive to poverty in the U.S. because "four out of five [of Nixon's top advisors] are German Jews and their priorities are on Europe and Asia"; that he was "sick and tired of hearing about the Holocaust"; and that there are "very few Jewish reporters that have the capacity to be objective about Arab affairs". In 1979, Jackson said on a trip to the Middle East that Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin was a "terrorist," and Israel was a "theocracy."[31] Jackson has since apologized for at least some of these remarks. Later Jackson was invited to speak in support of Jewish Senator Joe Lieberman at the 2000 Democratic National Convention.[32]"
67.246.175.103 ( talk) 06:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
At the request of 75.47.144.77 ( talk · contribs) via a Files For Upload request here, I have uploaded 15 photographs from flickr, and put them here for the consideration of the article editors;
Seb_az86556 changed my edits, claiming that SB1070 specifically prohibits using race as a factor. This is not correct.
SB1070 says that law enforcement officers “may not consider race, color or national origin . . . except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.” A.R.S. 11-1051(B). According to the Supreme Court, the U.S. Constitution allows race to be considered in immigration enforcement: “The likelihood that any given person of Mexican ancestry is an alien is high enough to make Mexican appearance a relevant factor.” United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 886-87 (1975). The Arizona Supreme Court agrees that “enforcement of immigration laws often involves a relevant consideration of ethnic factors.” State v. Graciano, 653 P.2d 683, 687 n.7 (Ariz. 1982) (citing State v. Becerra, 534 P.2d 743 (1975)). Obviously, if the Arizona legislature had wanted to exclude race as a factor, all they would have had to do was say that police may not consider race, period. SB 1070 also does not say that police can consider race to the extent required by the state or federal constitution. SB1070 is a policy decision to use race whenever it is permitted. Love it or hate it, that's SB1070. Let me put my accurate changes back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrantCon15 ( talk • contribs) 02:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
In Mexico City there's going to be a concert for the opposition of this law. Should this be mentioned in the "protests" section of the article or not at all. Here's an article about it's in spanish though. http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/680466.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.117.244.219 ( talk) 23:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for posting it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.117.244.219 ( talk) 22:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it should be mentioned that it is taking the existing federal law and adopting it to the state. Or maybe it should mention that the law is less strict than a similar one in Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.133.237 ( talk) 04:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I applaud you for your fair non-biased addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.133.237 ( talk) 05:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
User:69.143.48.114 is attempting to introduce heavy subsectioning of the article, as evidenced by this revision here and later ones. I do not think this structure is warranted; it makes for short, choppy sections and a convoluted table of contents. The article is supposed to have a smooth prose flow, which this eliminates; see Wikipedia:Layout#Headings and sections for guidelines on this.
The content organization with these changes is also suspect: not all the lawsuits so far have been solely on racial profiling grounds, protests by entertainment celebrities is not a form of religious activism, and the comparisons to Nazi Germany have nothing to do with the suits against the law.
I tried reverting this mess, but just got reverted back. Would appreciate the views of the other experienced editors here. Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
While subsectioning as I've done might be unwarranted in a traditional newspaper or college paper style structure, the requirements of an open-ended, multiple editor, organic structure (ie. Wikipedia) are different from the requirements of a newspaper article or college paper style format (which typically have one writer/editor and, thus, are much more easily kept from spinning out of control). Again, I made the change because the lack of structure made for difficult reading, was already showing signs of being harmed from disorganization, and is an article format which leads to disintegration of structure. In my opinion, adding structure to a Wikipedia article is a good thing. -12:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 ( talk)
It seems your only motivation for this stunt is to have Nazi Germany as a bold section-header somewhere... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
That being said, any block of content which is lengthy, valid, and substantial should be highlighted. -13:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 ( talk)
Is there a way we can work towards consensus or are you simply intent on edit warring?
The reason I made the edit to racial profiling that I did is that the ADL's comment was hanging on at the end of the section and, thus, likely not to be read. By grouping the "pro" parts together and grouping the "cons" parts together, the ADL section is less likely to be missed.
You seem intent on simply reverting everything and anything you disagree with. That's article ownership. I believe it's possible to work with you to build consensus, but it's going to require you to meet me half way. Part of meeting me half way is to not simply revert everything and anything you disagree with, but to look for common ground. Are you capable of that? -13:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.143.48.114 (
talk)
Well if you do the corresponding page in Spanish Wikipedia is appallingly stubbish, especially when you consider that the law targets Mexicans and that Mexicans will be the victims of the racial profiling. So, si se habla espanol, puede ayudar con el articulo. Hell even feed it through Google translate. Lilly ( talk) 23:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Lol, why do they have the right to be told there is a law targeting them? They're breaking the law. That's like saying drug dealers have a right to be told there is a law that is targeting them. :P Ink Falls 19:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I went ahead and made a rough translation of the opening paragraph. I would encourage editors who are better at Spanish than I to correct and expand upon the present version. Whatever your political views, it is obvious that the law is of interest to Spanish speakers, and I think we can all agree that spreading the information is a good goal. Lesgles ( talk) 02:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I am a US citizen and I speak Spanish, so I will take a look at the article and see about translations, however, why wasn´t the poll that shows that 81% of registered Hispanic voters in Arizona being against the law not included? I am not much more than a newbie so I have much to learn still. I tend to read through and not edit much and am observing more than editing so when I translate if someone would volunteer to do the edit for me of the article. I was a bit offended by the they are illegal so they have no right to know. Not everyone who speaks Spanish is illegal. I am a citizen and so is my husband as are my children...one of those who have a right to know is my son fighting in Afghanistan...so I take special offense to what seems like barely covered racism to me. 190.6.195.98 ( talk) 01:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)