![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
NumbersUSA. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
NumbersUSA. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
NumbersUSA. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd say it is. The SPLC says it's the most reaasoned of such groups but still calls it anti-immigration. [1] There are other media sources, one of which is this one. The book Anti-immigration in the United States: A Historical Encyclopedia by Kathleen R. Arnold [2] This books says it pushes racist policies. Again there are more. Doug Weller talk 12:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
The previous discussion on this wording was archived, with all those participating in the discussion agreeing it does not belong in the lede.
Let me add my voice to them - this is undue for the lede, and not even supported by the source, which makes no mention of "monitoring" by the SPLC. Editors are encouraged to read
WP:ONUS and see who needs to establish consensus for adding disputed content to an article.
Here come the Suns (
talk)
17:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC) —
Here come the Suns (
talk ·
contribs) is a confirmed
sock puppet of
NoCal100 (
talk ·
contribs).
In regard to this claim: "Henderson also noted that Beck makes it seem as if allowing immigration is done at a cost to Americans, but that is not what research on the issue indicates," I'm curious as to how nobody else noticed that this is totally wrong. Immigration is a heavily-researched topic and there is substantial evidence that Americans, specifically Americans with a high school education or less, are negatively economically impacted by immigration. So I'm wondering, how did nobody else notice this clearly false claim?
Here is a link to the aforementioned publicly funded scientific research study which finds that yes, many Americans experience a net cost from immigration. Check out "5.7 KEY MESSAGES AND CONCLUSIONS" for details. I'll provide some relevant quotes:
"Consistent with theory, native dropouts tend to be more negatively affected by immigration than better-educated natives. Some research also suggests that, among those with low skill levels, the negative effect on native’s wages may be larger for disadvantaged minorities (Altonji and Card, 1991; Borjas et al., 2012) and Hispanic high school dropouts with poor English skills (Cortés, 2008)."
"Most studies find little effect of immigration on the employment of natives. However, recent research (Smith, 2012) does find that native teen employment, measured in hours worked, but not the employment rate, is reduced by immigration." -- Señorsnazzypants talk 07:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I changed the lead to accurately reflect how this organization describes itself as directly quoted in an article by the Associated Press. A user named "Jorm" keeps reinserting an unreliable and unacceptable citation from a far-left, ideological blog called "mother jones", and an unsubstantiated claim that this organization is "anti-immigration" or "anti-immigrant". Advocating for low immigration or reduced immigration is not "anti-immigrant" to any rational observer. 76.69.3.70 ( talk) 20:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.That does not apply here, by any stretch of the imagination. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@ XOR'easter: I was in the middle of filling out a report at WP:ANEW about this nonsense. Glad someone got around to finally stopping them. IHateAccounts ( talk) 20:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@ GeneralNotability: can you do something about this, please? I thought this IP had a block from this page.-- Jorm ( talk) 00:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Beyond My Ken: Regarding your edit which undid my edit, please see WP:CRITS. Article sections dedicated to negative criticism of a topic should be avoided. The section title "Reception" avoids the negative connotation. Plus, a description of an organization as "anti-immigration" or "nativist" is not necessarily negative, making the "Criticism" section title misleading. feminist (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
NumbersUSA. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
NumbersUSA. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
NumbersUSA. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd say it is. The SPLC says it's the most reaasoned of such groups but still calls it anti-immigration. [1] There are other media sources, one of which is this one. The book Anti-immigration in the United States: A Historical Encyclopedia by Kathleen R. Arnold [2] This books says it pushes racist policies. Again there are more. Doug Weller talk 12:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
The previous discussion on this wording was archived, with all those participating in the discussion agreeing it does not belong in the lede.
Let me add my voice to them - this is undue for the lede, and not even supported by the source, which makes no mention of "monitoring" by the SPLC. Editors are encouraged to read
WP:ONUS and see who needs to establish consensus for adding disputed content to an article.
Here come the Suns (
talk)
17:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC) —
Here come the Suns (
talk ·
contribs) is a confirmed
sock puppet of
NoCal100 (
talk ·
contribs).
In regard to this claim: "Henderson also noted that Beck makes it seem as if allowing immigration is done at a cost to Americans, but that is not what research on the issue indicates," I'm curious as to how nobody else noticed that this is totally wrong. Immigration is a heavily-researched topic and there is substantial evidence that Americans, specifically Americans with a high school education or less, are negatively economically impacted by immigration. So I'm wondering, how did nobody else notice this clearly false claim?
Here is a link to the aforementioned publicly funded scientific research study which finds that yes, many Americans experience a net cost from immigration. Check out "5.7 KEY MESSAGES AND CONCLUSIONS" for details. I'll provide some relevant quotes:
"Consistent with theory, native dropouts tend to be more negatively affected by immigration than better-educated natives. Some research also suggests that, among those with low skill levels, the negative effect on native’s wages may be larger for disadvantaged minorities (Altonji and Card, 1991; Borjas et al., 2012) and Hispanic high school dropouts with poor English skills (Cortés, 2008)."
"Most studies find little effect of immigration on the employment of natives. However, recent research (Smith, 2012) does find that native teen employment, measured in hours worked, but not the employment rate, is reduced by immigration." -- Señorsnazzypants talk 07:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I changed the lead to accurately reflect how this organization describes itself as directly quoted in an article by the Associated Press. A user named "Jorm" keeps reinserting an unreliable and unacceptable citation from a far-left, ideological blog called "mother jones", and an unsubstantiated claim that this organization is "anti-immigration" or "anti-immigrant". Advocating for low immigration or reduced immigration is not "anti-immigrant" to any rational observer. 76.69.3.70 ( talk) 20:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.That does not apply here, by any stretch of the imagination. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@ XOR'easter: I was in the middle of filling out a report at WP:ANEW about this nonsense. Glad someone got around to finally stopping them. IHateAccounts ( talk) 20:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@ GeneralNotability: can you do something about this, please? I thought this IP had a block from this page.-- Jorm ( talk) 00:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Beyond My Ken: Regarding your edit which undid my edit, please see WP:CRITS. Article sections dedicated to negative criticism of a topic should be avoided. The section title "Reception" avoids the negative connotation. Plus, a description of an organization as "anti-immigration" or "nativist" is not necessarily negative, making the "Criticism" section title misleading. feminist (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)