Talk:Elvira Arellano

Archive
=TotallyDisputed =

POV?
Just wondering what exactly is POV about the section indicated as it is the same as when you guys wrote it a long time ago, except for me changing Immigration and Customs service to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. User:LordPathogen16:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The POV template was placed at the top because the recent addition of so much information that leans in one direction made the whole article non-neutral. --evrik (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific please? The additions I made come from a legal brief with the information stipulated to by Ms. Arellano herself. User:LordPathogen16:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The proof is prima facie. You keep adding sourced facts that support one POV, and now look, the article is now unbalanced. --evrik (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, so before you accused me of being anti-Arellano, no I am what pro-Arellano? All I did was quote from a legal brief filed and accepted by a US Federal court on behalf of her son that she agreed to which stipulates the facts as they are known. I still ask... even nicely... please provide specific examples. Thx User:LordPathogen18:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The example is the weight of all the edits, again it is prima facie. --evrik (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In other words, you have no examples. Thought so. User:LordPathogen 18:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a prime example of WP:Dense. --evrik (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Poor editor behavior
User:LordPathogen has objected to my tagging their comments with the spa template. My view: the edit history stands as proof, as well as last week's sock puppet banning and LP's blocking. --evrik (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As the article on Single-purpose account clearly states, "use of this tag is highly discouraged as it can be interpreted as a personal attack that may lead to action being taken against you." It also clearly states "There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with single-purpose accounts. " I have explained multiple times to this user exactly why I do not edit several articles as he chooses to do. He still is not satisfied. As for the sock puppet issue, I still deny that was the case. Hypocritically, however, Evrik is more than willing, even eager, to brand me a criminal in Wikipedia yet seems utterly incapable doing so with the subject of this article who was convicted of a felony and has an outstanding order for deportation. No he removes those categories (Mexican Criminal, Fugitive) because they upset his POV. I consider this a personal attack upon me in an attempt by Evrik to sway public opinion rather than make cogent counter-arguements to my postings. If it continues, I will report him which isn't going to do much to help him get his coveted Wikimedia Board of Trustees slot. User:LordPathogen18:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all LP, you aren't tagging your comments correctly. You rarely do. Second of all, you have primarily just edited this article (to this date). The definition fits, *and* you have engaged in sockpuppetry and been blocked 2 x because of your edits here. So, you can sling mud all you want, but the truth is that User:LordPathogen is probably also a sock, because someone with your limited editing expereince wouldn't know about last year's election. Thanksfully, Single-purpose account is just an essay. --evrik (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Poor editor behavior and harrassment
As the article on Single-purpose account clearly states, "use of this tag is highly discouraged as it can be interpreted as a personal attack that may lead to action being taken against you." It also clearly states "There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with single-purpose accounts. " I have explained multiple times to this user exactly why I do not edit several articles as he chooses to do. He still is not satisfied. As for the sock puppet issue, I still deny that was the case. Hypocritically, however, Evrik is more than willing, even eager, to brand me a criminal in Wikipedia yet seems utterly incapable doing so with the subject of this article who was convicted of a felony and has an outstanding order for deportation. No he removes those categories (Mexican Criminal, Fugitive) because they upset his POV. I consider this a personal attack upon me in an attempt by Evrik to sway public opinion rather than make cogent counter-arguements to my postings. If it continues, I will report him which isn't going to do much to help him get his coveted Wikimedia Board of Trustees slot. User:LordPathogen18:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Evrik, you have no right to delete my heading here and move my comments under your own. At least show that much decency. You act like Wikipedia is your own personal fiefdom. Secondly, I do tag my comments though apparently not enough to satisfy you. I'll ask you when I want some help in that matter. As for SPA, what part of "There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with single-purpose accounts" is unclear to you? Sockpuppetry I still dispute and as for blocks, your pal Ramsey2006 has been blocked here as well. As for the election, seems I hit a sore spot... And btw, it's not too hard to find since it is linked off your own bio page LOL... And since the article on SPA is "just and essay," I guess you interpet that to allow boorish behaviour on your part, huh? User:LordPathogen 18:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't think I didn't notice that you tried to report me for 3RR (and had to be shown what the real policy was. This is another case where you are mistaken. Since you've decided to include my user name in the header, it can be seen as a personal attack - so I have removed it because it's inclusion isn't furthuring this discussion. --evrik (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, it's not like it is a government secret on a public wiki where you just click to see a user's contribs... I plan to keep on reporting you because frankly dude, you are outa control. And kindly note, I removed your name from the header. Let's see if you are a hypocrite or not now since there is no reason to delete it now... User:LordPathogen19:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * yes, you did remove my name. Let's leave the comments where they were placed, okay? --evrik (talk)

==Request for Comment: Use of categories Mexican American leaders, Mexican criminals and Fugitives as well as links to article Mexican Americans==

This is a dispute about whether the categories Mexican American leaders, Mexican criminals and Fugitives as well as links to article Mexican Americans should be used in this article.

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute Therefore, I think it reasonable to use the categories "Mexican criminals" and "Fugitives" for this article.
 * FACT - Ms. Arellano fled to a church for sanctuary as she has an outstanding Order for Deporation by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and they have publicly stated she is a "fugitive."
 * FACT - Ms. Arellano is a Mexican national who has been convicted of using a counterfeit Social Security card which is a felony in the United States.

As for the category "Mexican American Leaders," Admin Will Beback clearly directed (see above) that Ms. Arellano does not fall under the category Mexican Americans. Therefore, she cannot fall under the category "Mexican American Leaders."

As for links to "Mexican American," Ms. Arellano is a Mexican national only and does not fit the description of the category, only the much looser defined project. She fails the description set forth in the first line of "Mexican American" article, "citizens of the United States of Mexican descent." Seems misleading to readers not familiar with the Arellano article. They could rightly wonder why a "Mexican American" has problems with US immigration authorities. Any links to the "Mexican American" article should be on her son's page, since he is in fact a Mexican-American. User:LordPathogen 20:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I say revert the article back to what it was in late April, or add more balance to it. --evrik (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Evrik, to a point. I say revert the article to this. He makes a lot of statements about "balance" etc. but offers no concrete examples as to why the data in the legal brief Ms. Arellano stipulated to is somehow not balanced. He is gaming the system further by adding the "totally disputed" tag to suggest the article is not neutral and factual inaccurate while again, offering no examples... User:LordPathogen 20:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Again Evrik goes on and on about the number of edits I have made to other articles which he deems insufficient.
 * Point 1. the article on Single Purpose Accounts specifically states "There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with single-purpose accounts." Should be end of story.
 * Point 2. this is not a Single Purpose Account. Evrik simply takes up too much of my time for other articles and I never intended to be a heavy wikipedia contributer. Even if I were, however, does that somehow invalidate the data I added from the legal brief?
 * Point 3. this is a straw man argument distracting away from the reasons this RfC was called for in the first place... So, I'm not going to defend my frequency or variety of edits here anymore.
 * Point 4. Evrik still has not presented an argument about the tags, just about me...

User:LordPathogen 22:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Comments:
 * The proof is prima facie. You keep adding sourced facts that support one POV. The proof is the weight of all the edits, and now look, the article is now unbalanced. This is a prime example of WP:Dense. --evrik (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The edits made by LP have made this article completely POV, I see a violation of WP:Point. Just for the record, if you look at this summary:


 * User:LordPathogen


 * you'll see almost no edits outside Elvira Arellano. You'll also see that all the other edits are related to Elvira Arellano (except maybe for unsuccessfully reporting me for 3RR), or posting something at WP:ANI. LordPathogen is being disruptive and using the process to disrupt this article.
 * You should move your comments to the section entitled "Statements by editors previously involved in dispute." User:LordPathogen 20:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Long Comment (you asked for comments): I have listed my comments to the Mexican-American category issue above in the "Scope of WikiProject:Mexican-Americans" section.  These comments would also apply to links to the Mexican-American article.  Moreover, Ms. Arellano is seeking permanent resident status and if granted, she will indeed be a Mexican-American not just one who is seeking to become a Mexican-American.  Re the category Mexican Criminals and Fugitives - I have searched for such a category and can not find one.  I have even looked in Category:Categories aka CAT:CAT but no such category is listed there.  We can't have a discussion about a non-existent category.  Re the use of the category Mexican American Leaders there are several Mex-Am leaders in that category who were initially considered unconventional and/or perhaps engaged in activities that challenged the status quo.  The same is true of Blacks or African-American Leaders.  A good example that I'm sure everybody here is familiar with is Rosa Parks.  (I have not used a Mex-Am as an example because it has been my experience that the mainstream is not generally familiar with Mex-Am leaders.)  Rosa Parks was not considered a leader by the mainstream until a clear victory was won, and even then many did not consider her a leader at all, but a trouble maker who upset the status quo by trying to get something that did not belong to her - ie the front seat on the bus.  The same is true of Elvira and Saul Arellano.  The mainstream may not consider Elvira or her son a champion of civil rights at this point in time because there has been no clear victory.  But I quote from the E. Arellano article itself: "On May 3, 2007, Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) introduced H.R. 2182, which would grant legal immigrant status, with the possibility of applying for permanent residence status, to Arellano as well as 33 other people.[10] The bill was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary and (as of May 9th, 2007) has yet to move out of the committee."  If Arellano is granted legal immigrant status or permanent resident status, she will either be criticized or hailed by the mainstream as a Mexican-American leader and the mother of a Mexican-American minor child who struggled successfully to change immigration law and whose efforts might open the doors for others in her and Saul's situation.  The mainstream is fickle like that.  But to Mexican-Americans she is a leader already.  So is her son.  They are standing firm in their belief that a mother, primary caregiver, and the sole US resident relative (albeit living in the US illegally) of a minor American citizen should not be deported.  They are standing firm in their belief that Saul, a minor US citizen, has the right to be raised by his mother, primary caregiver, and sole US resident (albeit illegal resident) relative.  If that's not leadership, what is it?  Please don't answer trouble making, and upsetting the status quo by trying to get something that does not belong to her and her son - ie the right of a minor US citizen to be raised in his birth country by his mother and primary caregiver who is his sole US resident(albeit illegal resident)relative.  Sure, she is here illegally, but her son is not.  He has rights regardless of his mother's citizenship status.  Wake up guys.  This case is not about Elvira, it is about Saul.  So yes, use the category Mexican-American Leaders.  Chicaneo 06:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. Those categories DO in fact exist. Due to capitalization issues i.e. lowercase 'l' in "Mexican American leaders" and lowercase 'c' in "Mexican criminals" they may be hard to find. I added direct links to them in the header for this section. Hope that helps. And if the bill in question is passed, does that basically give her a Green Card or convey citizenship? Also, please note this section is about the categories listed above and not the wikiproject Mexican Americans or the category "Mexican American" which an admin above said she did not fall under. Fleeeing from authoritiies who have a lawful order to deport her it why "Fugitives" was added. Finally, if you note the edit logs, you will see the category tag "Mexican criminals" was applied by me not for her immigration violations but rather for using a counterfeit Social Security card with the number of an 82 year old woman on it, which is a felony. I don't think Rosa was into identity theft. Again, thanks for your commentsLordPathogen 12:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome for the comments but I don't think you actually read them. (1) I did not say I couldn't find the Mexican American leaders category, only the Mexican criminals category and I even spoke to the use of the Mex-Am leaders category. The link to the Mexican criminals category does help.  Thanks.  (2) Green card vs citizenship - who cares?  The issue is that whatever it eventually is will giver her the ability to remain in the States legally.  (3) My reference to comments re WikiProject Mex-Am was to speak to the issue of the use of the term Mexican American and to note that my reasons for use of the term Mex-Am were the same as my reasons for use of the Mex-Am WikiProject which was discussed above.  But since you didn't get it the first time, let me spell it out:  Elvira Arellano is a Mexican citizen living in America. She has worked as a Mexican in America, and has participated in the American economic system for some time now. Elvira is seeking to become an American and if she is successful she will indeed become a Mexican-American.  Elvira also has a son who is an American citizen. Saul is of Mexican-American heritage, which makes Elvira Arellano the mother of a Mexican-American. So who are the locos who don't want the term/category/reference/links to Mexican-American?  (4) I have always enjoyed working on articles with Will Beback.  I have found him to be fair and neutral in most cases, except for this one.  Sorry Will, but you are wrong, dead wrong, on the use of Mex-Am this time.  Editors can be wrong you know, and I am encouraging you and LP to re-evaluate your previous decision re Mex-Am and change your stance. (4) It's OK with me if the fugitive category is used, she is one at the moment isn't she?  But then do you expect to remove her name from the fugitive category once she is no longer a fugitive? (5) Re the Mexican criminal category - I see no reason to place Ms Arellano among the likes of Raúl Salinas de Gortari, Sara Alderate and Ángel Maturino Reséndiz.  Nor does she compare to any of the listed cartel leaders who have reputations of being brutally violent and ruthless.  As a Texan living near railroad tracks at the time of Resendiz' murderous rampage, I was deeply affected by the Resendiz man-hunt until he was caught.  Believe me, Elvira Arellano is no Angel Resendiz, Sara Alderete or any of the cartel leaders listed.  However, I might waiver on creating a separate category and placing her along with Doroteo Arango Arámbula (Pancho Villa) in a Bonnie & Clydesque "Popular Mexican criminals" category .  Like Villa, Arellano is not popular with mainstream America.  Like Villa, Arellano is pushing the limits and trying to change the status quo.  Like Villa, she is popular among those who share her views.  However, unlike Villa, she is not a Revolutionary, nor in my opinion will she ever have the historical impact and significance of Villa.  So right now, I am inclined to say let's leave the Mexican criminal category out.  Chicaneo 17:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just so I understand- would an American citizen who did not speak Spanish but lived in Mexico for 8 years and worked as an American in Mexico, and participated in the Mexican economic system for some time be classified as a American-Mexican or simply as an American who is living in Mexico? Thx LordPathogen 17:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Cut the Strawman arguments, OK? That is not relevant, nor do I care to engage in your little games. I have very little testosterone so I have little need for revenge and virtually no need to be pathologically correct or to win.  While I am very flexible and will compromise on issues, I do have big cojones so I'll say this only once:  Want to discuss relevant issues?  Bring it on dude.  Otherwise try talk radio.  70.120.88.79 18:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC) (forgot to log-in previously) Chicaneo 18:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment
Now that the debate has boiled down to just one over categorization, I thought I'd add my two cents.
 * I think Ms. Arellano probably does belong in Category:Fugitives.
 * The problem with the category Mexican criminals is that Ms. Arellano has not (that anyone knows) been convicted of breaking Mexican laws, which is what one would tend to assume about people so categorized. If anything, she should be categorized as an American criminal, since her crimes are in violation of US law. Compare the categorization of Ángel Maturino Reséndiz, who, while a much more heinous criminal, had an immigration status comparable to that of Ms. Arellano. I won't put it on, but I won't erase it if someone else does.
 * Thanks Rockero for your comments. I suggested Mexican criminals because of the narrowing path listed on the top of the category page for it, namely: "People: By occupation: Criminals: By nationality: Mexican." So, as I read the category, it was designed to list criminals by their nationality, not by where they committed their crimes. As for the case of Résendiz, he committed crimes on both sides of the border but was convicted and executed in the US. Nevertheless, he has a similar narrowing: "People: By occupation: Criminals: Murderers: By nationality: Mexican." Anyway... Thanks! LordPathogen LordPathogen 21:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Similarly, the problem with the Category:Mexican American leaders is that she is not, in the strictest sense, "Mexican American" (although the definition in the WP article Mexican American should probably be expanded to include resident aliens, people in the process of obtaining papers, and people without proper documentation--I have yet to touch it). While Category:Mexican American leaders is a sub-category of Mexican Americans, it is the most appropriate, since she is a Mexican who leads an organization in the United States. No other category quite fits. And while the New Sanctuary Movement is not uniquely Mexican-American, Mexican-Americans make up the biggest contingent of its activists and intended beneficiaries.--Rockero 20:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rockero, I agree with you on the Mexican/American leaders category. No other category seems to fit and she is the leader of a Mex-Am activist group.  I'll go with you on the Mexican criminal issue, but for different reasons.  I do see her as someone who broke the law, like Rescendiz, but because she is a Mexican national she should be listed as a Mexican criminal.  I really would not like to see her put with the likes of Rescendiz etc but if someone puts her on - I won't take her off.  My pref would be that the person who simply must see Elvira Arellano's name listed among such locos and deviants would create a separate sub-category for her.  I don't know -- maybe like "white-collar criminals", or "Immigration law violators".  My suggestion to include her with Pancho Villa was done tounge-in-cheek and I really do not want to see her listed with him either.Chicaneo 21:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm really not trying to be pedantic, but she was not convicted in a court of law for a white-collar crime or an Immigration law violation. She was tried and convicted for using a counterfeit social security card with the number belonging to someone else, which is a felony. That's identity theft at best. As for the immigration violations, signing the documents she did (stipulating to the facts) effectively waived any trial meaning an immediate Order for Deportation was issued. It's all in the legal brief. LordPathogen 21:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, don't like those? How about "Mexicans engaging in fraud" or "Mexicans engaging in forgery"?  Fraud and forgery are both felonies.  Regarding her conviction and the order for deportation - if she is allowed to stay, it is my understanding that she can always file to have the records expunged.  Chicaneo 21:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Broken links
The links for reference nos. 1 & 4 are not working properly. If somebody knows where they go (or has the time to look it up) could you please restore them? Thanks. 70.120.88.79 00:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC) (forgot to sign in again - Chicaneo) Chicaneo 08:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality
I would like to take this back to the version at 20:36, 9 May 2007. I am going to create a working draft Talk:Elvira Arellano/draft where we can add the sources added since then. This was the last point where I feel the article was neutral. --evrik (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort."   --LordPathogen 17:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How's this: every edit this month made by has made the article unbalanced. I think I've said that before. --evrik (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds pretty vague again and does not meet the standard as outlined above for NPOV disputes. But I'll tell you what, I won't say anything else about it in this section. I'd like to hear from others here Rockero, Will Beback, Chicaneo etc. if they feel as you do about it. If they do, fine, keep the NPOV dispute tag. But if not... will you remove it? Oh, and by the way, please remove the attempt at a spa tag you left since you were told by MastCell to remove those... --LordPathogen 17:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: Evrik is told to "please stop using the tag in any form" again by MastCell --LordPathogen 18:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I do hope they will reply. BTW, I was asked to not use it ... not told. ---evrik (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC).
 * BTW, until you build some credibility by becoming a real editor, in my eyes you will still be a spa editor. --evrik (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't set such low expectations for myself --LordPathogen 18:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I would support rolling back to a previous version prior to the edit war, and discussing any changes from there, with an eye towards a strict NPOV policy.--Ramsey2006 17:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I also support rolling back to a previous version prior to the edit war. The current version of the article does not reflect the product of the objective and professional editorial team that I was working with before I got WikiBonked and took a break from WP.  I have read the version that Evrik has proposed using and I agree that it is neutral.  I view this move as a way to let cooler heads prevail and to make a fresh start at discussing the issues in an amicable manner.  Chicaneo 08:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go ahead and make the change. --evrik (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course you are, because you've decided and that's what really matters, right? You don't have to listen to admins or get consensus etc. That stuff is for lesser mortals --LordPathogen 13:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, I strenously oppose this unilateral move by Evrik. He has failed to point out "specific" examples of POV as per wikipedia guidelines and did not get consensus for such a drastic move, reverting back a month. He and his pal Ramsey2006 do not a consensus make. I ask for an admin to revert the article back to its last state in June and to sanction Evrik, who knows better. --LordPathogen 13:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, here is the legal brief filed on behalf of Saul Arellano with facts stipulated to by his mother Elvira Arellano (see pages 3-7) that Evrik seems to find obectionable and unilaterally reverted. That is where my contributions came from. --LordPathogen 15:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

LP, as I have said in my posts to your personal talk page reversion to a more neutral version is a way to re-hash the issues, this time letting cooler heads prevail. Please bring the issues up once again so that we can work through them as a team. Because of my absence, I am not familiar with the previous issues but I will do my best to make sure that controversial edits become a win/win situation for everyone and thus the article will become better and richer. Chicaneo 16:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Legal brief filed on behalf of Saul Arellano with facts stipulated to by his mother Elvira Arellano
This contains a significant amount of material (especially pages 3-7) that was removed by user User:Evrik when he unilaterally reverted the article back a month. Read it and decide for yourself as to whether this data should be included or not... --LordPathogen 15:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Two of the three editors who commented agreed with me. As for your bibdaily links, it has been included as one of the references, or didn't you see that? --evrik (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So one day of discussion and an informal agreement between you and your "ally" gives you the right to undo edits going back a month made by me, BorgQueen, Will Beback, Chicaneo and Rockero? --LordPathogen 17:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The previous version of the page was approximately 50% derived from a single primary source, as interpreted by an editor with a definate POV. Secondary sources are preferred to primary sources. It is difficult for lay persons without specialized knoweledge to appropiately interpret primary sources. Without legal training one might have difficulty in distinguishing between a legal brief filed on somebody's behalf, and a court order by a judge, for example. The danger of primary sources being misrepresented is significant. --Ramsey2006 16:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fortunately my four degrees prepared me well for such circumstances as well as the ability to recognize manure when I read it... (see above) --LordPathogen 17:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Upon reflection I agree it is not simply a legal brief but rather a "MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER" by the judge who adjudicated the case which makes is an even more reputable source. --LordPathogen 17:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Right now it is Sunday, June 10, 2007 12:33 p.m. CST. I will look at the brief and the corresponding sections and evaluate it with strict NPOV in mind. BTW, I have two years post graduate work in Law. I attended law school while working 3/4 time as a law clerk for the now defunct Death Row Legal Defense Fund in Houston, Texas. I wrote appeals that were filed with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and Writs. of Cert. to the U.S. Supreme court. I AM NOT a lawyer, nor do I care to be. I do want to go heaven when it's all over. My eval and suggestions will be posted here no later than Wednesday, June 13, 2007 3:00 p.m. CST. Chicaneo 17:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Here it is:

The question presented is whether material gleaned from the September 29, 2006 U.S. District Judge’s Memorandum Opinion and Order in Walter L. Coleman, as next friend of the minor child, Saul Arellano v. U.S. (specifically pages 3-7) and included in the unreverted version of the Elvira Arellano article should be included in the (reverted) version.

For purposes of making a comparison I have placed the following two versions side by side: Un-Reverted Version: Revision as of 09:26, June 8, 2007 Reverted Version: Revision as of 12:48, June 9, 2007

A few edits have been done to the article following the reversion, but these changes are all relatively minor.

There are bits and pieces from the Un-reverted Version that I believe should be included in the Reverted Version, but because of time constraints I do not have time to make suggestions right now. It has taken me this long to figure out how to do a table in HTML and plug in the text. Please see the discussion below titled “Proposal to submit existing disputes to mediation” specifically at my comments of 07:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC) regarding my recommendations on where the team should proceed from here.

I have placed spaces between the tables so that we can place our editorial comments there after each section. Chicaneo 21:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Comparison Between Un-reverted Version v. Reverted Version

PLACE COMMENTS HERE:

PLACE COMMENTS HERE:

Just have time for a quick comment right now. I think that the "father remains unnamed", or something similar, is sufficient. The fact that he is not in the picture is perhaps relevant to the case, but once that is established further elaboration on the topic serves no useful purpose. --Ramsey2006 03:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

PLACE COMMENTS HERE:

PLACE COMMENTS HERE:

PLACE COMMENTS HERE:

PLACE COMMENTS HERE:

PLACE COMMENTS HERE:

PLACE COMMENTS HERE:

==See what was reverted by Evrik and honestly decide for yourself which version of the article is superior...==
 * This version contains facts from the above legal brief, facts conceded by Ms. Arellano herself. Note: "Defendants 'do not contest the ability of Rev. Coleman to commence this proceeding on behalf of Saul Arellano...'” (page 1) and "''Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges the following facts, which for purposes of this motion the Court accepts as true.'" (page 3) as well as "In support of their motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Defendants have provided evidence supporting the following facts — facts that Plaintiff apparently concedes." (page 4). In short, Rev. Coleman is authorized to sue on their behalf and to enter facts into evidence to the Court. Thus, the 08 JUNE 2007 version is much more complete --LordPathogen 23:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was asked to look at the Elvira Arellano and express my opinion. First of all, let me remind the parties involved that no one and I mean no one is the owner of an article. If you contribute to an article, you did so accepting the fact that said article may be edited by other users as long as reliable verifable sources are provided. It seems to me that the article with the improvements made by Users LordPathogen, BorgQueen, Will Beback, Chicaneo and Rockero are well written and well sourced as is required by Wiki policy and therefore, none of it's material should be removed unless proven as false.


 * Continuous reverts and removal of tags may be considered as vandalism. I suggest that if the parties cannot reach a positive agreement for the good of this article, then the situation should be taken up with the mediation committee. Tony the Marine 01:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to submit existing disputes to mediation

 * I am willing to submit the following existing disputes to mediation:
 * [2.3] Use of categories Fugitives, Mexican criminal etc.
 * [2.5, 2.6, 2.7] Neutrality (NPOV dispute) as to whether the article should be tagged as neutrality and facts in dispute as well as the revert of the entire article to what it was a month ago.

What do you say Evrik and Ramsey? --LordPathogen 03:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Evrik and User:Ramsey2006, I have made a Request for Mediation here. --LordPathogen 14:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record and the mediator: use of categories Figitives and Mexican criminal are were being discussed currently the above listed entry "Request for Comment: Use of categories Mexican American leaders, Mexican criminals and Fugitives as well as links to article Mexican Americans".  I am waiting on further comment and action to continue the discussion.  Why has that stalled?  We were working things out, or at least I thought so.  We had already come to a general agreement about use of the Mexican criminal category but were just working out the details.  For the team:  Are we going to continue that discussion or not?  Chicaneo 17:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I do not think Evrik and Ramsey2006 were in agreement about either of those two categories. If they are, can they clearly articulate that now? In any case, by reverting the article back one month while in the middle of that discussion as Evrik did, it caused that whole discussion to become moot, yet another reason why I opposed reverting the article. --LordPathogen 17:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion and the issues are not moot because of the reversion. Evrik has initiated an opportunity for us to do it all over again, but to do it right this time. We'll have a fresh start with a concerted team effort towards NPOV. On controversial issues we can work towards win/win situations and the article will be better for it. But for us to be successful we all need to act professionally and be civil to each other. LordPathogen, I won't call you and Will locos if you won't make references to fecal matter and sockpuppetry and Evrik, you need to stop using that darned tag that is making LP so upset. If we can't do this then I'll agree to mediation. Does anybody else agree or am I the Lone Ranger on this one? Chicaneo 19:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a plan to me. --Ramsey2006 19:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sadly I must vote "NO" on starting the article again by accepting the revert of a month's edits. With the history Evrik, Ramsey2006 and I have here, I think it is well beyond that point and outside, formal intervention is required. Hence, that is why I have requested formal mediation. I'd also like to note it is not Evrik's right to give (or not to give) us a new start by reverting an article an entire month. He is obligated to show "specifically" why the article is POV. His feelings that it may be are not enough according to wikipedia guidelines for NPOV disputes to keep the NPOV and facts in dispute tag on the article page much less revert a month's worth of edits. That's not me talking, that is Wikipedia. --LordPathogen 21:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

In looking through the talk page it looks to me like Evrik has been pointing out his POV objections all along. Similarly, you have complained about his POV as well. I'm not going to butt into it any further, this scrap belongs to ya'll anyway. So if you're not willing to give it a go with a larger editorial team willing to strive towards strict NPOV then suit yourself. I, for one, will keep on keepin' on. c/s 70.120.88.79 22:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)  (forgot to sign-in again) Chicaneo 22:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, he hasn't. He claims POV on my part but has yet to list specific factual and neutrality issues with the information added from the Judge's order, which prompted him to add the dispute tags and create the section entitled "Neutrality" which again, does not point out specific examples. According to the guidelines, as the party claiming POV here, he is obligated to provide these specific examples. He can't simply say, "let's start over" and revert my and other editors changes. And I'm willing to work with anyone on anything as long as there is good faith on both sides and the the intellectual integrity of the article is maintained. As for the larger edit team, were that that truly were the case but basically it winds up 90% of the time being just me, Evrik and Ramsey2006. I'm not sure where the resistance to mediation is coming from here. --LordPathogen 22:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

First, I’m not going to argue with you about what I read. Second, from the content of your most recent posts to this article you don’t appear to be willing to work things out with anyone regardless of the terms of agreement. I will elaborate later as it is connected to my fourth point. Third, 90% of the time just you three? You are living in the past instead of in the here and now. Tony (the Marine) and I have provided you with encouragement and support on your personal talk page. Tony has provided you with support here on this talk page. Rockero, Tony and I have agreed with you on various issues on this talk page. I have assured you on your own personal talk page that I was committed to editing this and one other article as that is what my time allows. Fourth, resistance to mediation? Why is proposing that we try to settle things as a team and then use mediation if it doesn't work resistance to mediation? I said: we have an opportunity to “do it right this time. We'll have a fresh start with a concerted team effort towards NPOV. On controversial issues we can work towards win/win situations and the article will be better for it. But for us to be successful we all need to act professionally and be civil to each other. … “  (BTW, Ramsy2006 agreed.  You declined.)  I also said that if we can’t work together as a team “then I'll agree to mediation”. On your own personal talk page I stated: “As Tony suggested, a mediator might help since it doesn't appear that two of the editors are getting along because of a long history of argument.” OK, so I ask you again:  What resistance to mediation? Fifth, I think the questions should appropriately be: What is your resistance to working as a team? And: What is your resistance to being civil? Sixth, you state that you are interested in assuring that the “intellectual integrity of the article is maintained.”, but I have to question that also. So far since I have returned what I have observed you do is bicker, accuse, obfuscate, insult other editors, complain, disrupt the editorial and team environments, make illogical assumptions and arguments, and brag about your four degrees. There is no denying that you are book smart, but all the education in the world doesn’t prepare one adequately enough for a few things in life called cooperation, teamwork, professionalism, civility, consideration and compromise. Finally, your edits here are valued. Tony has said that, and I'm saying it now. Your contributions will make this article better and richer, but unless we work together in a civil manner "the intellectual integrity of the article" can not be maintained. Now, if you don’t mind, I am going to go edit this article --- this bull (and please note that I am not referring to fecal matter) that you that you insist on riding is too old for me to sit around on this talk page and continue to watch. As far as I'm concerned this rodeo show is over. Chicaneo 08:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but apparently your idea of "teamwork" is predicated on giving up the past month's reverts and starting over. My point, and this is the last time I will state it is this- that revert was illegal as no one, including yourself but especially Evrik since he added the dispute tags, has pointed out "specific" issues with data from the judge's order that violates NPOV or is factually incorrect as is required by wiki guideline. Since you mentioned Tony the Marine, kindly note where he wrote: "the improvements made by Users LordPathogen, BorgQueen, Will Beback, Chicaneo and Rockero are well written and well sourced as is required by Wiki policy and therefore, none of it's material should be removed unless proven as false." I will give the mediation process a chance and quit debating by proxy here as to whether it is needed or not. Clearly it is. --LordPathogen 11:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've looked at a couple of pages on the mediation procedure, including this one: . It appears that mediation is a long and involved process that could take months to resolve. Note the following point, from the section titled Common misconceptions.


 * Mediation is a quick and easy way to resolve disputes. Formal mediation is not a rapid progress; most cases take weeks minimum and months on average to reach a resolution. Minor disputes that do not require the formality of the Mediation Committee should be addressed through informal mediation or other informal dispute resolution.


 * We owe it ourselves and to the mediation committe to do what we can here on our own, so as to make sure that we are not wasting their time and abusing the process. Furthermore, since mediation aparently involves us working together to come to a voluntary agreement anyway, any progress that we make towards that goal here and now will facilitate any future mediation. Should our attempts at working through this together and building a consensus here ultimately fail, we will at least be able to point to this talk page as evidence that we have exhausted all alternatives, thereby enhancing the probability that the mediation committe will accept our request for their assistance in helping us come to agreement. (They are not required to accept it.)


 * In order to work towards the goal of cooperative editing and consensus, and as a gesture of good faith on my part, I am prepared to support you in one of the issues for mediation that you added here:


 * Premature and unilateral archiving of material on Talk page by User:Evrik that is relevent to current and ongoing discussions. In this case, May/June 2007 has already been archived.


 * I should note that this issue has since been removed by a member of the Mediation Committee, so that mediation will not resolve the issue, anyway, although working together here as a team in an attempt at consensus might.


 * Although perhaps stalled, some of the archived discussions are still current and ongoing discussions. If you are interested in continuing the discussion of these issues (and I see that another editor, Chicaneo, has already expressed her willingness to add her skills to the mix), I will support you in asking Evrik to restore the most reciently archived material for that purpose. --Ramsey2006 17:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ramsey2006, my recommendation is that before we continue any further with this we all need to make (not take) the time to read Biographies of living persons which is official policy, not merely a guideline. This page states "in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious." Also, " 'Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.' – Jimbo Wales." The policy also requires a presumption in favor of privacy stating: "Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy. In case of doubt, the rule of thumb should be 'do no harm'. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. When writing about a person who is only notable for one or two events, including every detail, no matter how well-sourced, can lead to problems. In the best case, this can simply lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, this can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic."

It is my stance that we should leave the pared back version and scrutinize the un-reverted version for relevant material to be included that would not infringe upon the privacy of the Arellano's, in particular upon the privacy of Saul, a minor child, who by the way is innocent in all of this and he will remain innocent in all of this for the remainder of his life. Wikipedia is particularly sensitive about exposure to lawsuits. The un-reverted version, in my lay opinion, provided too much private information. There are bits and peices of relevant information in the Memorandum Opinion and Order that I am looking at now, but again, in my lay opinion, that does not warrant re-posting the entire un-reverted version all over again. My stance is still to keep the last version of what was considered neutral (in accordance with policy) and let's use this opportunity to start over, taking all of LordPathogen's previous suggestions and addition of new sources seriously, and work together to make this a good encyclopedic article. I will not change my position on this. Three of us had already agreed to revert the article and after reading Biographies of living persons thoroughly and then going back and re-reading the un-reverted article I am convinced we made the right decision. I am also convinced that Evrik's revert was not illegal as LordPathogen states, but that it was our duty as ethical editors to make the revert. If LordPathogen is not willing to work with us as a team in this endeavor then we are obliged to work without him. c/s Chicaneo 07:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Disingenuous false accusations and fecal references
I'm getting a little tired of this nonsense. Something needs to be done to put a stop it. I am nobody's sockpuppet. And I don't appreciate other editors comparing my comments with fecal matter, either. --Ramsey2006 10:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems to me you are the one who started with references down there. I just followed your lead as witnessed by this edit comment of your: "07:03, 4 June 2007 Ramsey2006 (Talk | contribs) (72,373 bytes) (→Scope of WikiProject:Mexican-Americans - Don't ASSume.)" --LordPathogen 14:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Everybody, please be civil to one another and avoid making personal remarks. Civility is a requirement, not a suggestion, and uncivil editors may find themselves blocked. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Under the title of Disingenuous false accusations and fecal references  I want to say this, I'm pondering the mediation, the way its currently written it seems to me like a Fallacy of many questions. The whole mediation is set up on a false presupposition. I'm leary of agreeing to it because it would only give credence to the single purpose editor who started it. --evrik (talk) 04:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Impact section
(1) The sentence U.S. Law does not recognize the right of sanctuary needs a citation. (2) Re the sentence that included 4.9 million - the 4.9 millon has been taken out and replaced with “millions”. This is because the estimate of 4.9 million was done by a representative of the Mexican Government. The 4.9 million figure should come from US records, perhaps census information. (3) Reference #12 the article by Jason Byassee was an opinion/editorial. In the spirit of NPOV I’m removing that link and all references to that link.Chicaneo 10:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Consensus
In light of the recent requests for mediation (rejected) and arbitration (rejected), and per User:Will Beback's recommendation for a RfC on the arbitration page, I am requesting comments regarding issues on which we have already reached consensus. Please note that I am not asking for comments on issues that editors feel need to be revisited, I am simply trying to compile a list of all issues on which we have reached consensus from November 2006 (date of first entry on talk page) to date. Once this is done, any editor is free to seek consensus change per Consensus, which is official policy. All editors are expected to follow Etiquette guidelines and any editor who engages in disruptive editing will be dealt with according to the Disruptive editing guideline. It important to point out that on Etiquette, Larry Sanger states “Show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who, if permitted, would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here.” And that is what I intend to do. Chicaneo 10:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Discussion regarding the use of the term “illegal alien” vs. “undocumented worker” took place in Archive 1 in the following sections: “Requesting addition of Illegal Alien in place of Undocumented Worker”, “Proposed Compromise: Lets use both terms”, “Lets finish this debate”, and “Unilateral editing decisions”.  In these discussions a consensus was reached that the disputed labels would be dropped and the article would simply state the facts.  The final result was approval of the wording in the intro section and the first sentence of the history section.  Chicaneo 10:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, we did indeed reach such a consensus reguarding the use of disputed labels. --Ramsey2006 15:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

* A consensus was reached that this article falls within the scope of WikiProject Mexican-Americans. Discussion took place in the following sections: “Use of categories“, and “Scope of WikiProject:Mexican-Americans”. Chicaneo 19:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC ) strikethrough: --Chicaneo 00:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering about this one. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, and I'm not sure exactly how WikiProjects work. I do agree that there is indeed such a consensus amoung the editors of this article, but some of us are members of the WikiProject in question, and others (myself, for example) are not members. Who is supposed to determine whether an article gets listed as part of a WikiProject? The editors of the article, or the members of the WikiProject (reguardless as to whether or not they edit the particular article in question)? It is not clear to me that we (by which I mean the editors of this article) even have the authority to make this decision. Perhaps this is a decision that is left up to whatever consensus that the members of the WikiProject as a whole come to. (With "turf battles" being fought out at the WikiProject level in the event of dissagreements between the various WikiProjects.) In this case, there seems to not be a conflict between the consensus amoung the editors of this page and the presumed consensus amoung the members of the WikiProject, so it is somewhat of a moot point, but if there were such a conflict, who would have the final say? Is there a wikipolicy page addressing this here somewhere?--Ramsey2006 11:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I wondered about the same thing myself when one editor deleted the WikiProject:Mexican-Americans template and then it was restored (by you, actually). I could not figure out why someone outside the WikiProject could delete our template and then proceed to argue that the article was not within the scope of the WikiProject when he was not even a member of the Project.  It was all very bizzare because the WikiProject members choose which articles to place on the Project list and if a member does not agree, we discuss.  Editors outside the Project really have no say about which articles we choose to adopt.  I don't know of a specific policy, I only know of our procedures/standard MO.  The template removing/restoring took place during the edit war and if the consensus statement regarding the template is not needed, then by all means, let's strike it.  --Chicaneo 19:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * WikiProjects tend to tag talk pages of articles over which they have some sort of relationship.uch of it has to do with the assessments and the bots. You don’t have to be a member of a wikiproject to edit on an article, it’s simply a means of article tracking. Articles, such as this one, may be of interest to differetn groups, hence the multiple tags. The removal of the tag earlier was a bizzare attempt by LP to try and disenfranchise a group of people. Let’s just leave the tags as they are. --evrik (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, I agree. I think Ramsey2006's point was that a consensus statement about the use of the WikiProject:Mexican-American template is a non-issue, a moot point.  Therefore, why should we have a statement at all?  I move to strike it.  --Chicaneo 19:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A consensus was reached that it was OK to use Category:Mexican American leaders. Discussion took place in “Scope of WikiProject:Mexican-Americans”, and “Request for Comment: Use of categories Mexican American leaders, Mexican criminals and Fugitives as well as links to article Mexican Americans”.  Chicaneo 23:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A consensus was reached that it was OK to place Elvira’s name in Category:Fugitives. Discussion took place in “Request for Comment: Use of categories Mexican American leaders, Mexican criminals and Fugitives as well as links to article Mexican Americans”.  Chicaneo 23:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Was a consensus reached regarding placing Elvira's name in Category:Mexican criminals? We had discusson under “Request for Comment: Use of categories Mexican American leaders, Mexican criminals and Fugitives as well as links to article Mexican Americans”. LordPathogen argued in favor of the category and Rockero and I stated that if someone put her name in that category we would not oppose it. No one else commented. I believe that was a consensus. Does anyone agree? Disagree? Chicaneo 23:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Nelson Mandela is not listed as a criminal, why should Elvira? --evrik (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Is she a criminal in Mexico, or only the United States? If not a criminal in Mexico, then the category is inappropriate. I don't think comparing Elvira Arellano to Nelson Mandela is valid, however; those are two entirely different situations. -Amatulic 17:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that we need to be careful with broad categories such as "Criminals" or "Mexican criminals" that would group people who have committed violated relatively minor offenses with murderers and rapists and the like. The fact that Elvira Arellano used a false SS# to obtain employment is already noted in the article, just as the fact that the Bush twins used fake ID's to purchase alchohol is noted in their respective articles. But unless any of them maxed out somebody's credit cards or cleaned out their bank accounts or something, categorizing the entire article under an overly broad category like "Criminals" does a real disservice both to the subjects of the biographies and to the seriousness of the categories themselves. Perhaps a new, more narrowly tailored category like "Violators of immigration related offenses" might be appropiate. However it is worded (if indeed it is really needed, and I am not really convinced of that), it should be a category that accurately reflects the nature of the offense, and places it in its proper social context. Such broad categories have great potential for mischief as a means of introducing POV into a great many biographical articles here at Wikipedia.--Ramsey2006 03:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In light of the Biographies of living persons policy it is probably best to err on the side of caution. Chicaneo 06:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

OK - Then the consensus statement regarding the use of Category:Mexican criminals is:
 * A consensus was reached that Category:Mexican criminals should not be used.

* A consensus was reached that the article be taken back to the version of  20:36, 9 May 2007 Chicaneo 06:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * strike-through: --Chicaneo 05:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I believe that there was (and still is) such a consensus. In addition, the table that you constructed above allows for the convenient discussion of any specific items in case there is something that should be reinserted back into the article from the previous version.--Ramsey2006 17:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Point of information. I thought we had consensus beofre so I reverted it a while ago. evrik (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't mean to confuse. What I should have said was:


 * A consensus was reached that the article be taken back to a neutral version prior to the edit war. The change was made and the article was reverted to the version of 20:36, 9 May 2007 Chicaneo. Discussion took place in "Neutrality".  Thanks, --Chicaneo 05:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

LAST CALL - The above list & discussions reflect the issues on which the editorial team has reached consensus to date. If I missed anything please add new consensus statements to the list here. I'll leave this message open for about a week to allow other editors time to comment/contribute. After a week or so I'll post a final consensus list referencing this section as our discussion regarding the consensus points. Thank you all for your comments. Chicaneo 06:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus reached
Based on the above discussion the following terms of consensus have been reached to date:

--Chicaneo 20:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Discussion regarding the use of the term “illegal alien” vs. “undocumented worker” took place and a consensus was reached that the disputed labels would be dropped and the article would simply state the facts. The final result was approval of the wording in the intro section and the first sentence of the history section.
 * A consensus was reached that it was OK to use Category:Mexican American leaders.
 * A consensus was reached that it was OK to place Elvira’s name in Category:Fugitives.
 * A consensus was reached that Category:Mexican criminals should not be used.
 * A consensus was reached that the article be taken back to a neutral version prior to the edit war. The change was made and the article was reverted to the version of 20:36, 9 May 2007 by Chicaneo.

=New discussions=

Mistaken Analysis of the Rush bill
The article states, in reference to Rep. Rush's bill to grant green cards to Arellano and 33 others, that
 * Passage of this bill into law would affect millions of children been born in the United States whose parents are threatened with deportation.

It is in fact unclear why Rep. Rush's bill, which explicitly enumerates the 34 people affected, would impact "millions of children" -- as a matter of fact, it is not even clear if there are in fact millions of children who were born in the US to parents who are threatened with deportation. Unless there is serious objection, I will remove this passage. Malatinszky 19:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I have no objection to the sentence you propose to remove.  Just looked at the CBS News reference (ref #6) used and the article does not even refer the the bill.  What it refers to is immigration legislation in general.  In fact, I'll remove it for you.  Thanks.  --Chicaneo 05:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Reminder
Before this article goes off the deep end again ... please remember, we're trying to work by consensus. --evrik (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks Like She Finally Got Picked UP
Maybe someone can put this information in the article that the criminal, illegal alien has now been detained. Die4Dixie 00:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Look like it was already done. --evrik (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from editing my comments.Die4Dixie 16:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Intro sentence
The current sentence says that she is notable for living in the USA illegally. No time right now to check on what it used to say, but this makes about as much sense as saying that she is notable because of the number of books that she had overdue at the public library. It doesn't set her apart from millions of other undocumented folks who live out perfectly ordinary mundane lives in this country, and whose names have never appeared in print. Will somebody please check the history and find out what the old wording was and revert it? --Ramsey2006 01:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the term "convicted felon", though true (since stealing a person's SSN is a felony), is being used in the intro to demonize Ms. Arellano. That's pretty unnecessary, unless the intent is to divert from being unbiased and try to paint Ms. Arellano as some kind of ogrish axe-murderer or serial carjacker, in which case it should of course be left in. Acidqueen5426 (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That phrase is unnecessary for the lead, because the sentence goes on to say she's notable for living illegally in the U.S. It also introduces loaded language that violates the WP:NPOV policy. That phrase has been reverted before, and it apparently snuck in again over the winter holidays. I have reverted it once again. -Amatulic (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Elvira Arellano. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080214100011/http://www.breitbart.com:80/article.php?id=D8R4OQQ80&show_article=1 to http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8R4OQQ80&show_article=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)