Talk:Arizona SB 1070/Archive 2

Clearer, please?
I might just be an idiot, but I still don't really get what the complaints against the law are. Well, I get what they ARE, but could you make it clearer as to their concerns, and specific mentions of why they have concerns? Like, state that so-and-so feels 'this' will happen because of such-and-such in the law. I would put it underneath 'Reactions.' Like I said, it could already be in the article, but it isn't clear to me. All I see is people either believing it will lead to racial profiling or it's Nazi legislation, without really giving reasons WHY it would lead to racial profiling or that it's 'Nazi' legislation. And then replies to that, and then replies to THAT, if I make sense. Thanks.Masternachos (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 18:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand your question—you don't “get it” but then you do get it.


 * I think the main issue is what will constitute “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an alien in the US illegally (required to inquire about immigration status) and what will constitute probable cause that a person is an alien not in possession of required registration documents (required for arrest). The concern is quite likely that it will be tough to establish either level of proof without racial profiling. Unfortunately, many of the sources have been pretty sloppy in citing specifics, so it may not be possible to include what you seem to be asking for. The section-by-section analysis of SB 1070 by the Arizona ACLU is quite specific, though it was made before the enactment of HB 2162, so some of the comments are no longer applicable. JeffConrad (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That actually helps a lot, thanks. I was just wondering why people were getting upset, if you just need a drivers license and that you had to be arrested to be asked. But, then I found out the ambiguities of the law, and the whole HB 2162 thing. I think I get it now.Masternachos (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that including the full text of the Arizona law as of today in this Wikipedia article, or as a linked sub-page of the article would help. I've combed through the references, and I was unable to find any links to the text of the law.  So far, the article is just beating around the bush, with lots of heated opinions, i.e., lots of smoke and heat, but no light.  As I heard on the radio this morning, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who has been blasting the Arizona law for the last two weeks, publicly admitted still hot having read the actual text of the law.  Wikipedia can do better.&mdash;QuicksilverT @ 18:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The links to the text of the law are right there as two bulleted items at the bottom of the "References" section: The "External links" section's links will also take you there, along with the official record regarding the bills' passage. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Arizona SB 1070:
 * Arizona HB 2162:

Where is the misrepresentation by the obama adminstration?
Eric holder criticized the billed, even suggesting the feds might bring a suit against arizona, yet he never even read the bill. Obama said cops could harrass someone having ice cream with their kids, when that is complete lie according to how to law is written. Due to the widesperead misrepresntation of the bill, it probably deserves its own section on "myths" about the bill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.31.229 (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Now Janet Nepalitano says that the act is " a law she wouldn't have signed", and litterally within a a minute of that statement she, too, said she hasn't even read the bill. 66.190.31.229 (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If you want to add this, it needs to be given as NPOV (e.g., the word even probably doesn't belong). The heading you added here suggests a strong POV, which isn't acceptable to Wikipedia, so you would need to tread very carefully. Whatever is added must be supported by a reliable source. JeffConrad (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Lots of politicians and office holders don't actually read bills or laws or other source documents. They rely on members of their staff to do that and distill for them what's in it.  And sometimes they don't even do that, and just echo the conventional or partisan wisdom about something.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Having said this, a lot of news sources did cover Holder's admission that he hadn't read it yet, so I'm okay with that being in the article. I've also briefly mentioned the same for Napolitano.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

70 cities and neutrality
Paragraph 4, sentence 3 says "There have been protests in opposition to the law in over 70 U.S. cities,[14] including calls for a boycott of Arizona.". I somewhat question the neutrality of that statement. I'm certain (sorry, no cites) that there are possibly 70 thousand cities that are in protest of this law as well as 70,000 who are supporters.

The calls for a boycott is however a factual statement meriting representation in this article. Perhaps rephrasing the sentiment as "Supporters and detractors of this bill have been equally ardent leading to a significant number of calls for a boycott". Perhaps a bit cumbersome of a sentence but I'll endeavor to improve upon that.

DeadboltSecurity (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC) DeadboltSecurity 2010-05-18


 * Possibly is the operative word; without a source, it doesn't fly. The current statement is accurate and sourced; moreover, I think the article makes it pretty clear that the law has many supporters, so I don't really see the bias. To me, the proposed wording doesn't make sense; how would ardent supporters in many cities lead to calls for boycotts? If it is still felt necessary to balance this statement, a sourced statement about cities that oppose a boycott would seem the right approach. JeffConrad (talk) 09:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 70,000 cities is a ridiculous number. For there to even be 70,000 cities in the U.S. then there would have to be 1,400 cities in each state. That's way more then would ever fit. Ink Falls   00:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead used to say "many cities". Then editors complained about this, so I gave a more focused number.  I'd be happy to go back to "many".   Wasted Time R (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * “Many” is a meaningless weasel word; I think the article is fine as it stands. JeffConrad (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

My error for leaving a sentence unpolished. "The bill has rallied numerous supporters as well as detractors, some of who have called for a boycott of the bill." Now the 'action' part of the sentence, boycott grammatically belongs to the detractors and not the supporters. My own admission that the proposed sentence was cumbersome was a weak excuse that I will forever endeavor to avoid.

JeffConrad - my point was not that the reference was not sourced but rather that it was not neutral. As stated, the sentence leads (not states... but leads) one to infer that entire cities... 70 of them... have called for a boycott... the whole city. The quantification of 70 furthers the strength of that inference without balancing the supporter's sentiment. That was all the point I was making.

In exactly the statement you said, "The current statement is accurate and sourced", it is (or was) not. I question whether anyone actually counted "70 cities".

InkFalls - The 70 thousand was obvious alliteration. Had I a said 70 hundred, well that would sound kind of odd, wouldn't it? But if you want to go down the twisty, windy path of critical thinking... I didn't say there was 70,000 cities in the US, did I? Sure, the original quote did but I did not.

There's somewhere north of, excuse me, my bad, somewhere greater than 19,000 cities in the US. From watching the news I see that austere leaders from Mexico, China, France and Germany have weighed in on the topic as well but we delve into the asinine to start counting cities because it's not really the point, is it?

All a moot point as Wasted Time R has rewritten the section and it looks marvelous... regardless of whether the word "many" is a "weasel word" (?) or not. I'll have to look that one up in my "Strunk and White". Good job, Wasted, it really DOES look very good.

The point is, all three of you are accomplished writers and impassioned that Wikipedia is critically reviewed and maintained. I thank all of you for that but as this was my first time contribution, having taken the time to read WP:DONTBITE... I might add, "don't bite the newcomers, sometimes they bite back." This only serves to make me loath to step into the middle of this ever again... I already have a 6-year old.

DeadboltSecurity (talk) 02:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC) DeadboltSecurity 2010-05-19


 * After re-reading the sources, I stand partially corrected—the sources mention 70 protests, not 70 boycotts, so the sources didn't support the earlier statement. Wasted Time R's new wording correctly reflects what the sources say. But the issue is one of accuracy, not neutrality; if a reliable source had actually said that 70 cities had called for boycotts, so stating would not have violated neutrality. Now of course the question, “did the source really count 70 (protests or boycotts)?” probably is a reasonable one; short of verifying a listing every (protest or boycott), it's probably tough to answer. Ultimately, it goes back to “What's a reliable source?”, a question I've posed several times here and elsewhere. But that's a topic for another time in another venue.


 * In retrospect, I may have reacted a bit too quickly to the claim of NPOV. JeffConrad (talk) 05:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * ... and I may have been a bit to sensitive. Guess I didn't realize how much you have to put on your hip waders sometimes to get involved with this. The passion, time and critical observation that one must have is to be respected.

DeadboltSecurity (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC) DeadboltSecurity 2010-05-20

boycott
time to add a section on the boycott and anti-boycott? Some groups are already announcing numbers, several websites have been started.67.246.175.103 (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The article already includes the only hard figure I've seen: "By early May, the state had lost a projected $6–10 million in business revenue, according to the Arizona Hotel & Lodging Association.[80]" Do you know of more?  If the boycotts achieve the same level of seriousness that the MLK Day ones did, then yes there should be a separate section on them.  Right now, they are mostly just another form of verbal protest.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No I meant re-arranging it so the article was easier to read. I did see something the other day on the total estimated economic damage due to conventions already canceled. I will try to find it again.67.246.175.103 (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I changed my view on this, and have now created a separate "Boycotts" subsection. The existing "Protests ..." section was getting very long, and this additional subsection gives the article better structure. And boycotts, realized or not, are a more serious level of protest than many other forms. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

What about the large number of people that have started using Arizona products as an anti-boycott, perhaps some info to that regard should be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.220.165.3 (talk) 08:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Very good point. I've added some material on "buycotts" at the end of that section.  If you have any sources that better quantify this effort, please bring them forward.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Revert to previous name of the article
I would propose that we revert the name of the article back to SB 1070. My primary reason is that I think that calling the legislation the "Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhood Act" is tendentious and misleading. I know that laws are often given strange names to give them greater legitimacy, but this one strikes me as a particular reach.

My secondary reason is that most sources do not refer to it this way. A quick Google search on SB 1070 revealed 4 million; while a similar search on "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" pulls in about 120,000 results. If we revert back, I think this article would rise to the top of results when people search for information on this topic. Tedperl (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * SB 1070 already redirects here, and I don't think the laws name is a reach. Would Racial Profiling Act be more appropriate to you? I don't see any reason to change, laws in Wikipedia are typically given the name of the act (such as the Health care law and the clean power act) instead of their legal code. This in my opinion seems like a shallow attempt to dehumanize the law by going against Wikipedia policy to name it after it's legal code instead of it's name. Ink Falls   18:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ink Falls.Boromir123 (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the redirect covers it. The name isn't a reach; it's just ridiculous. But the Arizona Legislature called what they called it, as is their prerogative. We can't change it just because we may think it's misleading. Be assured that the Arizona Legislature have no exclusive on silly naming. I think it's far better to stick with Wikipedia convention. Moreover, most legislatures reset bill numbering, sometimes for every session, so there could be another Arizona SB 1070 in the near future that covered an entirely different topic.


 * I'd still like to see Arizona prepended to the title (keeping the redirect from the current title) to provide better context. As I mentioned earlier, a measure with the same title has been introduced in the Minnesota Legislature. Given the makeup of that legislature, I doubt the measure will get anywhere, but we'll need to see what happens. And others states considering similar action may take it, if they haven't already done so. JeffConrad (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I was for moving it back to SB1070 until someone brought up the Clean Air Actand the USA PATRIOT Act (that one takes the cake). Just get used to fact that some laws have names that are weird at best. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I was and am in favor of changing the title, but lost the discussion above at and am losing it again.  As for redirects, they help you find the article if you're doing a search within Wikipedia, but don't help finding it within outside search engines like Google.  This simple Google search still isn't finding the article.  As for other names being meaningful, Clean Air Act is a good name (it tells you the law is intended to reduce air pollution) and PATRIOT Act is a so-so name (it tells you the law is something about defending the country).  Both law names also became the common name by which everyone refers to those laws, which per WP:COMMONNAME is supposed to be the guiding policy of naming.  In constrast, in actual practice few if any people refer to this thing as the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, as it's too long and has zilch to do with what the law does.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that SB1070 should be the title but maybe we call the page Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (SB1070). And I would like to play devil's advocate for a moment here and say that although Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act says nothing about what the law is on, neither does SB1070. =) Lilly (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Unless there's a WP policy stating that the citable name for an act must be the article title, we would seem free to defer to practicality. The PATRIOT Act actually is short for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001”, so the full title is arguably related to what the Act does. But silly bill titles aren't uncommon; the greater problem with the current title is its length. There still would be a couple of minor issues with reverting to the original name. The short version of the bill is properly S.B. 1070 or perhaps SB 1070, as is shown in the actual bill text, and as we have it in this article. But the media commonly refer to SB1070 (the situation is the same with California bills). I'd suggest that perhaps the page title use the more common form, and the proper form be retained in the article text. As I've said, there is a small risk of using a bill number that's in scope only for a particular legislative session, but I suppose the chance of another bill with the same number in a future session that's similarly noteworthy is probably fairly small. JeffConrad (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Opposition
The ACLU et al are not sources on the Constitutionality of this Act. They are protesters. SCOTUS is who decides Constitutionality and, as they haven't ruled one way or the other, there is no source on Constitutionality. So, if you wish to keep this section labelled "Constitutionality", then you must use relevant sources - which the ACLU (and Maldef and others) are -not-. If, on the other hand, you want to relabel this section to "Opposition", then the ACLU et al are relevant. I'm a pretty flexible editor. You can decide which direction you want to go - relabel the section or remove links to sources which aren't sources on Constitutionality. -69.143.48.114 (talk) 10:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The "Reaction" section, and especially the "Protests and criticism" subsection and the "Boycotts" subsection, is the one that already covers general opposition to the law. The "Constitutionality" section is intended to cover the history of legal challenges to the law, and report on the ultimate result – was the law upheld by the courts or were parts or all of it struck down by the courts?  The stance of the ACLU, the legal defensive arguments of Kobach, and the lawsuits that have been filed so far, are all part of this history.  I'm open to changes to the section title to make this clearer – I've renamed it to "Challenges to legality and constitutionality" – but it can't just be called "Opposition", as you've changed it to twice, because it's much more specific than that.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I support your rename of the section to "Challenges to legality and constitutionality". I recommend under that section that a short intro paragraph be made that the constitutionality of the act remains an open question and under that intro paragraph, each of the talking points on the issue (1. Concurrent Enforcement vs. the Supremacy clause and 2. racial profiling) have it's own section.  As currently written, the section makes broad sweeping statements which make it very difficult to decipher what exactly the legality issues actually are.-69.143.48.114 (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with the ACLU (or any other legally credible organization, pro or con) as a source on constitutionality; I do agree that, like anyone other than the Courts, they aren't dispositive. But I think that's pretty obvious to most readers. JeffConrad (talk) 09:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

State of the article
69.143.48.114 has moved stuff around so much that I can't follow the changes that have been made or know what's been added or deleted. The new organization makes no sense to me at all. It lumps what should be a description of the actual court cases filed so far in with several paragraphs of legal original research and with all the stupid Nazi stuff. 69.143.48.114's justification of this arrangement – that without the Nazi nonsense, no one would be filing suits against the law – is unsupported by a single source. (In fact, this is what organizations like the ACLU and MALDEF do – they see laws and governmental actions they don't like, and they take legal action against them, even if the general public is largely unaware of them.) I'm also having trouble accepting 69.143.48.114 in good faith. He or she shows too much knowledge of WP jargon to be a real newcomer; it's probably an experienced editor slumming with an IP address and knowing how to game the system. (Real editors can't edit war because their reputations will get tarnished; IP addresses don't care, because even if they get blocked, they just move to another computer.) Like Seb az86556, I think 69.143.48.114's real goal is to discredit sane legal opposition to the law my mashing it up with the Nazi morons. Unless there's a consensus among the established editors here to revert the article back to the pre-69.143.48.114 state, and then look at 69.143.48.114's suggestions on a case by case basis, I'm outta here too. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Before I respond to anything else in your statement above, in the interest of assuming good faith, I'd like you to point out the specific place in the article where you feel I have discredited sane legal opposition to SB1070. Please be as precise and detailed as you can.  Because while I am aware of having covered the fact that some critics of the Act didn't read it before criticizing it and while I am aware of covering the fact that some opponents of the act have compared it to Nazi Germany, I am not aware of discrediting sane legal opposition to the Act.  If you point out where I've done so, then we've got something we can talk about, but if you don't point out where you feel I've done so, then you are road blocking our ability to reach consensus.-02:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 (talk)


 * I'm the original contributor to most of the article (other than the "Provisions" section). I added the Nazi material, I added the ADF response, I added Napolitano and Holder not reading it first.  All of this merits being in the article, but not highlighted at the section header / table of contents level and not combined with the legal challenges to the law.  It's a sideshow.  There are a few things that will really matter in the end:  what the law says, how it is implemented and what effect it has on illegal immigration (to be determined), the effectiveness of any boycotts against the state (in early stages), and whether all or part of the law is struck down by the courts (in early stages).  Each of the sections dealing with those matters should be unpolluted by the sideshow.  You actually were proceeding in that direction with your first talk comments and your first edit, which moved the Holder comments out of the "Challenges to legality and constitutionality", but then you did a 180 and made that section a hundred times worse.  Put it this way:  none of the suits filed against the law have claimed that it is in violation of the "America shall not be Nazi Germany" statute.    Wasted Time R (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm still trying to figure out what sane, legal opposition you feel I'm discrediting. Here's my take on it.. "Naziism" is being invoked as part of the "alleged racial profiling" attack on the act.  Therefore, it should be in the same part of the article which covers that alleged "racial profiling".  You've made no real argument that it is separate - that is, your argument that it should be treated separately seems based on original research (namely, your opinion that the "Naziism" thing is sideshow and that the "racial profiling" thing is not).  If we're to move forward towards consensus on this issue, I really need you to provide a source to back up your claim that the "Naziism" thing is sideshow and that the "racial profiling" thing is not. -03:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 (talk)


 * (ec)The article only includes general coverage of racial profiling charges in the "Challenges to legality and constitutionality" section because you moved it there. That material belongs in the "Reactions" section, where I originally had it. The only mentions of racial profiling or racism or Nazism in the "Challenges to legality and constitutionality" section should be if ''they are mentioned in the claims of the actual lawsuits against the law. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I have read the Nazi section and think that it presents the facts in a totally logical succession and while I can understand the fears of the Nazi claims and claims of racial profiling being conflated with one another I do not feel that that has happened in this case. (by the way I am not a sockpuppet of 69.143.48.114 :P)  Ink Falls   03:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's what the most important of the lawsuits (the ACLU/NAACP/MALDEF one) claims are (from the ACLU press release): That the Arizona law This is what I mean by "sane opposition": no mentions of racism in general, or of Nazis or Apartheid or anything like that. You may or may not agree with the merit of the suit, and it may or may not win, but the article's section on the lawsuits should be addressing it at this level of seriousness, and leave all the other blather for the general "Reactions" section. What's more, the subsectioning as it stands gives the impression that no one has filed suit on the supremacy clause basis and everyone has filed on the racial profiling basis, which as this shows is false. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * unlawfully interferes with federal power and authority over immigration matters in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution;
 * invites racial profiling against people of color by law enforcement in violation of the equal protection guarantee and prohibition on unreasonable seizures under the 14th and Fourth Amendments; and
 * infringes on the free speech rights of day laborers and others in Arizona.


 * Why should the ACLU be granted authority in this article to decide what is and what is not "sane legal opposition"?-10:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

And here's what the City of Tucson lawsuit's claims are (from the Courthouse News Service): Again, a sane legal action that you may or may not agree with and that may or may not win. No wild charges of racism, no Nazis or Jim Crow. This is what that section of the article should be about. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That Tucson lacks the money and resources to enforce the state law, which it says conflicts with "federal law, policies and priorities for enforcement."
 * Tucson demands a declaration that the law, SB 1070, is unconstitutional in order to avoid being disciplined for not enforcing it.
 * The city claims SB 1070 "mandates the detention and verification of the immigration status of arrestees without any reasonable suspicion, probable cause or other independent legal basis for continued detention in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution."
 * The law "seeks to control and regulate immigration" in a way that allegedly conflicts with federal law and will force the city to "implement an unconstitutional law."
 * The law also pulls police officers away from pursuing urgent duties and more violent or pressing crimes, the cross-complaint claims.


 * For the most part, I agree with Wasted Time R. Racial profiling and the Nazi stuff are really separate issues. Given the subsectioning (on which I don't have a strong opinion), I think that if the Nazi stuff (which is on the fringe) remains, it should go in its own subsection to avoid conflating unrelated issues, as well as justifying the use of subsections to guide the reader. I don't know if I'd go so far as “Nazi morons”, but I say that most of those folks have engaged mouth before starting mind.


 * The paragraph on Gonzales, though strictly accurate, is misleading. The stated holding is correct, but the case also held that


 * State law enforcement cannot enforce civil provisions of federal immigration law.
 * Violations of occur only at the time of actual illegal entry, and are not continuing violations for which state LEOs can arrest.


 * I honestly think that entire subsection should be carefully reviewed.


 * Though I'm not sure I question 69.143.48.114's good faith, I do sense a POV. I share the perception that that user is awfully familiar with WP jargon for a newbie, and is an obvious SPA.


 * I'd like to point out that I originally did use subsectioning to separate the Nazi stuff from other cries of racial profiling. Wasted Time insisted that I remove that subsectioning.  If that subsectioning had remained in the article, then the Nazi stuff (which, again, is undeniably part of racial profiling concerns) would be with the racial profiling stuff (where it belongs), yet be demarcated at the same time.  There are a lot of problems with Wasted Time's structure of this article.  It's very arbitrary and disjointed and seems largely based on Wasted Time's opinion rather than any logical structure.  Who decides what is and what is not a legitimate criticism of the constitutionality of the Act?  The ACLU?  Why?  In the real world, it is SCOTUS who makes the decision.  One problem with this article is that Wasted Time has put the cart before the horse and attempted to create a constitutionality section of the article before there is any content to put in that section and then he followed it up with arbitrarily guidelines on what content belongs in that section.  Doing that is part of why his structure ends up being disjointed and lacking flow.
 * Ideally, since there is no non-arbitrary way to separate what is and what is not a legitimate criticism of the constitutionality of the Act, subsectioning of the article shouldn't be based on random whim. All criticisms of the Act should be treated as being on equal footing.  After SCOTUS makes a ruling, -then- we'll have content to put in the constitutionality section.  To meet you half way on that, while removing the constitutionality section, we can add a section called "Court Cases".
 * And as I am not on topic (the discussion page should be used to discuss the article, not editors), I won't comment on the ad hominem of what or who I am.-10:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I reverted your recent last edit because you capriciously discarded accepted format for citing cases; I have absolutely no idea why you did this, and can envision no justification for it. Some of the other changes weren't necessarily bad, but I'm not going to repeat the effort I made in cleaning up the citations—you appear to have undone them simply as an act of defiance. Like Wasted Time R, I'm more than open to discussion, but not for off-the-wall edits.


 * Please do us all a favor and sign your comments with four tildes. JeffConrad (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't capricious discarding of accepted format for citing cases. It was new content with a new source.  Lazily reverting content is counter productive.  In the future, don't revert content just because you don't like what was done.  Try to work towards consensus and moving forward.-69.143.48.114 (talk) 12:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It may not have been just capricious discarding of format, but that certainly was an element. I'm not going to be bothered cleaning up something that I've just fixed after someone has undone it for no reason. The material I cleaned up was poorly written, sloppy, and improperly formatted, primarily because you just copied it from another site and were too lazy to properly format. The case format is still wrong; please see WP:MOSLEGAL if you don't understand why.


 * There are a host of other problems with the section on Constitutionality. The cases are thrown in without any context, and there is far too much emphasis on courts (e.g., the Tenth Circuit and California) that have no jurisdiction in Arizona. Again, this is what happens with blind copying from other sites. I'd be willing to be that you haven't read any of the cases, so you're really using someone else's work without any attribution. As far as I'm concerned, there still is a serious violation of WP policy here.


 * I assume good faith up to a point. But your pointless belligerence makes it increasingly difficult. JeffConrad (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I could and probably should defend myself here, but the fact is that the discussion page is for discussing the article, not other editors. Are you capable of using the discussion page for the purposes it exists or are you intent on making ad hominems?  I've made every attempt to meet you half way.  I still am making such an attempt.  If you feel the court cases have been thrown in without relevant context, then what context do you feel should be added?  If you feel policy is being violated (in the article, again, the discussion page is not about editors), then what policy do you feel is being violated?  Until you identify specifically what your problems are, we can't work towards building consensus.-69.143.48.114 (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, you're still in violation of copyright. You're not allowed to verbatim copy one sentence (unless presented as a direct quotation), much less whole paragraphs, such as you do with the People v. Barajas and United States v. Salinas-Calderon ones (and possibly more, I didn't check all of it).  Everything has to be rewritten in your own words.  Furthermore, as JeffConrad states, this material is of dubious relevance and the formatting is a disaster.  Before your arrival, this article had GA-level form and style, something that you are quickly wrecking.  You clearly don't know what you are doing ... or you do know and wrecking the article is your goal.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please reference the appropriate Wikipedia policy which states that we are not allowed to copy one sentence from a source. I'm more than happy to make further changes, I just want a source so that I can be sure that my next change will be sufficient.  "this material is of dubious relevance" the expert source I used and referenced indicates otherwise.  What's your source for saying that it is of dubious relevance - more original research?  "the formatting is a disaster"  I certainly agree that more work can be done on the formatting.  "Before your arrival, this article had GA-level form and style, something that you're quickly wrecking" source? or is this more of your baseless opinion?  What i saw in this article was a mess which I'm cleaning up.-01:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 (talk)


 * You accuse the ACLU of simply being opponents, but your “expert” source is hardly NPOV, either. Statements made by others, including the ACLU and Kris Kobach, have at least been identified as such. You've added Coppolo's material (and some of it is still verbatim) without attribution, as if it were your own. You cannot cite sources that you haven't actually consulted yourself (see WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT), so the cases are indirect sources, and Coppolo would need to be cited as a direct source.


 * Much of the material from Coppolo's article is of dubious relevance because only the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court bind in Arizona. See my further comment below.


 * If you think that your edits are cleaning up a mess, all I can say is that you have a very different take than just about everyone else. JeffConrad (talk) 01:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You aren't making sense. Is your contention that the ACLU aren't opponents?  Is your contention that I've said that Coppolo isn't a proponent?  How can I add content as if it were my own when I've clearly provided a reference to Coppolo and not myself?  Seriously, I'm trying to figure out what your problems are so that we can move forward, but you simply are making no sense at all.-01:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said, we identified the ACLU and Kobach as the makers of the statements rather than presenting the statements as unquestioned facts. What reference to Coppolo? You don't even mention him as the source of what you added, so you present the cited cases as if you had consulted them (again, see WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). And in any event, even if the material were attributed, Coppolo isn't of sufficient notability to justify the amount of his material included here.


 * Once again, please sign your comments with four tildes. JeffConrad (talk) 02:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I was about to make a similar comment but Wasted Time R beat me to it. I agree with everything just said, on copyright, substance, and form. This article was reasonably well written until just recently, and is now a mess (there's even an unclosed font switch to italics; do you even bother to check what you've added?)


 * If you make sloppy edits that someone cleans up (even while possibly disagreeing with the content), and you then paste over the corrections with similarly sloppy material that you've copied verbatim from another web site, leave it for someone else to clean up once again, and accuse a person removing the copyrighted material of vandalism, you're bound to meet with objection. To call that ad hominem is to duck the issue.


 * I think it's fair to cite precedent for enforcement of criminal provisions of federal immigration law by state law enforcement personnel. Gonzales covers this (the law appears to have been written with this case in mind), and because Arizona appeals to the Ninth Circuit, that case is apposite. Perhaps a brief mention that other circuits have similarly held is OK, but hardly to the extent in Coppolo's article, and not without some indication that decisions of the Ninth Circuit bind (not every reader is familiar with how the courts work). Some of Gonzales’s other holdings (most important, the prohibition against enforcement of civil provisions) should be included for NPOV. JeffConrad (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I agree that the formatting can be fixed. The problem wouldn't have happened in the first place if you hadn't been so intent on blindly reverting all edits you disagree with.  But that's water under the bridge. -01:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 (talk)


 * Your accusation is absurd; I reverted one edit and explained why. The revert wasn't “blind”; I simply did not feel it was my job to repeat my cleanup that you overwrote. JeffConrad (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair Use
A handful of sentences picked out of an article falls well within Non-free content.-69.143.48.114 (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No, what you did is a straight out copyvio. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I acknowledge that the line between what is fair use and what is not can be subjective. I, also, acknowledge that you and I disagree as to where that line is.  Once more, I feel the need to remind you to assume good faith and to focus on pushing the article forward (reverts are pushing the article backward and are generally a bad practice).  I encourage you to focus on working collaboratively and to focus on the article, not other editors.
 * That having been said, I will reexamine the edit and work towards using fewer words from the source article. -20:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 (talk)

Why Montenegro's race is important
Because the topic is alleged anti-Hispanic racism, a Hispanic Representative who says that there is no racism is relevant.-17:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 (talk)


 * wrong. His race is not important because no one can claim to represent a race. He represents his district not his race. 67.246.175.103 (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * wrong. Politicians are elected for many reasons including their race - look, for example, at the role of race in the Obama election.-02:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 (talk)


 * Ok provide a scientifically accurate poll showing that race was the dominate or near dominate factor of his election and add it to his wikipedia page. The fact that he has brown skin doesnt mean anything in this debate. 67.246.175.103 (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The general view in the U.S. is that if you are a minority, and you're well educated, that you have a say on what is being racist towards your race, more so then somebody who is not in your race. You don't like it, go to Spanish wiki, where I'm sure being Spanish doesn't matter. Ink Falls   04:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Please provide detailed references for you assertion, or is this original research? 98.118.188.7 (talk) 05:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to finesse this dispute/edit war by adding this text: "Montenegro, who legally immigrated to the U.S. from El Salvador with his family when he was four, stated, "I am saying if you here illegally, get in line, come in the right way."[88]" This should get across the idea without doing the ethnic labelling that was being objected to. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree to this compromise.I really didnt want to go through this entire article and attach a race label to every single person involved. 67.246.175.103 (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Concurrent enforcement and the Supremacy Clause
The links for Miller and Gonzales go to the DOJ and not to the original cases. Most of the material has been copied and pasted almost verbatim; though I don't see a copyright issue, the statements are those of the DOJ and should be so attributed. I think it would be better to link to the actual cases, but they would obviously need to be examined directly by whomever made the change, and the editor's own conclusions stated (or the material restricted to direct quotes). Most of the U.S. Code citations in the Gonzales material are irrelevant because those sections aren't at issue with the Arizona law.

The material for Marsh v. U.S. was copied almost verbatim from Kris Kobach's article at the Center for Immigration Studies, so I there's still a copyright violation. Even if paraphrased, attribution would be needed absent some credible indication that the original case material had actually been consulted by the editor.

I also think the bolding should be removed and the cases mentioned in ordinary narrative (which is needed anyway), but it's probably best to resolve the other issues first. JeffConrad (talk) 04:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * copyvios removed. 69.143.48.114‎ blocked. article semi-ed. Nazi-section renamed to "Concerns over potential civil rights violations" (rationale: there are many concerns mentioned not just Nazi Germany (South Africa, constituional issues, Japenese internment...)... boiling it down to "Nazi" doesn't do it justice, mentioning everything will be too much) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Uh, I think you whacked the wrong material ... the stuff from DOJ is public domain as far as I can tell, but the material on Learned Hand is WP:COPYVIO. I think we should include Gonzales, for points both pro and con, because that's the most applicable decision, and I think it will figure prominently in any facial challenges, so I think we should get it right as well. I've examined that case personally, so I'll take it as an assignment to add a brief discussion of it that's relevant to this article. I'll restore the material and attempt a quick cleanup, but getting it right may take a few tries. I don't necessarily have a problem including Kobach's comment about Learned Hand with proper attribution to Kobach, but as you noted with the Nazi stuff, there just isn't room for everything, so I'll remove the reference for now. JeffConrad (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't even check the Learned Hand-thing. whatever you think meets WP:COPYVIO has to go of course. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * So many violations, so little time ... I've added some material on Gonzales, but kept it brief. I'm not sure we need much more—this isn't a law review. The Justia site doesn't provide page numbers, but I honestly think anyone who wants to check the source should read the entire case. The wording could probably be improved a bit to better blend it into the rest of the section. The last paragraph (if we even need it) could also stand some better wording. But I think for now, the section is at least acceptable. JeffConrad (talk) 10:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to clean this up a bit by rearranging to present related ideas together. To remove some of the clutter, I moved the long direct quote from to a note; a consequence, of course, is that there is now one substantive footnote in what's otherwise a list of references. If others think that a simple link to the cited section would suffice, I'm fine with removing the note; I kept it mainly to retain some of the material added by 69.143.48.114. JeffConrad (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If the article ends up having multiple substantive or explanatory footnotes, you can put those in a separate "Notes" section, akin to what George McGovern and Mitt Romney do for example. That distinguishes them visually from the pure-reference footnotes.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Structure adjustments
I've tried to restore some sanity to the article's structure, while still honoring some of 69.143.48.114's objections to the previous structure. His/her new "Impact" section remains, but is now located after the "Reactions" section, since one feeds the other. The long "Protests and criticisms" subsection is now broken into three subsections, "Religious organizations and perspectives", "Concerns over potential civil rights violations", and "Protests". This gives the material some better organization than it did in the pre-69.143.48.114 stage, I think. The second of those contains all of the non-legal-case material that was in "Challenges to legality and constitutionality", which majority opinion on Talk held didn't belong there. "Challenges to legality and constitutionality" continues to have "Concurrent enforcement and the Supremacy Clause", which discusses the major constitutional question regarding the law, and also now "Court actions filed against the Act", which will discuss in detail the various suits that have been filed so far (I need to start expanding this coverage, along the lines of the sources I presented on them above).

I'm not wedded to the precise wording of any of these subsection titles, I'm just trying to get across the idea of what they cover.

As part of all this, I'm also trying to locate any material that got dropped during 69.143.48.114's shuffle, and trying to better cite any material that got added by various IPs or other infrequent editors. I'm still in progress on this task. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm more or less done with what I had in mind here. I'm sure there are still some rough patches.  Wasted Time R (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

FAIR and Pearce background relevancy

 * Should the whole background of the ACLU be gone into here roo?

We're having a bit of an edit war over these additions by User:Azdarin:


 * Incidentally, in 2007, FAIR was named by the Southern Poverty Law Center to its list of hate groups.


 * Russell, a Mormon from Mesa, Arizona, has stated that "his efforts to drive illegal immigrants out of Arizona and them from coming here is based on the Mormon Church's 13th Article of Faith, which includes obeying the law." Interestingly enough, Russell was fired from his position as Director of the Arizona Motor Vehicle Division in 1999 for tampering with state driving records.  In order to gain support from the rest of the US, Senator Pearce appeared on CNN as well as a local Phoenix newstation and lied to the American public regarding facts and figures that would push his agenda.   Senator Pearce, has appeared arm in arm with well known white supremacy leader JT Ready at anti-immigration rallies.

These additions, regardless of how well they are sourced (and it is variable here) or written (even if the wording wasn't this slanted), are not relevant to this article. Considerations of the background of FAIR and Russell Pearce belong, not surprisingly, in the Federation for American Immigration Reform and Russell Pearce article. This is an article about the law, and at the end of the day the law stands on its own, regardless of the background of those who pushed for it. As a final observation, material introduced in WP articles by "Incidentally, ..." or "Interestingly enough, ..." is almost invariably off-topic. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * ^^Agreed Ink Falls   03:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep. “Incidentally, ...” or “Interestingly enough, ...” don't cut it even if the material they introduce is on topic. In this case, the material isn't, and the comments are op-eds. JeffConrad (talk) 05:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Checkmark. Completely irrelevant. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Odd that it is irrelevant but that whole lecture on the background of the law isnt. 67.246.175.103 (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if anyone cares about this, but the statement from Russell on the Article of Faith was incorrect. It's the 12th Article of Faith that says, "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."68.155.23.62 (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I've found some good sources that indicate that the LDS Church has been caught in some backlash due to Pearce's association with it and his use of the 12th Article of Faith to motivate SB1070. (The Church itself has taken no position on the law and says that Pearce doesn't speak for it.)  I've added material, since unlike Pearce's past background, fallout from his role in pushing the law is relevant to this article.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Borderline at best. WP:UNDUE in my view. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd actually like to expand the coverage of how various churches have responded to the law. The only Catholic reaction in the article is the rather extreme one by the LA cardinal, which I doubt is fully representative. Once expanded, I hope the Mormon material will not seem out of weighting to you.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Presumed not to be an alien
The referenced source (Arizona Senate Bill 1070) does not contain the phrase "presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States" along the list of four acceptable forms of identification. I am really wondering where the whole paragraph comes from. pivovarov (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. Thanks for catching this. It's in the final version that was actually signed. We need to fix that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This problem apparently arose when Facts707 changed the reference format to what Facts707 described as “standard”, despite the fact that rp isn't even mentioned in WP:CITE, and is very uncommon in practice elsewhere. It's also the only use of rp in this article. I'm for going back to the more conventional format and having only a single link at the end of the references. JeffConrad (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Good, I never liked that " [1]:§ 3 " compound footnote style. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Limitation on number of notes for one statement
As I suggested, I think it's possible to get carried away with the number of notes supporting any single statement; if nothing else, the visual impact detracts from the article. But I also think it's unreasonable to impose an arbitrary limit on one particular statement and not on others. At present, we seem to go up to five notes, which I think is pushing it; perhaps we could agree on some reasonable limit and try to adhere to it. If that's done and some notes are accordingly removed, the removal should be done with care because some of the sources are more solid than others. JeffConrad (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Two. Three if contentious. Four if a rhubarb.no five. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.239.222.218 (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree wholeheartedly. 3 if it is controversial 2 otherwise. Is there a wikipedia policy on this? 67.246.175.103 (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This rule isnt being enforced anymore.It seems that sentences that support the bill have multiple references but those that criticizes it have exactly 3. Starting to wonder if this is an accident. 67.246.175.103 (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * By my count, of the "more than three footnotes" statements, only the first one (about polling) is 'for' the bill; the other seven are all 'against' it (legal challenges, Obama immigration reform, boycotts quickly formed, city actions against Arizona, social media sites against, organizations taking legal action against, class action suit against). Your paranoia detector needs adjusting.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thankx for the personal attack.The buycotts got 4, the possible civil rights got 5, LA banning its workers from going got 4, boycott got 4, and court actions got 4. We have the time to count it but not the time to fix it? 67.246.175.103 (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Undue Weight
The large majority of this article doesn't discuss the Act, rather reaction to the Act (primarily opposition to it). This creates an imbalanced article. The article should be primarily about the Act itself and the part which is focused on reaction should be balanced between opposition and support. -23:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 (talk)


 * The Act is discussed in depth in the first section, "Provisions". Several editors have put a lot of effort into getting that section as objective and accurate as possible.  But the law isn't very long and so that section doesn't need to be that long.  Once the law goes into effect, there will be a new section called something like "Implementation and results", which will discuss how the law has been enforced, and what effect (good bad or indifferent) it has had.  Any citizen lawsuits to force the law to be followed will be covered as well.  As for the large amount of material dealing with reaction, most state laws don't generate much attention and their articles deal primarily with the law's provisions; see Category:California statutes for some examples.  But this law has been very different from the norm and has generated a ton of public reaction.  This article necessarily reflects that.  As for most of the reaction being negative; that's human nature.  People always get more riled up about something they don't like than something they support.  Same thing is true of Obamacare, for example.  Again, the article has to reflect reality, not an artificially-imposed "balance" constraint.  That said, if you know of pro-law perspectives that aren't included in this article, by all means bring them forward.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not my desire to get into an argument over what the article needs to look like to "reflect reality". It is my desire to ensure that Wikipedia policy - here we are discussing the policy regarding undue weight - is enforced.-69.143.48.114 (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I more or less agree with Wasted Time R. I see no problem here with WP:WEIGHT; the article seems to reflect a reasonable weight of pro and con sources. As has been stated, most of the reaction has been in opposition. Compared to most sources, I think we've tried very hard to make this article accurate, especially under Provisions. We're just the messengers; please don't shoot us. JeffConrad (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. This wiki is completely stuffed with just about tons of aprtisan nonsense masquarding as "notable". Just because some person says something, or wrties something does not make it notable to put into this wiki, yet it looks like they tried to stuff every single thing they can dredge up on the internet serach engines to cram into this wiki, making it largely a partisan hackjob.Whatzinaname (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * While the article has indeed grown large (and the law still hasn't gone into effect!), I can assure you that for every 5 stories I read about SB1070 on Google News or in a physical paper, only 1 gets used. Maybe it would be useful if you listed a few specific examples of material you think should be left out.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

semi-protected
well i guess it finally happened. An admin decided she/he didnt like the fact that the article didnt reflect their views so they froze it to end all debate. I guess they will start banning people who disagree with there political slant next. Another sad moment for wikipedia. 67.246.175.103 (talk) 06:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Admins will always do this when they see lots of edit warring. Often, they don't look at the content dispute closely, but just impose actions to halt or slow down the warring.  Wasted Time R (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * it didn't last that long anyway —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.60.216.190 (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

David Duke comment
I placed David Duke's comments on the subject. Discuss 67.246.175.103 (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Duke is a racist publicity whore, not a person of any power or significantce.20 years have passed since he had some minor significantce

. Nothing he says should be included here. You should be ashamed of yourself for promoting him.


 * he has no significance? Then why is there a wikipedia article on him? David Duke like it or not speaks for a noticeable portion of the American population. Many of whom are in support of this bill.`` I see at least one reference to Al Sharpton in this article. 67.246.175.103 (talk) 00:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Duke speaks for no one, fool.97.63.43.203 (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from making personal attacks on wikipedia. As a former congress person, a founder of several organizations, a top moderator on stormfront.com, a professor, and a best selling author in europe like it or not the man has an audience. 67.246.175.103 (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This law is the kind of issue that virtually everyone has rendered an opinion on, and we can't and shouldn't include them all. While I wouldn't compare Sharpton with Duke, I don't think Sharpton's view on this matter is especially pertinent (even though I was the one who added it, back when the article was first beginning and reactions to the law were just coming in), so I've removed it. As for Duke, he was never in the U.S. Congress, but rather was in the Louisiana state legislature for a spell. And if the WP article on him is right, he's not actually a "professor" but rather someone who managed to get a doctorate-level degree from some antisemitic hellhole in the Ukraine and now teaches there. If the Ukranian WP has an article on SB1070 and wants to include Duke's opinion, that's fine with me. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * He did teach for a while, I saw an interview/documentary on him. He had a teaching job in the Ukraine for a while. Look I dont like the guy either, but still want it included. I think we can all agree that this isnt the place to debate the merits and follies of Sharpton vs. Duke. I would like to point out that Sharpton isnt exactly the most tolerant man out there. The main reason I argue for inclusion is because this article is ignoring the far far right but includes stuff from the strong left.67.246.175.103 (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The far left isn't included at all. There are no references to the Anarchist Block or the Communist Party. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Jesse Jackson and the ACLU are mentioned.67.246.175.103 (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * True -- but they aren't the far left. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is from Jackson's wikipedia page. Please explain how this isnt extremist

"Jackson used "Hymies" to mean Jews and "Hymietown" to mean New York City while talking with the Washington Post reporter Milton Coleman in January 1984. Jackson denied making the remarks and then said Jews were conspiring against him. When he finally did acknowledge that it was wrong to use the term, he said he did so in private to a reporter.[30] Finally, Jackson apologized during a speech before national Jewish leaders in a Manchester, New Hampshire synagogue, but continuing suspicions have led to an enduring split between Jackson and many Jews.[30]

Among Jackson's other remarks were that Richard Nixon was less attentive to poverty in the U.S. because "four out of five [of Nixon's top advisors] are German Jews and their priorities are on Europe and Asia"; that he was "sick and tired of hearing about the Holocaust"; and that there are "very few Jewish reporters that have the capacity to be objective about Arab affairs". In 1979, Jackson said on a trip to the Middle East that Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin was a "terrorist," and Israel was a "theocracy."[31] Jackson has since apologized for at least some of these remarks. Later Jackson was invited to speak in support of Jewish Senator Joe Lieberman at the 2000 Democratic National Convention.[32]"

67.246.175.103 (talk) 06:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I shouldn't even respond to stuff like this, but ... Being anti-Semitic, which Jackson clearly is (or at least was, to be maximally charitable), does not make you "far left" as you originally claimed. Richard Nixon had a big mental hangup with Jews too, as have many other political figures of all ideologies.  As for extremism, Duke has denied that the Holocaust ever happened and paraded around many times in a Nazi uniform and joined explicitly racist organizations and started an explicitly racist computer site and thinks that Israel was behind 9/11.  That's far past anything Jackson has ever said or done.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with Seb az86556. Current American political discourse devalues terms like "far left", "far right", "extremist", "Stalinist", etc.; they get thrown at anyone that someone doesn't like.  Outside the U.S., where people have been exposed to a much broader (and often much worse) range of political philosophies and regimes, these terms have real meaning.  Duke is the only person mentioned here who really merits the term "extremist".  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with removing Sharpton. He was on several mainstream media-outlets and has organized protests right here in AZ. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware of the last fact (organizing protests in AZ). That would warrant inclusion, saying that (rather than the past general statement that he was for a boycott.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Pictures uploaded
At the request of via a Files For Upload request here, I have uploaded 15 photographs from flickr, and put them here for the consideration of the article editors;


 * Best,  Chzz  ► 19:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've added one of them (#7).  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Does SB1070 Prohibit or Allow Race as a factor?
Seb_az86556 changed my edits, claiming that SB1070 specifically prohibits using race as a factor. This is not correct.

SB1070 says that law enforcement officers “may not consider race, color or national origin. . . except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.” A.R.S. 11-1051(B). According to the Supreme Court, the U.S. Constitution allows race to be considered in immigration enforcement: “The likelihood that any given person of Mexican ancestry is an alien is high enough to make Mexican appearance a relevant factor.” United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 886-87 (1975). The Arizona Supreme Court agrees that “enforcement of immigration laws often involves a relevant consideration of ethnic factors.” State v. Graciano, 653 P.2d 683, 687 n.7 (Ariz. 1982) (citing State v. Becerra, 534 P.2d 743 (1975)). Obviously, if the Arizona legislature had wanted to exclude race as a factor, all they would have had to do was say that police may not consider race, period. SB 1070 also does not say that police can consider race to the extent required by the state or federal constitution. SB1070 is a policy decision to use race whenever it is permitted. Love it or hate it, that's SB1070. Let me put my accurate changes back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrantCon15 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The reverted introductory wording was inappropriate in light of the wording of the bill, but the citations of jurisprudence were correct. If put back the citations should be introduced as examples of when consideration of of race, etc., are permitted by the U.S. and Arizona constitutions. JeffConrad (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Help me out here. As I read the wording of the bill, it says that the use of race is not prohibited where it is allowed by constitutional law (all caps because copied directly from Section 2 of SB1070):  A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION.  So would you agree that it would be accurate to say: 1) SB1070 prohibits use of race, 2) except where it is permitted by the US or AZ constitution, 3) use of race is permitted by the US and AZ constitution in immigration enforcement, 4) SB1070 is an immigration-related law, so 5) SB1070 allows the use of race as a factor? GrantCon15 (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The law says that use of race is prohibited except in certain circumstances. Practically, we're arguing semantics, but we should follow that wording and then give examples of when race may be considered, lest the reader see a jarring difference between the wording of the bill and the wording of this article. In the end, it works to about the same effect.
 * The wording you copied from SB 1070 was modified by HB 2161 to eliminate solely. Again, largely a matter of semantics, but it reads as it reads. I updated the article to cite HB 2162. JeffConrad (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Right. Thanks.  The "solely" was my error, I took it out. GrantCon15 (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC).


 * I think the last edit is mostly reasonable, however
 * In the first paragraph, I don't think we need both the direct quotation and the nearly identical summary.
 * The last sentence in the paragraph may be pushing it; I think we should hesitate to interpret the law. JeffConrad (talk) 03:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I apologize for not responding promptly, I logged out shortly after my reverting. I see this is now sorted out; the current version accurately describes the law. What tripped me off was the wording "specifically authorizes," but that is now resolved. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Should this be mentioned?
In Mexico City there's going to be a concert for the opposition of this law. Should this be mentioned in the "protests" section of the article or not at all. Here's an article about it's in spanish though. http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/680466.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.117.244.219 (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Better would be an article that reported on the concert after it was held, so as to gauge its level of significance. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I found a story on it. Given that it drew 85,000 people and had some fairly major Mexican artists performing, I included it.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for posting it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.117.244.219 (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it should be mentioned that it is taking the existing federal law and adopting it to the state. Or maybe it should mention that the law is less strict than a similar one in Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.133.237 (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The first part is mentioned several times: "The act makes it a state misdemeanor crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying registration documents required by federal law,[21] ..." and "an arrested person cannot be released without confirmation of legal immigration status by the federal government pursuant to § 1373(c) of Title 8 of the United States Code." and "The law also prohibits state, county, or local officials from limiting or restricting "the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law" ..." and "Pearce contacted Kobach when he was ready to pursue the idea of the state enforcing federal immigration laws.[33]"


 * Regarding Mexican immigration laws, I've been slightly against adding this, but given that it is a common chain e-mail talking point, it's probably better to include a well-sourced mention of this, which I've now done from a USA Today article. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I applaud you for your fair non-biased addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.133.237 (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Heavy subsectioning
User:69.143.48.114 is attempting to introduce heavy subsectioning of the article, as evidenced by this revision here and later ones. I do not think this structure is warranted; it makes for short, choppy sections and a convoluted table of contents. The article is supposed to have a smooth prose flow, which this eliminates; see Layout for guidelines on this.

The content organization with these changes is also suspect: not all the lawsuits so far have been solely on racial profiling grounds, protests by entertainment celebrities is not a form of religious activism, and the comparisons to Nazi Germany have nothing to do with the suits against the law.

I tried reverting this mess, but just got reverted back. Would appreciate the views of the other experienced editors here. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I find the subsectioning to make the discussion on protests much more easier to read. When I first read this section, I was struck by the lack of structure and the sense that it was being used as a dumping ground for a bunch of disorganized links.  It was difficult to figure out what went where and, if you look at the overall article, you will find in the original version that there were multiple references in disjointed locations throughout the article to the same basic content - a clear sign that the disorganization was working against the article's quality.

While subsectioning as I've done might be unwarranted in a traditional newspaper or college paper style structure, the requirements of an open-ended, multiple editor, organic structure (ie. Wikipedia) are different from the requirements of a newspaper article or college paper style format (which typically have one writer/editor and, thus, are much more easily kept from spinning out of control). Again, I made the change because the lack of structure made for difficult reading, was already showing signs of being harmed from disorganization, and is an article format which leads to disintegration of structure. In my opinion, adding structure to a Wikipedia article is a good thing. -12:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 (talk)


 * You made one change that improved things, which was to move the initial Holder and other interest groups comments out of the "Challenges to legality and constitutionality" section and into relevant parts of the "Reaction" section. That made sense, as it focused the "Challenges to legality and constitutionality" material on the actual constitutional arguments and lawsuits that have been filed (with court results to come).  But then you dumped the Nazi comparisons into this section. That made no sense at all, since that is all just wild talk that has no relevance to the actual court cases that will be taking place.  As for the deep sectioning style, Wikipedia style practice generally frowns on this, but we'll see what others have to say.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree w/ Wasted Time R. This becomes too choppy. Moreover, as was pointed out, the way the individuals parts were sorted into those small sections was probleatic. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "But then you dumped the Nazi comparisons into this section. That made no sense at all, since that is all just wild talk that has no relevance to the actual court cases that will be taking place" I look forward to you providing a source which actually backs up your claim that the "wild talk" has given no extra publicity/popular support/incentive to the ACLU et al to make these court cases.-12:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 (talk)
 * Err? that's not the way it works. You cannot say blue strawberries grow on the moon and then demand others provide sources to prove they don't. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That's what I'm saying. We know, as a general rule, that sociodynamics and law interact - there's like a bazillion academic papers discussing the relationship between culture/popular media/and law.  If Wasted Time wants to insist that the SB1070 issue is an exception to that well known social fact, he should provide a source.  Just like anyone who wants to insist there is an exception to the well known biological fact that plants don't grow on the moon needs to provide a source.-12:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 (talk)
 * Are you deaf now? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * When you aren't making sense and the person you are in discussion with points out that you aren't making sense, the appropriate action is not to accuse the other person of being deaf. The appropriate action is to acknowledge that you aren't making sense.  You should keep that in mind.  Discussion in the talk page will go a lot smoother for you in the future if you do.-12:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems your only motivation for this stunt is to have Nazi Germany as a bold section-header somewhere... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a substantial, lengthy amount of content in this article on comparisons to Nazi Germany. I didn't add that content, someone else did.  But I think it's valid and points out one of the big problems with opposition to SB1070 - namely that many people are over reacting (forex. not reading the law before commenting on it - such as Holder has done and making insane comparisons to Nazi Germany) and trying to make arguments that SB1070 is unconstitutional without even knowing what SB1070 is or looking at it rationally.

That being said, any block of content which is lengthy, valid, and substantial should be highlighted. -13:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 (talk)

Is there a way we can work towards consensus or are you simply intent on edit warring? The reason I made the edit to racial profiling that I did is that the ADL's comment was hanging on at the end of the section and, thus, likely not to be read. By grouping the "pro" parts together and grouping the "cons" parts together, the ADL section is less likely to be missed. You seem intent on simply reverting everything and anything you disagree with. That's article ownership. I believe it's possible to work with you to build consensus, but it's going to require you to meet me half way. Part of meeting me half way is to not simply revert everything and anything you disagree with, but to look for common ground. Are you capable of that? -13:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 (talk)
 * You don't need a section-header for this. You know very well that it takes two to war, and you're at it as well. I will now let you do as you please, since I have no time for your almost obsessive insistence to have "Nazi" in bold somewhere. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You will find that working collaboratively on Wikipedia articles will be much less stressful if you Assume good faith-13:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 (talk)
 * That means assuming 'Seb az86556' has good faith too, right? 70.162.140.134 (talk) 09:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone speak Spanish?
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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


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


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


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


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Spanish-to-English example (from above) |en|si%20se%20habla%20espanol%2C%20puede%20ayudar%20con%20el%20articulo. 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Well, I went ahead and made a rough translation of the opening paragraph. I would encourage editors who are better at Spanish than I to correct and expand upon the present version. Whatever your political views, it is obvious that the law is of interest to Spanish speakers, and I think we can all agree that spreading the information is a good goal. Lesgles (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I am a US citizen and I speak Spanish, so I will take a look at the article and see about translations, however, why wasn´t the poll that shows that 81% of registered Hispanic voters in Arizona being against the law not included? I am not much more than a newbie so I have much to learn still. I tend to read through and not edit much and am observing more than editing so when I translate if someone would volunteer to do the edit for me of the article. I was a bit offended by the they are illegal so they have no right to know. Not everyone who speaks Spanish is illegal. I am a citizen and so is my husband as are my children...one of those who have a right to know is my son fighting in Afghanistan...so I take special offense to what seems like barely covered racism to me.190.6.195.98 (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)