![]() | 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 |
Hello Wikipedians,
I am one of the criminal defense attorneys for Joe Arpaio (and not an active editor of Wikipedia). I recommend a change to the paragraph describing the basis for his criminal contempt conviction, which currently states:
"Arpaio was a defendant in a decade-long racial-profiling case in which a federal court issued an injunction barring him from conducting further 'immigration round-ups' that targeted Hispanics.[16] A federal court subsequently found that after the order was issued, Arpaio's office continued to detain "persons for further investigation without reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is being committed.'[16] In 2016, Arpaio was held in civil contempt of court, and the following year, Arpaio was found guilty of criminal contempt of court for 'willfully' violating the order.[16]"
The "subsequently" and "after the order was issued" parts are inaccurate. The criminal contempt conviction was for violating a 2011 ("preliminary") injunction order that had nothing to do with race or targeting Hispanics. (See here for the verdict, which does not mention race or targeting Hispanics; or see here at page 40, paragraph 5, for an actual copy of the 2011 "preliminary injunction" order that he was accused of violating).
The confusion is that there was another ("permanent injunction") order entered later, in 2013, which prohibited targeting Hispanics; but the Sheriff was not convicted of violating that order. In fact, the Government admitted before the criminal trial that it was “unaware of facts” that would support “that he [Sheriff Joe] and other MCSO officers detained plaintiffs on the basis of race,” and it presented no evidence to support that at trial. (See its Answering Brief at page 27, numbered 21 at bottom.)
I recommend that the paragraph be corrected by replacing "barring him from conducting further 'immigration round-ups' that targeted Hispanics" with "barring his office from detaining people based only on the suspicion that they were illegal aliens."
FYI, the actual text of the Preliminary Injunction Order (that he was convicted of violating) was:
"MCSO [the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office] and all of its officers are hereby enjoined from detaining any person based only on knowledge or reasonable belief, without more, that the person is unlawfully present within the United States, because as a matter of law such knowledge does not amount to a reasonable belief that the person either violated or conspired to violate the Arizona human smuggling statute, or any other state or federal criminal law."
Thank you and respectfully - Jack Wilenchik, Esq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilenchik ( talk • contribs) 17:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't have an account. Citation #89 needs to be updated to this or something better:
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.97.49.227 ( talk) 18:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
To everyone who creates and edits important articles like this one while I'm working on my Low-stress, Low-importance articles about people who died a hundred years ago, thank you. --MopTop ( talk) 19:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Joe Arpaio has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Paragraph supported by footnote 14 on this page does not have a sufficient source. The link provided in footnote 14 itself is a search link on the New York Times with the keyword "Joe Arpaio", not a news article relevant to the paragraph. SourceCheck ( talk) 03:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I suggest we don't try to accumulate a mountain of opinion pieces in the "pardon" section. They are all primary sources about what the respective authors think, unless mentioned by additional secondary sources. See WP:OR. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
What Snoogans^2 said. It depends on what piece we're talking about. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 23:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Since this discussion began, much more material has been added regarding the pardon and alleged constitutional issues. Since none of these considerations have anything to do with the subject per se (he simply received the pardon), then beyond mentioning here that (as of now) Sheriff Arpaio received a pardon, nothing more needs to be said. Instead, a new article entitled “The pardoning of Joe Arpaio” should be established. By all means, both sides of the argument should be represented. HistoryBuff14 ( talk) 00:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Of possible interest to editors here: Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#RFC:_New_subsection_under_.22Not_a_Newspaper.22_about_commentary Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether there is a contradiction, or whether I misunderstand US practice. In both lead and headings, Arpaio is listed as Sheriff from 1993, his first election was 1992. Is Sherrif one of those posts where one takes up the job in the year after election? Pincrete ( talk) 10:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Why is the following noteworthy: “Harvard University Professor of Constitutional Law Noah Feldman has argued that issuing this pardon would be an impeachable offence under the U.S. Constitution, as it would mean that Trump was expressing "outright contempt for the ... independent constitutional authority of Article III judges."[215]?
This is one left wing law professor expressing a totally unwarranted opinion. Where in the U.S. Constitution does it exclude a president’s power to issue pardons for federal offenses including contempt of court ones? This is pure political bias by the editor who inserted this. This should be removed ASAP as pure political posturing. This grandstanding law professor holds no public office and his personal, subjective opinion is not noteworthy.:
From Wikipedia:
"In the United States, the pardon power for federal crimes is granted to the President of the United States under Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution which states that the President 'shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment'". The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this language to include the power to grant pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, respites, and amnesties.[23]'
Under: "United States,' "Federal law." HistoryBuff14 ( talk) 16:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
We can't mention that without a source though. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 14:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@ HistoryBuff14: Abuse of power is a valid article of impeachment, and the source makes an argument as to why the pardon can be considered abuse of power. This discussion isn't helping the article any, so unless you want to call an RfC over this I don't see any reason to continue this. RAN1 ( talk) 19:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Why is there a controversy section?-- Mark Miller ( talk) 07:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
References
The lede now buries the conviction in an overlong paragraph within a lot of technicalities. An it cutifies it by calling it "misdemeanor contempt of court" instead. There is no such offense. There are numerous sources documenting that fact. Arpaio's offense is called "criminal contempt of court". He was convicted.
Pardoned or not, he is a criminal. Wikipedia should document that fact. Wefa ( talk) 17:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
One editor has taken it upon himself to make massive changes to this article due to a serious misunderstanding of BLP policy. I just added text that correctly labeled Arpaio's birther claims as "false", but this was immediately reverted by this particular user who said "more neutral. Please do not introduce non neutral wording". I'm not entirely familiar with the content of the rest of the article, but the user appears to have made numerous similar poor edits that fails to reflect the content of reliable sources and is a systemic case of WP:WEASEL. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
The new article has the virtue of not purging objectionable actions. Instead, it turns a set of distinct activities into an undifferentiated ramble. This is an excellent way to increase the effort required for a reader to identify useful content and to discourage people from reading the long, boring section about all the supposedly-bad stuff he's done in his career.
To maintain neutrality, the heading, "Failure to investigate sex crimes" should have been left in; the heading, "13-year-old rape victim ignored" should have been changed to a less-inflammatory version such as "Mishandling of Sabrina Morrison case". Structuring information to maximize the reader's ability to identify and narrow in on the parts which are personally interesting is part of neutrality; burying information in a lengthy, boring blob of text is a great way to prevent people from looking at things you don't want them to see. John Moser ( talk) 15:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
The internal structure of an article may require additional attention, to protect neutrality, and to avoid problems like POV forking and undue weight. Although specific article structures are not, as a rule, prohibited, care must be taken to ensure that the overall presentation is broadly neutral.
Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. [1] It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.
Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view, and watch out for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints. [2]
References
I searched wikipedia for Scott Norberg and was forwarded to this page, yet there isn't a single mention of him. What the hell??? 216.40.152.27 ( talk) 18:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I found references to Scott Norberg on an old version of this page https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Joe_Arpaio&oldid=286594683. There's still a redirect to this section https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Scott_norberg&redirect=no, which is what brought you to this page. Faolin42 ( talk) 22:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The pardon section seems way undue and the reaction section is only tangentially related to Joe Arpaio himself. There is now a
Pardon of Joe Arpaio which is mostly taken from here. I think the section here can be cut to 3-4 paragraphs at most, removing the stuff that isn't really about Joe Arpaio and more about Trump and what he was doing. argued that issuing this pardon would be an impeachable offence
doesn't really need to be here..
Galobtter (
talk)
10:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
This is to inform editors that there is a deletion discussion going on about the newly created article spin-off article Pardon of Joe Arpaio. You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pardon of Joe Arpaio (2nd nomination). pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 18:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Snooganssnoogans: used the edit summary:
also reverted Natureium who deceptively claimed that the cited article used "illegal immigrants" when it in fact used "undocumented immigrants". not the first time I've seen Natureium do this.
The title of the article says "illegals", and there's nothing deceptive about that just because you don't like it. Furthermore, "illegal immigrants" is used several times in this same article. Why do you insist that a different term be used in this instance, rather than using consistent language for the sake of clarity? Natureium ( talk) 20:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Joe Arpaio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Over his entire career - he never had any accomplishments? He never reduced crime? This is probably the most biased Wikipedia Article I've ever seen. What a disgrace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatlock29 ( talk • contribs) 19:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, please add Joey to Category: Trump campaign or Trump administration officials who have been indicted or convicted of federal crimes.
Thanks!
In one place, an editor has copied that neither McClain, Flake, nor the Speaker of the US Congress supported the pardon. I imagine these 3 were all in the same news article.
Try for a minute, if you can, outside all the things said about Arpaio, and consider this one sentence in isolation. Kitchen Sink approach seems to predominate. I agree with the paraphrase. But the intent of the sentence seems tenuous. If it's "all Arizonans", then the Speaker should be omitted or placed somewhere else. THINK! What is the point of listing the Speaker anyway, except Kitchen Sink? Okay, if the intent was to list "notable national figures", then I think Flake should be dropped. He's not a national figure just because he's a Senator. Again, I'm only talking one sentence here. The information for Ryan/Flake opposition can be placed in another sentence. Student7 ( talk) 19:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Should the case of Felix Torres, who also died in Arpaio's jails, be mentioned in the article? More info here: http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/felix-torres-death-in-one-of-joe-arpaios-jails-leads-to-a-lawsuit-6629137 217.150.190.17 ( talk) 16:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
==See also===
![]() | This
edit request to
Joe Arpaio has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Wikipedia page of Paul Penzone to the electoral history of Joe Arpaio's wiki page 2.50.112.163 ( talk) 13:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
All American authoritarian. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 18#All American authoritarian until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,
Rosguill
talk
18:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Mr. Arpaios' highly questionable and seemingly unjust deputized "posses" , which, if FULLY and understandably investigated, would end with criminal charges brought onto him and his said "deputized posses".
Arpaios' separated male, and female " chain gangs", are another entirely thought provoking and sad course of Arizonas prison system under Arpaio. Also they are said to be the only prison chain gangs left since the beginning of the 1900s. From his illegal library raids in search for undocumented aliens, to questionable prostitution stings that resulted in years of jail time awaiting trial, to his "tent city " jail in the Arizona desert reaching temperatures of over120 degrees F, to claiming he himself saved the state of Arizona over 70,000$ by dying prison clothes pink. 2601:18F:F00:8A60:ED85:7488:6D36:1710 ( talk) 20:18, 28 June 2022 (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 |
Hello Wikipedians,
I am one of the criminal defense attorneys for Joe Arpaio (and not an active editor of Wikipedia). I recommend a change to the paragraph describing the basis for his criminal contempt conviction, which currently states:
"Arpaio was a defendant in a decade-long racial-profiling case in which a federal court issued an injunction barring him from conducting further 'immigration round-ups' that targeted Hispanics.[16] A federal court subsequently found that after the order was issued, Arpaio's office continued to detain "persons for further investigation without reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is being committed.'[16] In 2016, Arpaio was held in civil contempt of court, and the following year, Arpaio was found guilty of criminal contempt of court for 'willfully' violating the order.[16]"
The "subsequently" and "after the order was issued" parts are inaccurate. The criminal contempt conviction was for violating a 2011 ("preliminary") injunction order that had nothing to do with race or targeting Hispanics. (See here for the verdict, which does not mention race or targeting Hispanics; or see here at page 40, paragraph 5, for an actual copy of the 2011 "preliminary injunction" order that he was accused of violating).
The confusion is that there was another ("permanent injunction") order entered later, in 2013, which prohibited targeting Hispanics; but the Sheriff was not convicted of violating that order. In fact, the Government admitted before the criminal trial that it was “unaware of facts” that would support “that he [Sheriff Joe] and other MCSO officers detained plaintiffs on the basis of race,” and it presented no evidence to support that at trial. (See its Answering Brief at page 27, numbered 21 at bottom.)
I recommend that the paragraph be corrected by replacing "barring him from conducting further 'immigration round-ups' that targeted Hispanics" with "barring his office from detaining people based only on the suspicion that they were illegal aliens."
FYI, the actual text of the Preliminary Injunction Order (that he was convicted of violating) was:
"MCSO [the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office] and all of its officers are hereby enjoined from detaining any person based only on knowledge or reasonable belief, without more, that the person is unlawfully present within the United States, because as a matter of law such knowledge does not amount to a reasonable belief that the person either violated or conspired to violate the Arizona human smuggling statute, or any other state or federal criminal law."
Thank you and respectfully - Jack Wilenchik, Esq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilenchik ( talk • contribs) 17:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't have an account. Citation #89 needs to be updated to this or something better:
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.97.49.227 ( talk) 18:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
To everyone who creates and edits important articles like this one while I'm working on my Low-stress, Low-importance articles about people who died a hundred years ago, thank you. --MopTop ( talk) 19:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Joe Arpaio has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Paragraph supported by footnote 14 on this page does not have a sufficient source. The link provided in footnote 14 itself is a search link on the New York Times with the keyword "Joe Arpaio", not a news article relevant to the paragraph. SourceCheck ( talk) 03:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I suggest we don't try to accumulate a mountain of opinion pieces in the "pardon" section. They are all primary sources about what the respective authors think, unless mentioned by additional secondary sources. See WP:OR. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
What Snoogans^2 said. It depends on what piece we're talking about. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 23:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Since this discussion began, much more material has been added regarding the pardon and alleged constitutional issues. Since none of these considerations have anything to do with the subject per se (he simply received the pardon), then beyond mentioning here that (as of now) Sheriff Arpaio received a pardon, nothing more needs to be said. Instead, a new article entitled “The pardoning of Joe Arpaio” should be established. By all means, both sides of the argument should be represented. HistoryBuff14 ( talk) 00:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Of possible interest to editors here: Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#RFC:_New_subsection_under_.22Not_a_Newspaper.22_about_commentary Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether there is a contradiction, or whether I misunderstand US practice. In both lead and headings, Arpaio is listed as Sheriff from 1993, his first election was 1992. Is Sherrif one of those posts where one takes up the job in the year after election? Pincrete ( talk) 10:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Why is the following noteworthy: “Harvard University Professor of Constitutional Law Noah Feldman has argued that issuing this pardon would be an impeachable offence under the U.S. Constitution, as it would mean that Trump was expressing "outright contempt for the ... independent constitutional authority of Article III judges."[215]?
This is one left wing law professor expressing a totally unwarranted opinion. Where in the U.S. Constitution does it exclude a president’s power to issue pardons for federal offenses including contempt of court ones? This is pure political bias by the editor who inserted this. This should be removed ASAP as pure political posturing. This grandstanding law professor holds no public office and his personal, subjective opinion is not noteworthy.:
From Wikipedia:
"In the United States, the pardon power for federal crimes is granted to the President of the United States under Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution which states that the President 'shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment'". The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this language to include the power to grant pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, respites, and amnesties.[23]'
Under: "United States,' "Federal law." HistoryBuff14 ( talk) 16:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
We can't mention that without a source though. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 14:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@ HistoryBuff14: Abuse of power is a valid article of impeachment, and the source makes an argument as to why the pardon can be considered abuse of power. This discussion isn't helping the article any, so unless you want to call an RfC over this I don't see any reason to continue this. RAN1 ( talk) 19:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Why is there a controversy section?-- Mark Miller ( talk) 07:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
References
The lede now buries the conviction in an overlong paragraph within a lot of technicalities. An it cutifies it by calling it "misdemeanor contempt of court" instead. There is no such offense. There are numerous sources documenting that fact. Arpaio's offense is called "criminal contempt of court". He was convicted.
Pardoned or not, he is a criminal. Wikipedia should document that fact. Wefa ( talk) 17:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
One editor has taken it upon himself to make massive changes to this article due to a serious misunderstanding of BLP policy. I just added text that correctly labeled Arpaio's birther claims as "false", but this was immediately reverted by this particular user who said "more neutral. Please do not introduce non neutral wording". I'm not entirely familiar with the content of the rest of the article, but the user appears to have made numerous similar poor edits that fails to reflect the content of reliable sources and is a systemic case of WP:WEASEL. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
The new article has the virtue of not purging objectionable actions. Instead, it turns a set of distinct activities into an undifferentiated ramble. This is an excellent way to increase the effort required for a reader to identify useful content and to discourage people from reading the long, boring section about all the supposedly-bad stuff he's done in his career.
To maintain neutrality, the heading, "Failure to investigate sex crimes" should have been left in; the heading, "13-year-old rape victim ignored" should have been changed to a less-inflammatory version such as "Mishandling of Sabrina Morrison case". Structuring information to maximize the reader's ability to identify and narrow in on the parts which are personally interesting is part of neutrality; burying information in a lengthy, boring blob of text is a great way to prevent people from looking at things you don't want them to see. John Moser ( talk) 15:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
The internal structure of an article may require additional attention, to protect neutrality, and to avoid problems like POV forking and undue weight. Although specific article structures are not, as a rule, prohibited, care must be taken to ensure that the overall presentation is broadly neutral.
Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. [1] It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.
Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view, and watch out for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints. [2]
References
I searched wikipedia for Scott Norberg and was forwarded to this page, yet there isn't a single mention of him. What the hell??? 216.40.152.27 ( talk) 18:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I found references to Scott Norberg on an old version of this page https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Joe_Arpaio&oldid=286594683. There's still a redirect to this section https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Scott_norberg&redirect=no, which is what brought you to this page. Faolin42 ( talk) 22:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The pardon section seems way undue and the reaction section is only tangentially related to Joe Arpaio himself. There is now a
Pardon of Joe Arpaio which is mostly taken from here. I think the section here can be cut to 3-4 paragraphs at most, removing the stuff that isn't really about Joe Arpaio and more about Trump and what he was doing. argued that issuing this pardon would be an impeachable offence
doesn't really need to be here..
Galobtter (
talk)
10:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
This is to inform editors that there is a deletion discussion going on about the newly created article spin-off article Pardon of Joe Arpaio. You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pardon of Joe Arpaio (2nd nomination). pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 18:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Snooganssnoogans: used the edit summary:
also reverted Natureium who deceptively claimed that the cited article used "illegal immigrants" when it in fact used "undocumented immigrants". not the first time I've seen Natureium do this.
The title of the article says "illegals", and there's nothing deceptive about that just because you don't like it. Furthermore, "illegal immigrants" is used several times in this same article. Why do you insist that a different term be used in this instance, rather than using consistent language for the sake of clarity? Natureium ( talk) 20:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Joe Arpaio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Over his entire career - he never had any accomplishments? He never reduced crime? This is probably the most biased Wikipedia Article I've ever seen. What a disgrace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatlock29 ( talk • contribs) 19:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, please add Joey to Category: Trump campaign or Trump administration officials who have been indicted or convicted of federal crimes.
Thanks!
In one place, an editor has copied that neither McClain, Flake, nor the Speaker of the US Congress supported the pardon. I imagine these 3 were all in the same news article.
Try for a minute, if you can, outside all the things said about Arpaio, and consider this one sentence in isolation. Kitchen Sink approach seems to predominate. I agree with the paraphrase. But the intent of the sentence seems tenuous. If it's "all Arizonans", then the Speaker should be omitted or placed somewhere else. THINK! What is the point of listing the Speaker anyway, except Kitchen Sink? Okay, if the intent was to list "notable national figures", then I think Flake should be dropped. He's not a national figure just because he's a Senator. Again, I'm only talking one sentence here. The information for Ryan/Flake opposition can be placed in another sentence. Student7 ( talk) 19:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Should the case of Felix Torres, who also died in Arpaio's jails, be mentioned in the article? More info here: http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/felix-torres-death-in-one-of-joe-arpaios-jails-leads-to-a-lawsuit-6629137 217.150.190.17 ( talk) 16:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
==See also===
![]() | This
edit request to
Joe Arpaio has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Wikipedia page of Paul Penzone to the electoral history of Joe Arpaio's wiki page 2.50.112.163 ( talk) 13:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
All American authoritarian. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 18#All American authoritarian until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,
Rosguill
talk
18:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Mr. Arpaios' highly questionable and seemingly unjust deputized "posses" , which, if FULLY and understandably investigated, would end with criminal charges brought onto him and his said "deputized posses".
Arpaios' separated male, and female " chain gangs", are another entirely thought provoking and sad course of Arizonas prison system under Arpaio. Also they are said to be the only prison chain gangs left since the beginning of the 1900s. From his illegal library raids in search for undocumented aliens, to questionable prostitution stings that resulted in years of jail time awaiting trial, to his "tent city " jail in the Arizona desert reaching temperatures of over120 degrees F, to claiming he himself saved the state of Arizona over 70,000$ by dying prison clothes pink. 2601:18F:F00:8A60:ED85:7488:6D36:1710 ( talk) 20:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)