Talk:Arizona SB 1070/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Quadell (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Nominators: Wasted Time R (talk) and Seb az86556 (talk) and JeffConrad (talk)

Open issues with Arizona SB 1070

 * The 2nd sentence of "Provisions" says that the act "obligates police to make an attempt... to determine a person's immigration status if there is reasonable suspicion..." This is possibly the most controversial provision. But when the lede summarizes the provisions of the act, it mentions several parts, but not this. The lede's later description of racial-profiling charges looks confusing without it. I think the lede should mention this part of the act.
 * ✅ &mdash; though any reasonable "sound-bite" in the lede will have to be incomplete, lest we repeat the entire section. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * After some hand wringing, I’ve added the “reasonable suspicion” requirement to the lead, because the specifics of what police can/must do have been among the most misunderstood aspects of this law. Let’s tweak the wording if what I have is too unwieldy, but I think we need to retain the concept—we should keep it as simple as possible but no simpler. JeffConrad (talk) 09:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * True; I think your version can remain, it's not too bloated, either. It's a petty that most people just look over the lede without actually reading the whole thing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good job. I linked reasonable suspicion as well. – Quadell (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "Arizona is the first state with such a law as" is clunky and needs rewording, though I'm not sure quite how.
 * not sure ✅"Arizona is the first state to propose such far-reaching legislation." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good now. – Quadell (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The article says "Arizona has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants..." with a cite from April 25, 2010. Has this changed since? By saying "has" and not "had", the article in indirectly claiming the law had no effect on illegal immigrant populations. Is this true?
 * ✅ made it past tense with month mentioned; these number are of course fluctating &mdash; since we're writing about the state of things when the law was written, past tense should make more sense anyways. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This sentence is clunky: "A December 2009 meeting of the American Legislative Exchange Council in Washington, D.C., resulted in model legislation embodying the ideas that Pearce presented and which gained the support of that group." Also, "model legislation" can mean different things. Could the sentence be reworded?
 * not sure ✅ Beats me; Jeff? WTR? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to "A December 2009 meeting of the American Legislative Exchange Council in Washington, D.C., resulted in that body supporting model legislation that embodied the ideas that Pearce presented." But I wasn't aware that "model legislation" had multiple meanings.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Rewording seems fine to me, though I’m not quite sure what you mean by “multiple meanings” of model legislation. JeffConrad (talk) 09:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A "model citizen" is an ideal citizen. A "model airplane" is a smaller representation. "Model legislation", in this case, means, I think, "an example of potential legislation to fill desired goal", which may be neither ideal nor smaller. (Certainly the act's opponents would not hold it up as "model legislation" in the sense of being ideal.) Would "preliminary legislation" fit the bill? – Quadell (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I understand it more like "prototype-legislation". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Perfect. – Quadell (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * maybe &mdash; but that might be just my interpretation. Since it's Pearce's own word choice, let's just attribute it to him: "...resulted in that body supporting what Pearce called "model legislation" and which embodied the ideas that he had presented." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, there's where the ambiguity comes in. If by "model" Pearce meant "ideal", then it's a POV and should be attributed to him. If by "model" he meant "prototype", there is no bias problem, and we can just use the word "prototype". The "what Pearce called" wording would seem to indicate Pearce meant the former. Either wording is fine by me, although the "prototype" wording is more flowing, in my opinion. – Quadell (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In any case, I guess for the purpose of this review we can call this "done". The points below will take a little longer it seems. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The meaning is closer to “prototype” than to “ideal”; model legislation is typically written by organizations such as the American Law Institute or the American Legislative Exchange Council, with the intent of having it adopted by state or local jurisdictions. Webster’s Collegiate has “5 : an example for imitation or emulation”, SOED, 6th ed. has “10 A person or work proposed or adopted for imitation; an exemplar”, which aren’t especially here, and offhand I can’t find anything on WP to link to. In any event, Pearce’s statement is OK. JeffConrad (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I forgot to add that we should remove the scare quotes. JeffConrad (talk) 03:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The current formulation is the worst yet, in my view. It makes it look like the term "model legislation" is Pearce's own concoction, which it is not.  If you look at these search results, you'll see that the term is used by a variety of organizations.  There's even an organization with that as their website name.  There's nothing "POV" about it.  The sentence should go back to "... resulted in that body supporting model legislation that embodied the ideas that Pearce presented" with the redlink to indicate that it is a well-defined term and to encourage someone to write an article about it.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't realize it was a well-defined term; the redlink-solution is indeed the best in that case. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A full-text search finds several articles that mention model legislation, but none of the articles seemed to make for good links. A model building code is similar to model legislation, but sufficiently different that I don’t think it makes for a good link, either. That several people here were unfamiliar with the term suggests that it would make for a useful article. A Google search shows a number of typical examples; there are far more private organizations involved in this than I would have thought. JeffConrad (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We do have Model act, which is essentially the same as a model bill or model legislation. Perhaps we could use it, but that article covers only organizations that specialize in drafting laws, and overlooks the many organizations (such as ALEC) with far narrower interests. JeffConrad (talk) 08:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a great wikilink to me. Thanks, Jeff. – Quadell (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose it’s better than a red link, so I’ve changed the WL to point there. I’ve also suggested on that article′s Talk page that the article be broadened a bit and that a few redirects be created. JeffConrad (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Consider removing "They added that 'she agonizes over these things,'[47] and the governor also prayed over the matter.[35]" The entire paragraph is long, and spends a lot of text saying it was a difficult decision, much longer than discussing the motives of anyone else involved. It would be more balanced to shorten the paragraph, and this sentence would be a good one to remove. Since one's internal agony and prayer is entirely unverifiable, sourced to statements by partisans, I don't think it's useful.
 * ✅ Concur; statement is tabloidish. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, I am responsible for this "tabloidish" content being in the article. There are real humans involved in the drama over this law, with real emotions.  I was trying to represent some of that.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * McCain's statement about illegal immigrants "intentionally causing accidents on the freeway" doesn't make a lot of sense, doesn't refer to the law, and isn't needed in the article. I suspect it was chosen to make him look bad. The paragraph would read better if that sentence were removed.
 * ✅ There were quite a few people throwing little pieces of mud adding snippets into the paragraphs; we probably missed this one. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, I am responsible for this "piece of mud" being in the article. I'm the major author of two FA and two GA articles on McCain; I write things about McCain if they are important, without regard to whether they make him look good, bad, or indifferent.  This comment was representative both of McCain's sudden ideological swerve at the time and of the kind of disconnected rhetoric that was common in reaction to SB 1070.  A lot of blogs commented about it and it was written about in sources like this Arizona Republic piece.  And it was still being referenced a year and a half later.   Wasted Time R (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The SB 1070 does not address illegal immigrants (allegedly) intentionally causing highway accidents, no matter how many blogs talked about it. – Quadell (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the Opinion polls section gives too many details on exactly what the numbers are for each question by each polling company, especially since the preceding section already gave polling numbers for the state of Arizona. Couldn't much of it be summarized? When several polls asked the same question, you could say "National polls found XX-YY% in favor of..." or whatnot, with the individual specific polling results in the footnotes. This would make it much easier for the reader to make sense of.
 * The problem is that the polls aren't all asking the same question. And even of those that are, many paraphrase or restate what the law does, and how they do that can easily affect the poll's response.  Also, several of the polls described were done by Rasmussen Reports, which has been sometimes criticized by poll watchers for having a Republican-tilted 'house effect'.  Given all this, I think the current approach to describing the poll results is warranted.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's tricky. Many polls do ask different questions, but some don't seem to, at least given the text in the article. (I can't see all the actual poll questions, since some are behind a paywall.) For example, the Rasmussen-in-Arizona question (support vs. oppose the bill) seems the same as in the Gallup poll. The Rasmussen-national poll and the Angus poll both ask whether the person would support legislation with the check-documentation-at-stop-on-reasonable-suspicious provision. The NYT/CBS poll asks the same questions as the later CBS poll. And Fox is out there on their own. My concern is that the paragraph contains 16 separate numerical statistics, and the average reader's eyes will glaze over. If some of the data can be moved to footnotes without compromising accuracy, it will greatly improve the readability. Can it? – Quadell (talk) 12:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Like many articles on recent events, the "reactions" section is disproportionately long, compared to material on the topic itself. Have you considered having a Reactions to Arizona SB 1070 article, with only summaries in this article? Regardless, not every statement by anyone deserves to be reprinted, even if sourced. This gives problems of "unnecessary detail". Items which seem particularly trivial to me include the quasi-related Sanchez vs. Miller debate, and the opinions of unrelated individuals such as Sheriff Arpaio, a St. Paul mayor, a member of the Texas House of Reps, and an LA Councilwoman. And what do Shakira and Linda Ronstadt think? This needs serious trimming. Specific ways are listed in sub-bullets.
 * As a general comment, before getting into the specifics below (which are very useful, thanks), one whole point of SB 1070 is that it got a ton of national and international attention and reaction, especially for a state law (most state laws, even consequential ones, exist in obscurity). And much of the reaction it got was partly or fully based in hyperbole.  But that can't be ignored just by saying that the reactions were uninformed or came from 'unrelated individuals'.  For better or worse, the reaction to this law is a big part of the story of this law, and it's that reaction that the article is trying to capture and describe.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The reaction to the law is important, and should not be omitted. But the article is not Reactions to Arizona SB 1070. Currently the "Reactions" section is around 7,500 words (in Wikicode), and all other sections combined (omitting the lede and See Also) are around the same total length. I'm just looking for some balance; reactions are just one element. And I still assert that it is unnecessary to list the opinions of a random unnamed protester in Phoenix, a state senator from a different state, Tenacious D., or "some Latino leaders" not notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages. – Quadell (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's right; this is another case where all sorts of people dropped in some politician's quote in drive-by-style, and then the next person deemed it necessary to add someone else's quote to "counter-balance" it. While the poll-numbers are important, the quotes-jungle should be pruned. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, everything in the "Reactions" section is there because I put it in or because someone else put it in and I vetted it. I'm a little disappointed that I've been working with Seb az86556 and JeffConrad on this article all this time and they never said how bad they thought this section was.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't meant to be personal. The reactions section is too long, compared to the rest of the article, and the article can't pass GA criterion 3b unless significant cuts are made. That's not meant as a personal attack against anyone who contributed to this section. – Quadell (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not taking it as a personal attack, but I'm trying to clarify that this was an article by design, not by chaos. To me, the story about the law so far is the reactions to it (especially given that most of the law hasn't gone into effect (yet)).  Are comparisons to Nazi Germany and the Japanese internment and Apartheid ridiculous?  Of course.  But people in responsible positions were making them.  Like it or not, that's part of the history of this law.  I didn't just pick comments at random; I read over lots and lots of news sources and everything that was put in the article represented some viewpoint or perspective that was relevant to the overall reaction, in a weighting that I thought was justified.  The "Hey Obama! Don't deport my mama" sign, for another example, serves both to illustrate the frustration of law opponents with the middling position of the administration and to give a humorous example of American protestese.  Similarly, the Elton John quote provides a lively example of part of the reason why the boycotts failed.  And so on.  Your position seems to be that all the stupid or off-target reactions should be removed and only the sensible debate retained.  And that only the result in the end matters, and not what led up to it or why some things that could have happened didn't.  Those are reasonable goals for a terser, shorter, narrower article, but it's not the article I've been working on all this time.  It's clear at this point that my vision of the article is fundamentally at odds from the rest of you.  I'm not saying that I'm right and you're wrong, just that we're at odds.  And of course it's quite possible that I've become locked into a single way of approaching things.  So I will recuse myself from further participation here.  You and Seb az86556 and JeffConrad are all very good editors, so you can take it forward.  Wasted Time R (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm the one who should probably recuse himself. I agree this isn't going to be an exercise in "slashing" the whole thing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would hate for either of you to leave the discussion based on a misunderstanding, so I'd like to clarify, if I may, since I think my position has been misrepresented here. I don't think that non-sensible statements be removed. The think the non-notable statements should. If someone in the Arizona state senate, or a drafter of the law, or the head of a notable group opposed to the act says something notable, then it deserves mention whether it's sensible or insane. If "Latino leaders" who aren't notable enough to have Wikipedia articles say something, or if a state senator in a unrelated state says something, then it doesn't belong in a Good Article on this topic, regardless of whether the statement in sensible or not. See the difference? I believe that if you're still willing to continue, that the cause doesn't have to be lost here. – Quadell (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Under "United States", there are frequent references to whether individual commentators had read the entire law. All are accusations that Republican made against Democrats. There are a total of eight sentences devoted to this. Most laws are not read in their entirety before people comment on them. Laws are often best understood through summaries, rather than an attempt to plow through the legalese. When one side of a debate points out that spokespeople on the other side didn't read the entire law, this is a common smear tactic, but is inherently misleading. Yes, such an accusation was made, and should be noted, but it should be given due weight. After all, this section is supposed to be about reaction to the act itself, not about reaction to the reactions. I will offer an attempt on the article's talk page.
 * If my suggested fix is acceptable, there's actually nothing further to do here. If not, we'll have to work something out. – Quadell (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't find this "fix" acceptable, because I don't think you've understood the situation. While many laws are indeed very long and unrealistic to read all the way through, this particular law is actually quite short (see the References/External links) and can be read by ordinary folks, and especially can be read by government officials.  And given that there was much dispute/disagreement about what the law actually did, actually reading it did become a relevant thing to do.  Your change omits that the charge of passing judgement before reading was leveled against the Attorney General and the Homeland Security Secretary, the two government officials most responsible for illegal immigration law and actions.  If this question was unimportant, why did Obama made a point of reading the law himself?  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the "didn't read the law" discussion is notable, and should be mentioned. But eight sentences (in a section allegedly devoted to reactions by United States officials, not devoted to reactions to U.S. officials' reactions), in full-on rebuttal style, is not appropriate. My version cuts that down to four sentences, in a single paragraph. I'm not fixated on my own version though; any version that mentions the accusations without giving them undue weight would be fine. – Quadell (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Similarly, under "Mexico", is it notable what a USA Today pundit says about President Calderon's speech? In a section dedicated to Mexico's reaction, why is an entire paragraph given to one pundit's reaction? Even if Calderon is being hypocritical, the endless rebuttals detract from the article. I think that paragraph should be removed.


 * The section "Religious organizations and perspectives" doesn't seem to actually be about the reactions by religious organizations. Only one organization, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, is shown to have a reaction. Certainly the first sentence is true, but a section on reactions by religious organization should have reactions by religious organizations, not individuals who happen to be religious. The last sentence of the section doesn't make much sense with only one example given (and it's questionable whether we should quote a conservative think tank for summary analysis anyway). Either more reactions by religious organizations need to be given (and other material cut), or the section needs to be removed.


 * In "Concerns over potential civil rights violations", the first, second, and last paragraphs seem useful. The rest is opinions by random people, and an ADL call for people to have perspective. Either the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth paragraphs need to be summarized into a single paragraph, or they should be simply removed.


 * In "Protests", there are some truly trivial bits. One unnamed activist called the measure "racist"? Someone had a sign that said "Hey Obama! Don't deport my mama."? A 40-person protest outside Wrigley Field based on a misunderstanding? In a very long article, this sort of thing detracts and trivializes the import information in the rest of the article. The section also suffers from the "rebut everything" problem -- do we need Obama and Limbaugh's reaction to a given protest?


 * The "Boycotts" section is very long, especially since it concludes they weren't particularly effective. Much can be cut. For instance, it's true that Obama had no opinion on the matter. Neither did a lot of people; it doesn't need to be said. The paragraph on Sound Strike is too long and goes off on tangents. You might consider cutting the list of performers boycotting, as it feels bulky. It's silly to quote Elton John for 5 sentences just to emphasize he isn't boycotting, since most performers didn't boycott. Etc.


 * In "Department of Justice lawsuit", it is certainly noteworthy that many officials oppose the DOJ action. But is it responsible to give three separate quotes from different Republican politicians, when no supporters (outside the DOJ suit itself) are mentioned? I think the third quote by Issa doesn't add anything new, and leads to balance problems.


 * The "Hearings and rulings" section gives clear indications it was written as new information became available, without older lines being rewritten in light of new information. "Judge Bolton asked pointed questions of each side during both hearings, but gave no indication of how or when she would rule" makes much more sense back when we didn't know how she would rule. Saying the Ninth Circuit "gave indications that it might reinstate but weaken parts of the law" was worth saying when we didn't know how they would rule. I would remove both these sentences entirely. Also in that section, I don't think state senator Pearce's predictions are notable in the article, even if they are well sourced.


 * The "See also" section should not list articles linked to in the body of the article itself (Sanctuary city and Illegal immigration in the United States). The others are some laws and incidents in Category:Illegal immigration to the United States, without much reason why some are included but not others (e.g. HB1804). Is the See also section needed? Does the category (along with the navbox) do a better job at showing the reader related articles in this case?
 * ✅ The navbox was recently added after the GA-nomination; I concur that "See also" is basically redundant now. I'll prune it out. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone object to me taking this out? – Quadell (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)