Talk:Arizona SB 1070

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)Reply

It doesn't target Mexicans, and we don't have anything to do with Spanish wikipedia. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556^{> haneʼ} 23:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes it does target Mexicans. This law was drafted, written, and voted for by people with ties to various hate groups. The largest fraction of illegals in the state are from Mexico. The class action suit being brought against it was from a mexican guy who was pulled over multiple times and asked for papers. The law was passed within weeks of a law banning a mexican ethnic study class and re-assignment of Spanish speaking teachers. On nearly every internet site with open comments on this law you see a never ending parade of people mocking mexican culture. 67.246.175.103 (talk) 08:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

On nearly every Internet site with open comments on any political topic you will find the lowest dregs of humanity. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

And my other 5 points? 67.246.175.103 (talk) 13:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wait until the law goes into effect and see what actually happens. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I wonder if they said that in south africa or germany.67.246.175.103 (talk) 05:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

They say that about President Barack Obama, and he's made his position known. 'They' say it all the time for multiple views. 70.162.140.134 (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Feeding it through google translate is a terrible idea, they don't give nearly an accurate translation. Besides, last I check most Mexicans here speak English, it would be just the illegals who uld need that page. Ink Falls 18:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree that feeding it through Google Translate is an ugly idea. Is there any data on who reads the Spanish-language version? Tedperl (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

You can get readership stats. The English version is being read by about 2,500 – 5,000 people a day under this name, with another 500 – 1,000 people a day under its old name (the readership stats tool doesn't coalesce redirects). In comparison, the Spanish version is being read by about 150 – 200 people a day, a lot less. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well I think it is important and anyone who wishes to help me would be an uber-good person (not that you guys who don't aren't) and the whole thing about the law targeting Latinos was my opinion and let me point out that in response to someone's comment that it would be just the illegals who need it: THE ILLEGALS ARE THE ONES BEING TARGETED SO THEY SHOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW AND BE ALERT! (Not yelling there I just don't know how to do bold/underline). Lilly (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Posting 'warnings' only in Spanish would be discriminatory against all those who don't speak Spanish. Such as Canadians or Chinese (Origins) 70.162.140.134 (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Or those from "Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Lebanon, [or] Sudan" (Terrorists crossing AZ border into U.S.?) Be careful when accusing others of actions, irony is a hard defamer to shake. 70.162.140.134 (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Spanish-to-English example (from above) translate.google.com showing why automated translation isn't the ideal method. Perhaps linking the Spanish page to this one would be better? (Linking as in an achor/hyperlink, not redirect, just for clarification) 70.162.140.134 (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

70.162.140.134, please do not edit or change other peoples' past contributions to Talk pages. These are signed with the name of the editor and the time of the posting, and if someone goes in and makes changes to them later, nobody has any idea of who really said what. As for linking to article in the Spanish Wikipedia, those links already exist, on the left-hand-side menu list under "Languages". Currently there are articles in the Spanish and Hebrew Wikipedias. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Rodger that, makes sense.

Is that what the language links are for? Hm. In all my years of Wikipedia use I've never used them, tuned them out. I wonder if others have as well? Meh. 70.162.140.134 (talk) 09:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Amazing we can have this discussion and yet there are people still claiming it is not targeted against Mexicans.67.246.175.103 (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Some would say it targets those who are killing the Rule of Law (which is a main pillar of the American Experiment). 70.162.140.134 (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Those people have never once driven faster then the posted limit, have come to complete stops at every single stop sign, sort there trash perfectly each and every time, reported to the IRS every penny they have ever found on the sidewalk, and have never placed there bag next to them on an empty subway train? Travis in travisland (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

The 81% poll wasn't in the article because I wasn't aware of it. It's now been added. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Meh, there are racists on both sides of the issue. The interwebs afford a great deal of anonymity, and some people brazenly use it. Much to the chagrin of the civil souls, also on both sides of the issue. They/we are hoping and working to make the racists minorities in the groups. The problem is they're so d*** loud and obnoxious (people assume they speak for the whole group, when we know they don't). 70.162.140.134 (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

One or more editors have apparently been removing all mention of ACTUAL boycotts against Arizona as a direct result of the bill. The article now says only that "boycotts were proposed" in both the lead section and in the boycott section. Whether or not the editors agree with the boycott by the City of Los Angeles and others, to remove all mention of it is very deceptive. I shall now try to restore it. Facts707 (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's hard to measure actual boycotts, capitalized or otherwise, at this point. Will the resolutions by SF, LA, and the other city governments actually result in any significant reduction in employee travel to Arizona? Or in measurably less business by those cities with companies based in Arizona? Talk is one thing, results always another. If you see any future stories in the media that point to actual numbers, please include them. In the meantime, it made no sense to have the city government actions split in two different places in the section, so I've coalesced them. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

If they are eventually included the opposing boycotts (Arizona boycotting ____) should also be considered for inclusion. http://kfyi.com/pages/broomhead.html is the only page I'm aware of... 70.162.140.134 (talk) 08:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I would like to see more on the anti-boycott movement, sometimes called the 'buycott' movement, but I didn't see anything at that URL, which was more of a jumbled news feed than anything else. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it seems to be quite a jumble of...everything. (Inc. the World Cup :) Some better pages:

• [1] (Ironically, a google search of "arizona fights back" yielded a site sponsored by the DNC against SB1070 :)
• http://www.azfightsback.com/ (A list of AZ boycott-ers for AZ to return in boycotting)

Sorry I don't have much time to help out too much here :( 70.162.140.134 (talk) 06:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

These are just advocacy websites. What's needed are secondary news sources that indicate the scope and level of success of any anti-boycott efforts. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Some current discussion I've sparsely overheard is the constitutionality of said boycotts. Various court decisions have been mentioned (Dean Milk v. City of Madison (1951)) for example) indicating that any interstate commerce interference is not allowed. Perhaps this can help someone with some time find some reliable sources, if they exist at the current time. I'm not sure where to look, myself. (Not a lawyer :) 70.162.140.134 (talk) 06:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

This, on the other hand, is a good point, relative to the actions that various city governments have taken against Arizona. For example, this post by Ilya Shapiro of the CATO Institute says such actions are likely unconstitutional. I'll look for some more along this line. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've now added a mention of this. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

i removed this sentence. The article cited as a source is quoted exactly so right there seems like a copyright problem. Also, the article really doesnt prove that fact at all. It just says it with no study, quotes, or anything else to back it up. Here is the article that was cited as a source:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36617_Page2.html

Travis in travisland (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was on the fence about this when someone first added it, and I agree with removing it now. Politico has a tendency to pronounce trends before there's enough data in support, and I think this was a case of that. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

original wording "This was due to their having established, powerful Hispanic communities, deep cultural ties to Mexico, past experience with bruising political battles over the issue (such as with California Proposition 187 in the 1990s), and the perception among their populations that illegal immigration was less severe a problem."

new wording This was attributed to their having established, powerful Hispanic communities, deep cultural ties to Mexico, past experience with bruising political battles over the issue (such as with California Proposition 187 in the 1990s), and the perception among their populations that illegal immigration was less severe a problem.

I know it sounds like weasel wording, but I stand by this. The source provided is a dead-link, so we dont know how much effort they went into to verify these claims. If someone could produce a nice study showing these were the causes of the symptoms listed then fine, but in the meantime it just sounds like a Ad hominem circumstantial. Travis in travisland (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I found an alternate site that's still working for this AP story, this MSNBC page (or this Salon page), and changed the article cite to it. It seems a well-researched and considered story, which looks at the question of why the other border states have acted differently through the lens of history and also quotes a variety of people involved from different perspectives. So I've restored the previous language here, since weasel wording is best avoided when there's a chance to say something more solid. If you know of some alternate explanations for why the other border states haven't rushed to follow Arizona, we can consider those as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Basic human morality? Travis in travisland (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you have a solid source stating that the distribution of morality among the populace and political leadership differs in Arizona from nearby states, yes we can include that. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Haha, fair enough. Well at least the Texans didnt ban MLK day. Travis in travisland (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

After many heated encounters with propaganda-type rubbish about AZ SB1070, I read the Wikipedia article. I expected the article to begin with an exact quotation of the law, but instead read a description of (and many references to) it, followed by copious positive and negative criticism. "...The law makes it a state misdemeanor crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying registration documents required by federal law, authorizes state and local law enforcement of federal immigration laws, and cracks down on those sheltering, hiring and transporting illegal aliens..."--W8IMP (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not quite sure what the point is here; are you suggesting we include the entire texts of both bills? The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize rather than include entire texts of laws, court opinions, or whatever; were it otherwise, the key points would often get lost in the clutter. From the beginning, I think we've provided adequate links to the official texts, and where appropriate, directed the reader to specific sections. If it's thought that we've omitted mention of a key provision of either SB 1070 or HB 2162, then that omission should probably be addressed by expanding the section Provisions. JeffConrad (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

The article's introduction is meant to cover the entire topic of the law, from what it does to all the reactions it has produced. The first section in the article's body, "Provisions", is meant to describe what the law actually says, with no opinions or reactions included. That section does contain a few quotes of the law's text, but as JeffConrad says, it has to be a summary description of the law rather than quote large chunks. There are five or more links at the bottom of the article to the law's actual text, so I don't think anyone can miss the opportunity to read it for themselves. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks folks--I stand corrected. My criticism of the article was that after reading a dozen of the 172 footnotes, I incorrectly concluded that there was no link to the laws as enacted. I went back and found both links under the "References" section. I never spent one minute in a law school classroom, but I found the language much less arcane than the typical pile of real estate closing documents. Having read the laws, I feel sufficiently capable of holding an opinion on them. President Truman once said, "Our government should never be so complicated that anyone with a high school education cannot understand it."--W8IMP (talk) 11:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have much difficulty determining how a driver's license suffices to prove citizenship. In '04 my son bought a bus ticket to attend a conference in Toronto. When he attempted to board the bus, the driver told him to go home and get a birth certificate. Customs Canada would not let him into the country based on his Michigan driver's license, which proves residence, but not citizenship.

Reading the article, one cannot determine what forms of identification constitute proof of citizenship. The article implies that Arizona considers a driver's license or state I.D. issued by that state and "...other forms of identification which require proof of citizenship..." as sufficient proof, but gives no way to determine which government entities do, (or do not) require such proof.

When we obtained New Mexico drivers' licenses, no one asked us for proof of citizenship. (By the way, I would rather share the road with "illegals" who have any kind of driver's license than with people who have not demonstrated the ability to safely operate a motor vehicle). If I am in Arizona after SB 1070 goes into effect and pulled over in Tucson (a city I frequently visit) and cannot produce a birth certificate or passport, am I going to jail?--W8IMP (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Our charter is to describe the law, not comment on it. Many people have suggested that there may be problems, and perhaps Constitutional issues, in applying the law; all we can do is see what, if anything, happens and describe it at such time as may be appropriate. Note, however, that the law says only that certain documents are presumptive evidence of not violating the law; it does not say that anyone who cannot prove citizenship will be arrested. An arrest can be made only if a peace officer has probable cause that a person detained for some other reason

1. Is an alien,
2. Who is required to register and carry registration documents, and
3. Is not in possession of the required registration documents.

As we've discussed previously, no one yet knows what will constitute reasonable suspicion to inquire about immigration status, or probable cause to arrest for violating the statute. We can't address this topic until there is some actual experience with implementation of the law. JeffConrad (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Odd that the government made a law that it doesnt know how to interpret or enforce. Well, I guess it will be open to the "peace" officer in charge to arbitrary enforce the law he sits fit. Travis in travisland (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

"...IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION."

Can one take this to mean that every law enforcement officer in the State of Arizona will have a complete list of what forms of identification constitute legal presence?--W8IMP (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

As stated above, we're not here to interpret the law. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

The training materials developed by AZPOST (Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board) include a document, Presumptive Identification, listing forms of presumptively acceptable identification. JeffConrad (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

This article should be split as more than half the article now is about reaction to SB1070 rather than describing what SB1070 is. I recommend that the article be split into an article on "SB1070 Reaction" (including pro (such as the fact that over half a million dollars has been donated to a defense fund) and con (such as all the lawsuits brought against SB1070)) and an article on SB1070 (describing what exactly it is and isn't). -03:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.178.220 (talk)

I'd rather not split it. Readership of the article is already low given its national prominence, and split out articles always get a lot fewer views than the main. And the name would have to be Reactions to the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, which is beyond awkward. In part the article is long because it's being written as events happen, and it's impossible to know how they will turn out and what will be important in the long run. The article can be reshaped in the future once things are better understood. But anyway, thanks for the mention of the donations mark, I've included it. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

The most common term for this act is SB1070. So, the article on it's reactions would be "SB1070 Challenges". The article, as is, is very confusing. For example, since the majority of the article focuses on reaction to the act and -not- on what the act actually says, if the article is skimmed, it is not at all clear that SB1070 prohibits racist application. Further, the training for SB1070 isn't referenced at all and, so, neither is the fact that law enforcement is trained not to apply it in a racist manner. -17:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.178.220 (talk)

I would like the article to go back to its prior name of "Arizona SB1070", but I lost all the name discussions. The very first section of the article, "Provisions", describes what the article actually says, with no reactions for or against. Even a skimmer should see that. Whether the article will in practice preclude racist application is somewhat that will be known after it goes into effect and experience with it is gained. As for your final comment, the training for SB1070 is referenced: "She [Brewer] vowed to ensure that police forces had proper training relative to the law and civil rights,[2][45] and soon said she would issue an executive order requiring additional training for all officers on how to implement SB 1070 without engaging in racial profiling;[46] the order was issued on April 23, 2010.[47] Ultimately, she said, "We have to trust our law enforcement."[2]" Wasted Time R (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

The training isn't being discussed (you do know that the actual training videos have been released, yes? and that they emphasize that the law is not to be enforced in a racially biased manner?), only Brewer's promises about the training are mentioned. There is, in fact, more weight given in this article to criticism that the law is racist than is given to the fact that the training emphasizes that the law is not to be enforced in a racist manner, that the law makes clear that race can't be a factor in developing reasonable doubt, that even the US Government isn't bringing claims of racism against the law in court, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.178.220 (talk • contribs) -14:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Agree w/ WT: Splitting the article makes no sense - separating the actual provisions of the law from the reactions invites a barrage of POV in the latter w/o a possibility of pointing to the section above and saying "read what the law actually says". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

There's a barrage of POV in the article as is as well as undue weight on criticism/boycotts/lawsuits/amicus curiae/etc. against SB1070. I still don't understand what the difference is suppossed to be between the Reaction section and the Challenges to Legality and Constitutionality section and both of those sections together count for the overwhelming majority of the article (undue weight).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.178.220 (talk • contribs) -14:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I also agree that splitting the article makes little sense. Though much of the article covers the reaction to the law, absent that reaction, the law would not be sufficiently notable to merit an article, as we've previously discussed. Incidentally, I'm fine with changing the title of this article to “Arizona SB 1070”, even though it's a bit misleading because the changes resulting from HB 2162 are important. Perhaps “Arizona SB 1070/HB 2162”, as is used in some places in the AZPOST training videos, would be another possibility (as I recall, the solidus is now OK in a title).

It might be worth adding mention of the AZPOST training materials and including a link (http://www.azpost.state.az.us/SB1070infocenter.htm). The best bang for the buck is probably in Arizona Immigration Statutes Outline, an 11-page PDF. The direct-view video is slow to load and the size is quite small; the downloads from the FTP site are better, but are fairly large at close to 600 MB. If the training materials are mentioned, I think the article should avoid passing judgment; although the videos speak often of avoiding racial profiling, they've already received a fair amount of criticism for some of the things that might lead to reasonable suspicion (e.g., inability to give a home address—recall our previous discussion of this in light of A.R.S. 13-2412). JeffConrad (talk) 07:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

By the way, I really think the reason readership of this article is really low is that Wikipedia has a reputation for being untrustworthy on political issues. This article is a good example of why. As was pointed out, this article primarily is about the reaction to the act, not the act itself (that is to say, the article gives undue weight to the reaction - by word count percentage, the article is primarily discussing reaction to the act). For example, most of the discussion on alleged racism is describing what critics have said of the act, not what the act and supporting legislation actually says, what the training materials actually say, etc. The article is disorganized and repeats criticism of the act. It doesn't discuss many significant components to any real depth (such as the idea of concurrent enforcement). Largely, the article is a shambles. I don't go to Wikipedia to find out about political issues because Wikipedia isn't reliable. -16:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.178.220 (talk)

It's getting difficult for me to see what this has to do with splitting the article ... As to not saying enough about what the law actually says, what significant elements have been left out? And what else should be said about concurrent enforcement? I agree that we don't discuss it at length, but should we? We mention the key case on that topic, Gonzales v. City of Peoria, which also seems to be the one to which the training videos allude (they don't mention the case by name). I suppose we could examine how other circuits have ruled if that's felt necessary, but that would seem to approach a topic that actually might belong in a separate article.

Please sign your comments with four tildes (“~~~~”) as called for just below the ‘Save page’ button. JeffConrad (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Look at the concurrent enforcment section. There's very, very little signal to noise.

The section says that the ACLU criticized the statute as a violation of the Supremacy Clause. But the article is completely mute on how exactly the ACLU believed the statute violates the Supremacy Clause. Kobach believes the law embodies the doctrine of concurrent enforcement, but the article says nothing about why he believes this. Really, the only thing in the article section is "bitch, bitch, bitch". Beyond saying (paraphrased), "people disagree with regards to the Supremacy Clause and concurrent enforcement", the section is vaporous - there's no information here which can't be gained after about a 5 second google search.-65.185.178.220 (talk) 11:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Again, it gets down to how much this article should include about topics such as “concurrent enforcement”. One easy option would be to include Kris Kobach's direct comments as an additional source, (e.g., this article at the National Law Journal web site. I agree that the ACLU press release is a bit vague, though the updated version (to which I've changed the link) is slightly better. JeffConrad (talk) 03:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

The crux of the issue is the question of how much this article should address why some people believe that SB1070 does or does not embody the concept of concurrent enforcement. I think that question's answer is pretty clear. In as much as we've decided to put in the article that there is a debate, we should describe the nature of that debate.-65.185.178.220 (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree that the second sentence in the paragraph that now begins “Between 2000 and 2008 ...” is a bit of a non-sequitur. But it's even worse if the first sentence is eliminated. Perhaps we should begin with the reason the topic is even mentioned; quoting the source, “It is a connection that those who support stronger enforcement of immigration laws and tighter borders often make: rising crime at the border necessitates tougher enforcement.” Obviously, we'd need to reword or provide context for “connection”. JeffConrad (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you want to go that route, then the quote really isn't relevant because the author of the piece was looking at metro crime rates, not border crime rates. Border crime rates have -increased-, not decreased, from 2000 to 2008 (see http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2010/06/on-the-border.html). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.178.220 (talk) 03:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

The JustOneMinute blog hardly qualifies as a reliable source, and in any event, it doesn't support your contention.

Again, please sign your posts with four tildes. JeffConrad (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

The JustOneMinute blog was put in the Discussion page (not the article) for clarity - for your own education. The FBI statistics it references are reliable, though.-65.185.178.220 (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

The FBI statistics are presumptively reliable, but they don't support the premise that border crime has increased. While I agree with the blogger that border areas are probably rural, it does not follow that all rural areas are on the border. The current statement that crime in Arizona decreased between 2000 and 2008 is true; there has been a slight increase in crime rates in non-MSA cities, and a significant increase in rural areas, but without more information, we can't relate it to the border or illegal aliens. Moreover, only about 4% of the population live in rural areas, so to make a big deal of this without qualification or more information would be misleading. I suppose if it's really felt important, we could mention that rural crime has increased, but crime for MSAs and the state overall have decreased; even then, I think we'd need to mention that 93% of the population reside in MSA cities.

As I said previously, this section needs some work, probably a couple of sentences to give more continuity to the flow of ideas. JeffConrad (talk) 21:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

You said and I quote, "Perhaps we should begin with the reason the topic is even mentioned; quoting the source, 'It is a connection that those who support stronger enforcement of immigration laws and tighter borders often make: rising crime at the border necessitates tougher enforcement.'" I pointed out that alonog the majority of the border, the crime rate has actually -increased-. In reply, "to make a big deal of this without qualification or more information would be misleading". I agree. and for the EXACT same reason, making a big deal of the reduction in crime rates in metro areas (as you've done by reinserting the quote under discussion) without qualification or more information is similarly misleading.-65.185.178.220 (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

The article and Archibold state (correctly) that overall crime has decreased, and the article makes no statement about border crime. You claim that border crime has increased but cite nothing in support, so I don't know that the current wording needs qualification. JeffConrad (talk) 00:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

The majority of the border isn't in the metro area. That's too obvious a point to have to point out to you. The majority of the border is in the rural area. Again, too obvious a point to have to point out to you. The rural area has seen a growth in the crime rate (as per the FBI statistics). Therefore, the majority of the border has seen a growth in crime rate (as per FBI statistics). This is grade school level logic. Help me understand why you aren't grasping it.-65.185.178.220 (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

You might want to look at a map. Most of the major MSAs are in the southern part of the state, and Tucson, the second-largest MSA, is only about 50 miles from the border. The vast majority of the state's rural area is to the north. Absent county-by-county statistics, there is nothing to support a claim that border crime has increased. If you have reliable additional information, state it, but don't cite the FBI statistics as supporting what they do not support. JeffConrad (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have to admit that I honestly didn't expect someone to argue that since there's a metro area fifty miles from the border, that must mean that the majority of the border area is metro. I mean, wow! -166.132.209.254 (talk) 03:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I suggest you carefully reread what I actually said. The majority of the state's rural area is in the north of the state, not near the border. Without a county-by-county breakdown, we don't know the crime rates for specific rural areas. This discussion is becoming absurd. We have supported what's in the article with a presumptively reliable source. If someone who disagrees can provide an equally reliable source that shows otherwise, it's reasonable to use it; otherwise, this discussion has run its course. JeffConrad (talk) 04:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

There are four metro areas "close" (within 50 miles) to the border. These are Siera Vista (153.5 suare miles), Nogales (20.8) square miles, Yuma (106.7 square miles), and Tuscan (880 square miles). That's a total square mileage of 1161 square miles. Basic geometry, divide that by 50 miles (the height of the area we're looking at), and you end up with a border about 23.22 miles in length if the area near the border is all metro. The border would have to be less than 47 miles in length if half the area was metro. Grade school math shows that the huge majority of the border area is rural - and, like I said, in rural areas, the crime rate is increasing.-65.185.178.220 (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I already sent one warning to your talk page. Please refrain from this "grade school math"-phrasing and similar attacks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

A warning for what, though? You think it's wrong to point out that grade school math teaches Area = length * height or basic addition? The fact is, though, that any grade schooler can do basic geometry. I know I was doing it by the fifth grade.-65.185.178.220 (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

You are implying that those who disagree with you are incapable of such calculations. Please stop. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, I'm not. I don't know if they are incapable of such calculations, if they are willingly resisting doing such calculations, if they are just being distracted by everyday life, or something else. All I'm saying is that these kinds of calculations can be done by any grade schooler.-65.185.178.220 (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm puzzled by where you think I said the border area was not rural; I simply said that because the major MSAs are in the southern part of Arizona, the vast majority of the state's rural area is north of the major MSAs. Without looking at a map that shows all areas that are not MSA cities and not non-MSA cities, it's tough to be sure, but I would guess that the vast majority of border areas are rural. “Border area”, of course, is a subset of “rural area”, so we can probably say that all border areas are rural, but we can't say that all rural areas are border areas. This is simple logic at whatever level you're comfortable with. Because we don't have a breakdown of crime within rural areas, we don't know whether crime rates in border areas are higher than, less than, or the same as the rates for all rural areas in the state. JeffConrad (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've put the section in question back to where it was before this discussion. Although I think it needs work, it's at least correct, if perhaps not the entire story.

• The wording implied large increases in property crime rates in non-MSA cities and rural areas. But the stated rates apply only to violent crime; property crime rates have apparently decreased by anywhere from 9% to 23% (depending on what is compared) in non-MSA cities, and have apparently increased by 21% in rural areas, assuming the 2000 and 2008 data for the latter can be compared (see below).
• An op-ed seems mighty questionable as a reliable source, especially when it cites nothing to support its statements.
• The op-ed links to Tom Maguire's JustOneMinute blog, so apparently that is the actual source, and it should be indicated as such. But that blog hardly qualifies as a reliable source either, and it is extremely POV. Additionally, Maguire makes the unsupported claim that if rural crime is up, so is border crime, so I seriously question his suitability as a reference here.
• Maguire's blog cites FBI statistics, which presumably are reliable. But the FBI's rural statistics for 2000 (“rural”) are stated slightly differently than those for 2008 (“nonmetropolitan counties”); the areas encompassed may be the same, or they may not, so I don't know if the comparison is valid. I think we need to be sure before making the comparison; after a quick review of the explanatory documents on the FBI web site, I've been unable to resolve it. In any event, the burden of proof falls upon the editor adding the material.

Although Archibold's statements seem to be correct, I agree that they may not tell the entire story. A comprehensive treatment could be quite lengthy; we'd need to resolve whether the 2008 and 2000 figures are directly comparable, and we'd need to make clear whether we're talking about violent crime (apparently the basis for Maguire's claims) or overall crime. Assuming we can resolve the validity of the 2000 vs. 2008 “rural” figures, we perhaps could say something to the effect of “while there has been a decrease in crime rates statewide and in major cities, there has been a significant increase in the crime rate in rural areas”, giving whatever figures we find are appropriate. If we cannot confirm that the 2000 and 2008 figures are directly comparable, I think we need to either stick with Archibold's statement or perhaps remove this material, including the second sentence, altogether. In any event, if we keep this material, we need an additional sentence or two to provide context—as it stands, it's a non-sequitur. JeffConrad (talk) 09:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Every argument you've made against the FBI statistics for rural areas applies equally to the statistics for metro areas. Therefore, if you are going to remove the statistics on the rural areas, you should remove the statistics on the metro areas as well. That would be neutral and I would consider it acceptable.-65.185.178.220 (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

The statement we had was for the entire state of Arizona, not the metro areas. And it was supported by the NY Times article, a presumptively reliable source.

Bloggers, especially those as opinionated as Maguire, aren't reliable sources. If we were to attempt a breakdown by area, perhaps we could directly cite the FBI data, but we'd need to synthesize the overall numbers, and I don't know if we can go that far without getting into original research.

There is another, and arguably greater, issue, however: the data show a decline in the population of both non-MSA cities and a significant decline in population in rural areas, which makes no sense. Something in the methodology must have changed. I wasn't the only one to notice this; James Alan Fox made a more extensive analysis than Maguire in a blog on the Boston Globe site. The FAQ on the FBI UCR indicate a change in estimating population was made in 2007; but the sharp drop occurred in 2006, so something else is going on. Without a much better explanation, I don't think we can meaningfully compare the 2000 and 2008 data except perhaps for the state overall (presumably, any urban/rural redistribution wouldn't affect the overall state population). I still haven't resolved the “rural” vs “nonmetropolitan counties” issue (the change in description was made in 2003), but I'm not sure it's relevant.

Archibold makes the statement that “the rate of violent crime at the border, and indeed across Arizona, has been declining”; the latter part appears supported by the data, but the former definitely is not. So while the statement we had was accurate, the source was misleading, so I've removed the statement. The rest of the paragraph seems a bit of a non-sequitur, but I've left it for now.

If it's felt necessary to include something about the crime rates, the only thing supportable is the overall rate for the state, which is backed by the NY Times article and is consistent with the FBI data. The breakdown is unsupported by a reliable source, and the FBI data suggest that the comparison attempted by Maguire may not even be possible, so we cannot include it in the article without a much better source to support it. JeffConrad (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, the overall state statistics are meaningless without looking at how demographics have changed over time - specifically, whether populations are being concentrated into metro areas. Surely, you are familiar with Bayesian inference (god, I hope so, 'cause I don't want to have to dumb things down). And, while we're on the topic of Bayesian inference, it is just as true to say that we don't know how crime is distributed between metro areas as it is true to say that we don't know how crime is distributed between rural areas. That's what makes your comments along these lines so funny, because you insisted that we put the crime rates for metro areas in the article. Your self-serving double standard is painfully obvious.-65.185.178.220 (talk) 04:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

You're walking the civility-cliff by now, and the edge is getting "painfully" closer. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Having read the articles listed I find the wording on wikipedia to be slanted. A single politician introducing a bill that is rejected is not an entire state considering it. It is the actions of one person. Travis in travisland (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Care to elaborate? I seem to be missing the entire context/meaning of this statement. What exactly would you like to see changed? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't follow, either. JeffConrad (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about that guys. In the impact section it lists off a bunch of states where clones of the bill have been purposed. The wiki article seems to hint that it is a big issue and near majority support is found in favor of it in various senates and houses. However, reading the actual links shows us that in most cases only 1 or 2 politicians actually introduced such legislation and in the all cases the legislation was quickly turned down. A single purposed bill that never even leaves committee is not only not worth mentioning but to label it with the generic term "introduced into the texas's legislation" doesn't do justice to how little backing the bill received. I guess its an example of being technically right but grossly misleading. Travis in travisland (talk) 05:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK, there may be a grievance. The number of states that can be mentioned without a lawmakers' attribution are nill. We should be careful not to give them false titles, though. See my reversion of a so-called outgoing Governor. †TE†Talk 06:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK, I see what you mean now. You have a point. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Choyoo and ThinkEnemies and it's why I originally reverted this edit.-65.185.178.220 (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

It has been agreed here that we should avoid giving false titles to the people supporting sb1070 legislation in other states. Further, Wikipedia takes a very dim view of providing unsourced biographical information about living people. Therefore, as per consensus, if we provide titles, we should source them. Travis in Travisland is seeking to edit war on this point. Such edit warring is counter-productive and should be stopped. I believe a good neutral poosition is not to provide titles, but to provide wikilinks to the articles for the respective politicians.-166.132.238.251 (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

ARE YOU ACTUALLY READING WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE WRITING? Travis in travisland (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Was toying with the idea of writing a Native American issue section. To go over issues such as: the possibility of Native Americans being profiled as Mexicans, history of laws dividing the white population from non-white population in Arizona, tribal identification cards not being considered a valid ID, national sovereignty being violated to enforce this Proclamation etc. Thoughts comments? Travis in travisland (talk) 06:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I was looking into that as well -- particularly the "mis-identification"-concerns; the ID-thing is not an issue here, tribal ID-cards are accepted. However, the Navajo Nation does not issue such cards. Trouble is, I couldn't find any WP:RS that address the issue. I could only write from hearsay and "personal interviews", which is not acceptable. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Is there a local newspaper or newsletter put out by the Navajo Nation in Arizona? Maybe that could be used. Travis in travisland (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

http://navajotimes.com/ -- I checked a month ago, nothing. Hold on... there's this: http://www.navajotimes.com/news/2010/0510/051310law.php Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Arizona law raises fear of racial profiling". Associated Press. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i4nY72M0hFVOHUzIrqYpD67DoBxgD9F9PCN82.

Is used extensively throughout this article, but is, in fact, a dead link and, so, it's veracity is impossible to determine.-65.185.178.220 (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

There's been some discussion about the wording of the lead--see these edits. This talk page seems to be visited often enough; perhaps some of you care to weigh in and maybe find a compromise. I personally think the earlier version (restored by Seb) is better, but I also (personally) think that the IP's edits are good-faith, if persistent. But they have not reverted again, and I think have shown good faith on my talk page. So, I leave it to the good people of the community, and possibly to the editors in question. (And Seb, I hope it's OK with you if I remove the warning from their page--we all know now how we feel. Thanks.) Drmies (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

The lead section is supposed to give an overview and summary of the entire article (see WP:LEAD). Referencing isn't needed, but can easily be supplied from the main body if anyone insists. What is not acceptable is removing over half of the content. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Some people seem to need a refresher on Wikipedia policy regarding lead sections. The following is a quote, "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited." I am challenging the material in the lead. Again, "material that is challenged .. should be cited" and, no, citing the law itself doesn't work. The law is a primary source. You need a secondary source.-65.185.178.220 (talk) 01:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

In this case, there's no problem with a primary source. From WP:Primary,

“Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge.”

I'd say the bill text has been reliably published, and there isn't much mystery to what the law says; the current lead is concise summary, not an interpretation. The problem here with a secondary source (such as strong POV blogs that you seem to consider suitable sources) is that by selecting the source, almost any desired interpretation can be found. That's just the opposite of what we need. JeffConrad (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

As was mentioned in Seb's talk page, we can not ignore verifiability simply because we are dealing with a lead. Verifiability is one of the pillars of Wikipedia and to -consistently- replace sourced material with unsourced material is a flagrant violation of that pillar. It is quite justifiably identified as vandalism. That being said, I believe the edit I will make in a few minutes will resolve that problem and render this a mute point.-65.185.178.220 (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

The wording that Seb restored simply summarizes key points of the legislation that are further discussed (and sourced) elsewhere in the article. As Seb mentions, we could easily source it by adding a citation of the entire texts of SB 1070 and HB 2162, but this would add nothing to the article but needless clutter. The reverted wording was not only poorly written, but the statment “A person can only be guilty under the state statute if he is guilty under the federal statute” was not even correct because guilt requires a conviction, and the law says nothing about a federal conviction as a prerequisite for a state conviction. Moreover, the source used was secondary, whereas elsewhere in the article we've used the text of the bills on the Arizona legislature web site. The choice between the two versions is a no-brainer.

I'll not attempt to discern the IP editor's good/bad faith, but these edits strike me as having been solely for the sake of defiance rather than with the intent of improving the article. If they don't rise to vandalism, they're so close that the difference is infinitesimal. I think any further such edits without discussion and resolution here should be treated as vandalism. JeffConrad (talk) 01:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

"for the sake of defiance"? I don't even know what that means. What, exactly, do you think I'm defying, somebody's ownership of the article? Article ownership is a violation of Wikipedia policy - you know that, right?-65.185.178.220 (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

You have by now shown through your actions that you have no interest in discussing anything, are rather intent on edit-warring and insulting/lecturing others. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I completely agree, and you are rapidly heading for a block. There is nothing in the material I just restored that differs from what we say under Provisions, and we source every statement there, guiding the reader to the specific sections of the legislation that contain the provisions. Exactly what in the statements that you gratuitously tagged do you dispute?

Defiance? It should be obvious that the changes you've repeatedly made do not represent consensus, yet you insist on making them. Please stop. JeffConrad (talk) 02:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Consensus does not mean you can ignore policy.-65.185.178.220 (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

What policy was ignored? From WP:LEADCITE,

“The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.”

Tag bombing isn't consensus. Policy is that a person who adds a tag explain the reason for adding the tag; you did not do so, despite being asked for a reason. Consequently, the tags were removed. If you still challenge the wording, I ask, again, what in the material you tagged do you dispute? JeffConrad (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think it should be included. It shows the rising trend of neo-nazism in the american mid and south west. Neo-nazism that lead to this bill's creation to begin with. Thoughts comments? Travis in travisland (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

it's too far off-topic. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Way off topic and POV. JeffConrad (talk) 03:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do you believe that it has no connection? Travis in travisland (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I actually do. It only proves that these sentiments have existed before the law, and will (and would've) continue to exist after the law (or without it). The only thing that relates to the law is the general focus on these kinds of stories and the attention paid to it by the media right now. Apart from that, it's not like all of this suddenly popped up yesterday. I don't know where you sit, but it seems that the various IPs pestering us from NY or other places in New England woke up one morning and started screaming "ZOMG, WTF, there's racism in the Southwest! It was without any of that just yesterday!"... Naw. You need to carefully sort out what's actually new and belongs here, and what doesn't. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah yeah I am a liberal from NY, so sue me lol. I think this law has empowered them to speak louder then before. The various hate groups have decided that by picking on brown skinned immigrants they would have more success then cross burning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travis in travisland (talk • contribs) 05:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok this debate has already happened on this page several times already. Maybe this time we can get it right and work out some sort of comprimise.

There are a great deal of people who believe that this law is inherently racist against people who are not Caucasian. In the interests of full disclosure I will admit that I do feel this way, however I believe I am capable of still being neutral on this subject. With that being said I believe that the question boils down to "Does this law have a racist component that is large enough to mention, and if so how best to go about it?" Do we at least all agree on the question? I do not purpose any changes until this debate is over, and will not be the one to start.Travis in travisland (talk) 04:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I do think that the immediately related events and persons are already mentioned in the article. See my comment in the section above. I do not think we need to throw in every instance of racism and/or neo-nazism into this article. Frankly, if we did, we would easily venture into a whole host of issues in the state and the region, beginning with Mormon supremacist thinking, Manifest Destiny, and the establishment of Phoenix itself, followed by Hwéeldi and other genocidal and ethnic cleansing-activities, and then top it off with the NRA and other loons; that would simply span the globe, and that's not what this article is about. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Didnt even think about the Mormon stuff. If I remember correctly they dont much care for off-white people other then Native Americans. Maybe I am wrong Travis in travisland (talk) 05:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

We already say that one person called the law “racist”, and we properly mention it as an opinion, not a fact. I'm sure many of the editors here have strong feelings about the law, but this article isn't the place to express those opinions. I agree with Seb that we need to keep from venturing into la-la land; we've already been criticized for getting too far off topic. The more we drift, the less the value of the article to the reader.

As for Joe Arpaio: I'm sure many editors have opinions about him. But he's not the topic of this article. JeffConrad (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

::I fixed the Joe reference. Made it more neutral. Travis in travisland (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

"Illegal" is not a race. Carpetbagging liberals are working hard to pass this Act off as racist, but it's not. We've seen this sort of thing before. Liberal rushed to call the Duke rape a racist event. They rushed to call Officer Crowley a racist. Liberals using the racist claim are deliberately confusinng "Hispanic" with "Illegal" - confusing an entire race with a criminal behavior. It's insulting to Hispanics who have come to this country legally. Further, the Act specifically prohibits race from being used in any way to determine reasonable suspicion (in that case, the Act is actually -more- stringent than Federal law) and the training tapes make clear that race can't be used.-65.185.178.220 (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

In attempt to keep the peace, I've added citations of specific sections of SB 1070 to the second paragraph in the lead section. The citations are redundant, because we already include them in the section Provisions. But I suppose they do provide guideposts for those who want to verify that we have it right and don't want to read the whole article. My heart would not be broken if others think they add too much clutter and decide to remove them.

I removed the mention of allowing enforcement of federal immigration law because the Act doesn't really say that; rather, I think that passage was just another way of saying that the Act bars state or local officials or agencies from limiting enforcement of federal immigration law. Arizona peace officers already had the authority to enforce the criminal provisions of federal law, from the U.S. Code and confirmed by Gonzales v. City of Peoria. In the interest of keeping the lead simple, I didn't include “to less than the full extent permitted by federal law”, which, for practical purposes, limits enforcement to criminal provisions. I'd rather keep it simple and rely on the Provisions section for the details, but I won't object if someone insists that we add the qualifier. JeffConrad (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply