Talk:Great American Boycott/Archive 2

Another Riot Reported
This newslink reports another riot. Link is: Police Fight Protesters - ANOTHER RIOT REPORTED. Please don't kill the messenger. Martial Law 04:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC) :)
 * This time, there were arrests made by the police. As stated earlier, more reports of this nature will surface. Martial Law 06:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC) :)
 * Arrests? That article says that the police beat some guy up and wouldn't let anyone help him...--130.191.17.38 18:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you posting these in the article in the proper place in the proper manner? BillyTFried 06:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

American Patrol quote from the Washington Post: A Backlash is forming
American patrol reports that a backlash is forming in reaction to what has been going on. Martial Law 20:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC) :)

States are now dealing with the illegal aliens, one town has tossed its daylabor center, one mayor, two councilmen for being pro-illegal alien. This is on Glenn's site RIGHT NOW, taken from a newspaper called The Washington Post. Martial Law 20:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC) :)

Article is:"Fighting Back: Americans Taking Action". Its on the website RIGHT NOW. Martial Law 20:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC) :)

Tucson
Right now the text reads: "In Tucson, many businesses, particularly on the city's predominantly South Side, closed for the day.[28]" Either the word "predominantly" needs striken, or a noun needs inserted between "predominantly" and "South Side" to describe what is predominate there. Joncnunn 20:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe it said "predominantly Hispanic South Side" at some point. Will fix.--Rockero 21:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

"Many Americans...
Many Americans were upset by scenes of thousands of illegal aliens marching through the streets and demanding laws be changed to legalize their presence in the United States.

This sentence has been inserted and removed several times. Right now it reads like someone's opinion. Is there a poll to back this up? If no source can be provided for this information, it should remain out.--Rockero 21:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Some punctuation fixes
I did some of these, but made a double entry (see page history), because of a connection hiccup. -Mardus 21:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Washington Post articles report backlash

 * Labor site Backlash
 * Feds do nothing, States will deal with illegal aliens
 * Where can this be placed, since they indicate a backlash is forming ? Martial Law 21:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC) :)
 * Some states,such as Texas have "State Militias" Martial Law 21:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC) :)
 * Where can these news articles be placed ? Martial Law 23:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC) :)
 * I have added the info in under "opposition", where it seemed to fall in logically. However, I don't think your point about the existence of state militias is germane.--Rockero 00:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

opposition
I feel it must be mentioned that on the days leading up to the boycott, La Immigra were out in numbers at shopping centers, nabbing people, demanding papers, and arresting illegals in an attempt to frighten illegals out of the rally. This is not biased, or shoddy research, I watched them do it, and heard about the kids who did not come to school tomorrow, and still have not come. --152.157.208.5 21:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Mayday + communist affiliation

 * Some political commentators, such as CNN's Lou Dobbs, criticised the boycott for its promotion by groups such as the radical protest organization International ANSWER, (which has ties to the communist Workers World Party), and the pro-indigenous organization Mexica Movement, which seeks to recreate the indigenous nation of Anahuac. Dobbs also suggested that the choice of May Day betrays a communist affiliation on the part of the organizers.

So Dobbs said "all those people are a bunch of commies". And that is bad/notable, how? These days you cannot suggest forming a union or getting better benefits or asking for better national healthcare without being called a commie. That phrase sounds straight out of the macarthy era, so, i'll remove it, if consensus agrees. Project2501a 22:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't touch that section. I will only put it back again as I have over and over.
 * What is there now has been agreed upon by the main editors of this page.
 * Also Dobbs is 100% right that May Day is traditionally connected with socialism and communism.
 * try reading the article on May Day


 * May Day
 * From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 * May Day is a name for various holidays celebrated on May 1 (or in the beginning of May generally.) Today, May Day is best known as an international holiday celebrating labor and workers, and is often associated with socialism and Communism.


 * BillyTFried 22:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you people stop throwing out McCarthy every time someone's critical of communism? There are plenty of unions in the United States and no one calls the members commies (barring the ACLU, which was founded by a guy who declared communism in America his mission).  National healthcare IS socialist, so there's nothing wrong with calling someone a commie for wanting it (while technically speaking the two terms aren't the same, they are in the public's perspective).  Communism isn't a good thing, so what's wrong with calling it out for that?  To paraphrase Churchill: no one pretends capitalism is perfect. Indeed, it has been said that capitalism is the worst form of economic system except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. GreatGatsby 23:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not revert without discussion--that is what the talkpage is for.Lou Dobbs is one of the most prominent mainstream critics of the Boycott, so he ought to remain. However, the issue of "communist influence" and redbaiting in this article deserve discussion. I fear knee-jerk reactions to anything remotely associated with the left side of the political spectrum. Its not as if there is some communist cabal orchestrating the Boycott from the shadows. The truth is that in the Hispanic community, there is a strong tradition of labor politics (Cesar Chavez's UFW being the most notable example), pan-national solidarity (concepts such as "La Raza Cosmica", etc), and collectivist philosophies. Conservatives look at these and the bells start ringing ("Commie alert!"). But these issues need to be approached with a measure of calm. Should we mention the history of the tradition of May Day in the article? Since it influenced the choice of the date and provoked criticism, it should be mentioned. Should we say that the WWP planned and executed the whole thing? Absolutely not. This movement was spearheaded primarily by the people who will be affected by the passage of HR 4437-type legislation, and received the support of many other groups and movements. This is what I have been attempting to make clear in my edits to this article.
 * As to the question of whether or not communism is a good thing, that is not for us to decide, and especially not in this article. This article has to be about the boycott, not people's opinions about political ideologies.
 * And we need to be clear about the distinction between socialism and communism. Communism denotes no personal property and a dictatorship of the proletariat. Socialism denotes government control of the economy (or of some aspects of it), generally in the interest of providing social services. Communism is incompatible with democracy; socialism isn't. There are already socialistic aspects to the US government (Social Security, for example), and most of Europe's governments incorporate many socialistic ideas. Blurring these two concepts together does a disservice to our readers. Proponents of socialized medicine should NOT be called "commies". That is redbaiting, and does not belong in this article or anywhere else.--Rockero 23:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck... Also, you're incorrect, Communism (big c) is what you're talking about, communism (little c) isn't all that different from socialism (and the folks who started the USSR did it with the noblest socialist intentions, by the way). Deluded wishful thinking is all that keeps socialism/communism/etc alive anymore, but I guess the 100 million dead by their own governments isn't much of a price to pay for utopia, eh?          "All the same, today, the accusation of red-baiting is a common self-defense response by Marxist-Leninist parties or organizations when they are criticized from either the right or the more liberal left. This is a tactic most especially used towards those critics that accuse certain members of coalitions or other mass organizations of being in the organization with a hidden intent to recruit to a communist or socialist political party." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red-baiting   Pointing out flawed systems in the States and Europe doesn't help your case, by the way.  I don't think any judgments of the groups who demonstrated should be included in the article, I just find it ridiculous that people are trying to brush ANSWER under the rug to make the protests look less radical.  GreatGatsby 02:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"scheduled for three o'clock in the afternoon"
what time zone is that? 3 o'clock eastern, central, western? also, can anyone give a reference for it? dposse 23:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Union Square Park
that picture is beautiful, but it is really big and is a bit of a eye sore, in my opinion. Can we do anything about it? dposse 23:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

General strike
I don't believe this term (in the first paragraph) is appropriate. The general strike WP article states, "A general strike is a strike action by an entire labour force in a city, region or country." In this case, the action was taken by a small minority of workers. Or, as stated earlier on this Talk page, a general strike is "something that is designed to attack the legitimacy of the state and bring down governments". While the GAB was no doubt opposed to the current government, I imagine very few of the strikers expected or hoped to bring down an illegitimate state. Can we change this somewhat misleading term? --SuperNova |T|C| 01:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a good point Nova. I'll try to rework it if it hasn't been changed already. See what happens when you try too hard to accomodate everyone?--Rockero 20:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think "nationwide boycott" doesn't fit. It implies that the entire nation was a part. I have changed to "widespread boycott" which may still be too generous, but it will do.--Wehwalt 12:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Media Censorship, Protests were NOT "peaceful"
This is from Prison Planet, a news blog:www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/040506violentinvasion.htm News Blackout ORDERED To Suppress Real Nature Of The Protests. County worker assaulted, maybe KILLED by a illegal alien using a Mexicam Flag on a flagpole that has a speartip on it. Media ordered to report Only "Peaceful Protests"]. The news blog charges that the mainstream media was censored, has a photo of a riot taking place, states that a county worker in Santa Ana, California was assaulted, maybe even killed by a illegal alien using a Mexican flag that was on a flagpole that has a speartip on it. As time goes on, more reports of this type will surface. Martial Law 07:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC) :)
 * Where can this be placed ? Martial Law 08:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC) :)
 * The flag used to stab the guy is of this aforementioned type of flagpole. Martial Law 08:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC) :)


 * Alex Jones isn't exactly credible. :D Kyaa the Catlord 13:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's not judge the entire protest by a few peoples actions. dposse 18:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A check of the indicated town's news sources is in order. Martial Law 19:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC) :)

I wouldn't place this info because it does not reference a known news source. As Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources says, "Personal websites and blogs should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website." While there is some gray area with this (for example if the blog report in question ends up making news, which is why the article references some blog commentary because that commentary was later reported in the mainstream news media) in this case the blog reference should not be used. There is enough news coverage of this issue that we shouldn't have to violate this guideline.--Alabamaboy 19:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The closest news data is Rocks thrown @ police,Arrests in Santa Ana Following Rally,4 Protesters Arrested for REFUSING to Disperse. Someone may find more info. Can this be placed as well ? Martial Law 20:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC) :)
 * You wanted news sources. Now you have them. Martial Law 20:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC) :)


 * Your links prove that many of the protestors were unruly, got arrested and threw rocks, I dont see how they in any way prove that someone was stabbed by a flagpole. -BewilderedOne 20:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The Prison Planet link above states that a county employee was stabbed by a illegal alien who used a flagpole. It is in the top sentences of the article, or in the middle sentences of said article. Martial Law 06:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Any reports on the surronding days sales vs normal?
I'd be curious to how many of the participates in the no shopping portion on the Boycott simply shifted their usual spending to the previous weekend and Tuesday & Wednesday. And on the other side how many participants in the counter movement simply shifted their usual spending from the previous weekend and Tuesday (and Wednesday) to Monday. Joncnunn 14:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's been frustrating to see media quotations of economic impact without any acknowledgement that sales losses were quickly countered by purchases the next day(s). A one-day boycott seldom has any lasting repercussions. TartarSauce

Shouldn't Regional demonstrations be in Alphabetical order?
I think it was at some point but got mixed up since all the other additions, no? BillyTFried 21:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

For once, i agree. I was actually thinking the same thing, Billy. dposse 21:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

News sources
See Re.:Media Censorship, Protest were NOT Peaceful. Got 3 local news sources. Can someone place these in the article ? Martial Law 22:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC) :)

The protests were peaceful. we already have stated in the article that bottles were thrown at police. other than that, the protest was overall very peaceful. dposse 23:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

More Backlash:Fed Up Sheriff Joe Arpaio goes after Illegal aliens:
This is the CNN link:Fed Up Sheriff Joe Arpaio goes After Illegal Aliens Martial Law 08:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC) :)

Link will not function on Wikipedia. Go to www.americanpatrol.com/"Fighting Back: Sheriff's Posse Going After Illegals to see the CNN link in which Sheriff Joe Arpaio said that he is going after illegal aliens. Martial Law 08:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC) :)

The statement was made on CNN on 5-3-06. Martial Law 08:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC) :) He was featured on Lou Dobbs Tonight on CNN on 5-3-06. Martial Law 08:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC) :)
 * Where can this be placed and can someone place this in the article ? Martial Law 08:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC) :)

Why cant you do it? If anything you come up with you truly feel confident belongs in this article, then by all means, you should go right ahead and put it in. If not, then maybe you should consider what you asking of the rest of us, no? BillyTFried 09:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A incompatibility exists between Wikipedia and CNN, thus the malfunctioning link comment. Can't put that link in there until it is fixed. Martial Law 09:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC) :)


 * I don't see how Sheriff Arpaio's statement has anything to do with the protests. While I'm the one who first wrote the controversy and backlash section in the 2006 U.S. immigration reform protests and think that article and this benefited from having boths sides of the issue presented, that doesn't mean the articles need every reaction acgainst illegal immigrants in them. Only items directly related to the protests should be mentioned.--Alabamaboy 13:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sheriff Arpaio is known for a lot of things, such as the Tent City - Maricopa County Jail, the pink underwear, women chain gangs, the $0.28 sandwiches, no TV,Coffee,etc., "This is a Jail Not a damn Country Club" remark (I was in AZ watching the news when he said that), letters on post cards only, the Jail House High School, anti-drug programs, among other things. Maybe this is a political stunt, since this is a election year. Martial Law 19:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC) :)
 * This proves that a backlash is forming and will be as powerful as the recent protests, if not more powerful, as people report illegal aliens, and racist groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan start shooting at them (I Was in Arizona when a town in Texas "went" to Mexico, and the Klan said that they're going down there to "burn it to the ground", it is also how I became aware of a militia called "The Knights of the Confederacy". The statement was in the local newspaper, under a section called The Border WAR.).Here is another link concerning Joe Arpaio:Sheriff Enforces Law, Controversy Ensues. Martial Law 19:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC) :)
 * Well theres been a 'backlash' against illegal immigrants for a while. I'm not sure how the actions of one Arizona sheriff indicate that any greater backlash is arising out of the protests. Nor do I see how the actions of Sheriff Arpaio indicate anything about the 'Knights of the Confederacy' or other racist groups, maybe you could provide a link? Also, if you know that a town is about to be "burned to the ground" shouldn't you be contacting the authorities to warn them? What town is in question? You're statements are all a bit convoluted here and I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing or what it has to do with the article. -BewilderedOne 20:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The incident regarding the town in Texas happened long ago, the Knights of the Confederacy have no known contact info, it was formed from gangs in Arizona State prisons, Sheriff Arpaio may be doing what he's doing for political gain, since this is a election year. Martial Law 21:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC) :)

Gran Paro Estadounidense
The correct name and traduction in spanish is Gran Paro Estadounidense. The name of the article in the es:wiki is Gran Paro Estadounidense, not "Americano". In spanish, the term "americano" is for the american continent, the term for the USA is estadounidense. --Gzuz pc 02:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)Gzuz pc


 * I'm aware that for most people in the Western Hemisphere, "American/Americano" is not synonymous with "resident of United States", but as far as I can tell, no one, not even Spanish language sites or news sources called the event Gran Paro Estadounidense. Perhaps I'm mistaken?--Birdmessenger 02:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * But, the spanish wiki is a site and a source in spanish too, and there call the article Gran paro estadounidense, if you call the notice in spanish Gran Paro americano, woul be disrespectful for the citicens in America (continent of course)--Gzuz pc 02:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)Gzuz pc


 * It appears that you are the editor who changed the Spanish language article to reflect your preference of terms, making this unsuitable as evidence for your claims. Even if "Americano" is offensive to other North Americans, that seems to be what the organizers of the boycott decided to call it.  (However, I have to admit that I am somewhat curious as to why they didn't use the term "Estadounidense".)--Birdmessenger 02:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My "preference of terms"?????? you're wrong. Nobody in the es:wiki has changed the name to "americano" again. that's because they are agree. It's not my "preference of terms", it's the preference of terms of allthe citicens in America.


 * Google News (Mexico) hits for El Gran Paro Americano versus El Gran Paro Estadounidense
 * Then there's this from here.
 * However, it also seems like a number of Spanish language sources use "el Gran Paro" or "el Gran Paro Económico". --Birdmessenger 10:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

According to http://www.freetranslation.com/, Gran Paro Estadounidense means "Great American Unemployment" and "El Gran Paro Americano" means "The Great American Unemployment". So they are both the same thing, according to that website. dposse 15:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The issue here (which I guess is resolved now), is that people who live in Mexico and the rest of the Americas consider themselves "Americans", too. The use of "American" to mean "a person who lives in the United States" comes across as exclusionary and culturally insensitive south of the border. All of us 'Unitedstatesians' are generally oblivious (not to mention that alternative terms used to describe US nationality are all pretty awkward sounding--USAnians is another one). This is the sort of thing a translation engine won't tell you.--Birdmessenger 16:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

pictures.
does anyone out there know of a person who went to any of the boycotts and could supply us with some pictures? It would be nice to see what the boycott looked like in all the different cities. dposse 15:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have a roll of SB pictures, one of which I have already included. But since we are on the subject, I thought I'd raise my concern about the images: BillyTFried uploaded two pictures, one from SF, and one from LA. The SF picture features a banner with the face of Ernesto Guevara prominently, and the LA photo features two large flags (one American and one Mexican). In the second photo, the Mexican flag is highly visible while the US flag is obscured.
 * There is nothing wrong with the images themselves, but I wonder how representative of the Boycott rallies they are. I am worried that the images were provided to create a selective impression of the tenor of the protests. All the news stories talked about how the U.S. flag dominated. Sure there were flags from other countries, too. And images of Che (here in SB at the main rally speakers were flanked by an image of Che on the one side and the Virgin of Guadalupe on the other). I don't want to suggest removing them, because it took effort to shoot, upload, and format them, but maybe more pictures would help provide some balance?--Rockero 18:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh please. Is dposse really suggesting having a pic for every city? It's an article not a photo album.
 * And regarding Rockero's concern about the pics, I see 4 protest pics in this article.
 * So in simple terms SF=Bad, LA=Bad, NYC=Good, Chicago=Good.
 * Seems pretty balanced to me. BillyTFried 19:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, that would be unreasonable, Billy. I'm just asking for a few more from the other cities. two or three would be more than enough. dposse 19:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How about 1 more picture, but one that's not just another over head shot of a crowd of people with white shirts and flags? BillyTFried 20:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Huh? Uh, that's not very reasonable. Just about every picture from the boycott is a large crowd of people in white shirts or people with signs against the Immigrants. dposse 21:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So then you'd like to see an article that has 5-6 different pics that are for the most part IDENTICAL?
 * Caption: Protesters in NY, note the white shirts and flags
 * Caption: Protesters in TX, note the white shirts and flags
 * Caption: Protesters in AZ, note the white shirts and flags
 * Caption: Protesters in GA, note the white shirts and flags
 * Caption: Protesters in CA, note the white shirts and flags
 * Nobody can come up with a pic of some 5 year old Hispanic girl on her daddy's shoulders waving a little flag or maybe some well known political activist shouting into a microphone in front of a crowd somewhere? BillyTFried 03:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I may have just the thing...--Rockero 00:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So? BillyTFried 06:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a B&W photo of a child holding a sign. Adorable. Shall I upload?--Rockero 17:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Load up on the upload John wesley 18:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. BillyTFried 19:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Counter-Demonstration Significance
News reports about the counter-demonstrations have consistently reported that they were small in numbers (just look at the picuture included in the Opposition section). And besides being mentioned in passing (to say that they were small) the counter-demonstrations had no impact on the day's events. -Rafanetx 20:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to add something to the article that mentions that the counter-demonstrations were insignificant then add something that has a cited source and isn't POV. BillyTFried 21:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I am assuming that your local media outlets led with the counter-protestors. But I understand that lack of proof is not proof in itself. Anyway, added a ref so your POV sensitivities can be satisfied. -Rafanetx 01:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You're assuming that the Local media in San Francisco lead with the counter-protests? Uh, ok. And thank you for satisfying my POV sensitivities as well as Wikipedia's POV and  Citing Sources Rules. BillyTFried 02:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I see that you take POV issues seriously, deleting my Dobbs reference regarding his lack of evidence about the "affiliation" between the protest organizers and communists. Please see that discussion above. -Rafanetx 01:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The line of text you are trying to add is not only your POV but completely false as well.
 * It's your own opinion that Dobbs did not present evidence of the May Day Communism connection in his article when he in fact did.


 * This Article with your added line:
 * Dobbs also suggested that the choice of May Day betrays a communist affiliation on the part of the organizers.[63] However, (In Rafanetx's opinion) evidence of this supposed affiliation has not been presented.


 * Dobbs' CNN Article:
 * "Just how significant is the impact of leftists within the illegal immigration movement? It is no accident that they chose May 1 as their day of demonstration and boycott. It is the worldwide day of commemorative demonstrations by various socialist, communist, and even anarchic organizations."


 * So, obviously Dobbs did provide evidence in the CNN article. It's not for you to decide whether that evidence is strong enough or not, and if you feels it's not to then FALSEY state that there was "No Evidence Presented". Also the text says Dobbs SUGGESTS, so your argument that we are TELLING the reader May Day was picked because of it's ties to Communism is wrong. We're informing them of what a well known Main Stream Media Commentator SUGGESTED.
 * Plus, the May Day tie to Communism is also already mentioned in the second sentence of this very article:


 * This Article: The date was chosen to coincide with May Day, an international Labor Movement holiday (observed as a national holiday in some European countries and in Mexico) despite the fact that May Day is not widely celebrated in the United States due to its association with Socialism and Communism.


 * A snippet from the Wiki article on May Day:
 * May Day is a primary holiday for large-scale socialist, communist, and anarchist street demonstrations around the world.


 * So, your sentence "However, evidence of this supposed affiliation has not been presented.", is false and does not belong.


 * Here's a short video that provides a little more of the evidence you are looking for:


 * http://www.onthefencefilms.com/video/unodemayo/videoplayer.php?title=unodemayo&format=WindowsMedia&quality=high&width=470&height=410


 * BillyTFried 17:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

So, the fact that the boycott fell on May Day "proves" Dobbs' assertion?
 * Go ahead and quote me where I said anything PROVES, anything or just stop putting words in my mouth and then trying to make arguments against them! Is that what Dobbs SUGGESTED? Yes. And did we say he was CORRECT? No. We just reported on his assessment, and doing so DOES NOT require us to find some strong evidence to back his HIS suggestion. If we report that some protester SUGGESTED H.R. 4437 was unfair, do we then need to go hunting for strong evidence to prove HIS assertions? How ridiculous! BillyTFried

I don't know where you went to school, by you are making a false logical conclusion. That does not "prove" anything and it is his only bit of "evidence", which is completely based on conjecture.


 * You obviously don't understand what a false logical conclusion is because I have not made ANY CONCLUSION at all. We have only reported what a media commentator SUGGESTED. Being that you can't even comprehend that fact and don't seem to be able to form complete sentences either, maybe you should be a little less concerned about where other people went to school. You may want to read up on Civility as well. BillyTFried

Although it is the OPINION of "a well known Main Stream Media Commentator" it is just that, an OPINION. And the fact that you are hiding YOUR opinion behind Dobbs' does not take away from the fact that it may be your own POV. Now, if you have video or any type of statement from one of the immigrants rights organizer stating an affiliation with one of the socialist/communist organization that would be another thing.


 * Once again, it is CLEAR in that article that it is the OPINION or Dobbs, and clearly states he SUGGETSED something. The article never makes CLAIMS of it being TRUE. Maybe you should read that last sentence a few more times to let it sink in. The article does not need video or other evidence to back up something a media talking head, SUGGESTED. BillyTFried

In San Francisco for one, we were explicitly told not to let a group of people from the ISO into the stage area BECAUSE we were afraid they were going to start yelling out propaganda. BTW, nice video! Are you seriously suggesting using that clip as evidence supporting your claim about communist affiliation? How curious that you do not apply your NPOV standard on stuff you agree with. That video comes from a right-wing website from what I can tell glancing through a bit. And again, it is all based on conjecture. The argument in the video begins "Could it be...." Please see my other arguments above, in the communism section. -Rafanetx 09:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, a fellow San Franciscan. How nice! So who is we? I guess what your saying is that you participated in the Boycott.
 * And your trying to accuse me of being biased eh? How funny. Maybe you should consider that your injecting YOUR OWN biases into this article, particularly if you're so emotionally attached to this issue that you MARCHED for it. By the way, the sentence you are complaining about and trying to alter, was structured that way by one of your co-protesters, and the creator of this article. As far as that video goes, sure it's probably from a bias source, but I didn't post it for the article. I posted it for you, because you seem to not be able to believe what is so clearly displayed in that video. And it's not like it was staged, those were real protesters, and their message was clear. Che Guevara, Socialism! Viva La Revolución!!! By the way, do you not see that red Che flag in that photo I took on Market street in SF? No matter how biased the makers of that video are, it was your fellow protesters that provided all that footage, all the producers had to do was film them. And that video isn't even needed to prove the FACT that their was a communist affiliation with the boycott. Everyone knows it. There was the more moderate organizers of the boycott, and the radicals that jumped on the band wagon and tried to take over. The organizers themselves admitted that fact. Or haven't you researched enough to have read that? Do you need me to provide a REF, or are you done trying to deny things that actually happened? BillyTFried 18:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Please, if anyone's emotions are getting in the way of their objectivity it is yours. Look, I reworded the statement to accomodate your POV sensibilities. If, and that is a big IF, you find evidence demonstrating "The organizers themselves admitted that fact", that there was a communist affiliation, please present it. Please, do provide a REF, becasue it is "obvious" that you have done better research than I have. And AGAIN, just because there were communist/socialist groups PARTICIPATING in the march and rallies that does NOT mean in any way that they were affiliated with the protest organizers. Your opposition to that simple statement just betrays YOUR OWN affiliations in this debate. I don't mind using the OPINION of Dobbs, but the way that it was presented left the IMPRESSION that that affiliation was fact, not conjecture, using "suggested" notwithstanding. Because it is CONJECTURE, since the only evidence YOU have presented is that organizers chose May Day for the boycott. I would argue the whole "Che" thing too, but I would first like to see those REFS you promised. P.S., if such REFs do exist why haven't you used them? It has been a week since we started arguing about this. -Rafanetx 20:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Rafanetx,

You are a person who took part in this boycott and marched with the protesters who is now trying to alter this article to minimize any content in it that reflects negatively on an event that you personally took part in. It doesn't get more emotionally involved and biased than that. That's like a fundamentalist Christian who just got done protesting in front of Planned Parenthood trying to alter a Wikipedia article on abortion. I'm just a guy who went to work that day in downtown San Francisco and took photos from his office window and decided to contribute to this article. Accusing me of being biased for accurately reporting what some media figure said and using this as a way of deflecting what you're attempting to do is ridiculous and not helpful to Wikipedia in any way.

You also didn't seem to get that the REF thing I mentioned was sarcasm that was meant to point out how silly it is that you are demanding refs for stuff that isn't even in the article. This isn't a political debate forum. It's a discussion page from an encyclopedia article. But since you took my sarcasm seriously, I spent a few minutes trying to find that article but I had no luck, and I'm not spending hours hunting for it. It was basically one of the people who helped put the boycott together complaining that there were extremist political groups that were getting involved and trying to take ownership of the boycott. He stressed that the boycotted was about immigration and not about political ideologies and complained that the radical groups had not been invited, had not signed their original statement, and had not contributed monetary support for the effort. He worried that Americans would get the wrong idea as a result of these other groups getting involved.

In your effort to minimize any criticism of the boycott, you are detracting, not contributing to the article. If you were some right winger doing the same thing from the other end I'd have the same problem with it, just the same as all the other biased content I've deleted from this article, most of which was right wing rhetoric.

While I was the one who initially added the Lou Dobbs info to the Opposition section of this article, is was actually one of your fellow protesters Rockero, the creator of this article, who wrote the text you are claiming is an attempt on my part at hiding my personal views behind Dobbs'.

I see that you've altered the text you added to the Dobbs section, but it still isn't appropriate.


 * Dobbs also suggested that the choice of May Day betrays a communist affiliation on the part of the organizers.[63] However, besides the fact that organizers chose May Day for the boycott, evidence of this supposed affiliation has not been presented.

Your addition is clearly an attempt to influence the reader into discounting Dobbs' suggestion rather than letting them decide for themselves what they think of it.

Why didn't you just say:
 * However, besides the very insignificant fact that organizers chose May Day (A holiday that's more about Worker's rights than Socialism or Communism) for the boycott, evidence of this supposed and highly unlikely affiliation has not been presented in any way by Lou Dobbs or anyone else living or dead.

You see, reporting on Dobbs' suggestion doe not require further clarification from your POV that he is right or wrong. The reader is supposed decide that for himself what he thinks of Dobbs' assertion.

If one of the leaders of the boycott coalition made a statement saying:
 * "This boycott is to protest the passing of H.R.437 which is an unfair immigration law."

It would not be appropriate for me to tack onto it:
 * However no evidence of the bill's supposed unfairness has been presented.

If you truly don't see why that is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, I would ask that you please refrain for making any more edits to this article which I and many others have spent dozens of hours putting together.

BillyTFried 18:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason why I added that disclaimer was because the Dobbs comment left the impression that it was fact. Again, the fact that he only "suggested" it does not minimize its impact, especially if you are someone that does not know anything about the marches and happens to view Dobbs as an authorative source. The way you want to portray me in your "suggested" rewrite of my edit is very inaccurate just as your anti-abortion example. You included a lot of POV. My edit was very stale and matter-of-fact. I did not change the content in the article in any way. The Dobbs comment is still up there and intact. I felt that, absent any verifiable evidence linking communist/socialist affiliations, the Dobbs comment should be balanced by that disclaimer. Again, this has not been about political debate. I did not write that what Dobbs said (suggested) was false nor did I delete his comment because I understand that he has gained some noteriety on this issue so his comment is relevant. But to accuse an entire movement in that way needs more than the opinion of one man, even if it is presented as an opinion. BTW, the article you are referring should have demonstrated the need for that disclaimer. Because if, as you recall, an organizer "stressed that the boycott[] was about immigration and not about political ideologies and complained that the radical groups had not been invited, had not signed the original statement, and had not contributed monetary support for the effort," that just supports the need for a disclaimer, doesn't it? It is true that the reader must make up their own minds on the issue but they will be unable to do so with only part of the story. The article you referenced would contradict Dobbs assertion. -Rafanetx 19:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the article should end with the Opposition section
It leaves the reader ending on the negative side, especially with that last quote I added from the San Francisco Chronicle.

Maybe there should be one last very small section that sums things up a bit and mentions the future of H.R.437. Maybe call it Future Effects? This section could also be updated once H.R.437 gets passed or killed off. Thoughts? BillyTFried 19:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I just added a new section and called it Summary and added some text to it. BillyTFried 19:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop changing the description of Che Guevara
The very first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on Che Guevara says:


 * Ernesto Guevara de la Serna (June 14, 1928[›] – October 9, 1967), commonly known as Che Guevara or el Che, was an Argentine-born physician, Marxist revolutionary, politician, and leader of Cuban and internationalist guerrillas.

The text that Grazon keeps removing is:


 * some waving flags bearing the likeness of slain Marxist revolutionary leader Che Guevara.

There is nothing false or POV about the description and it is relevant to the article as simply stating his name does not give the reader any clue as to who he was or what he represented.

--BillyTFried 18:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree, the description is necessary for context.--WilliamThweatt 19:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree.--Alabamaboy 19:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Much as I dislike Che Guevera I understand he represents more to people than just Marxism. grazon 18:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Neil Armstrong represents more than just an American Astronaut to people too, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be referred to as such. --BillyTFried 23:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

the title
why was the name changed? What was wrong with the old name? dposse 20:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the edit summary, it was moved because "great is opinion, American is misleading because mostof the protesters are in fact migrants, & because boycott is a form of protest. thus im moving this page to a more neutral p)". However, this issue has already been discussed on the talkpage (Talk:Immigration reform protest). If anyone wishes to challenge the prior consensus, it is important that they do so on the talkpage where the issue can be discussed and decisions can be reached as a team rather than acting unilaterally.--Rockero 03:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

immigration reform
I removed the description of counter-protesters as being "anti-immigration reform" because most everyone involved in the issue wants reform of some type, the debate is over whether the laws will be reformed to be stricter or looser. TheKaplan 15:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I put it back in. The line, as you put it, makes the counter-protestors look like one group which they clearly are not.  Anti-immigration groups are worried about over population and don't seem to like anything or anyone that doesn't adopt "white" culture.  While anti-illegal immigration and anti-immigration reform groups like the minutemen merely want the immigration laws enforced as they are currently "on the books."  Groups that are not in favor of a comprehensive immigration reform bill are just that, anti-immigration reform.  It's all semantics but I'm sure we can come to a compromise that involves more than one point of view.  Mosquito-001 16:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the speculation and boilerplate accusations of racism (par for the course, really), you really said it yourself. "Comprehensive" immigration reform is a qualified form of immigration reform, and opposition to what is referred to by that political moniker does not indicate in any way oppostion to immigration reform in general.  Immigration reform could be reform of the way the laws are enforced, it could be reform of the system by which we grant visas.  The desire for reform of some type is practically universal.  TheKaplan 22:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You can ignore it but it's still there(typical of a certain movement that shall go unnamed). Regardless, I'm glad you took my suggestions under consideration and did not "dummy" down the opposition to the Great American Boycott.  This is an edit I can support.Mosquito-001 00:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Photos from march in LA
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/May_Day_March_For_Immigrant_Rights_LA

Just added a collection of 75 hi-res photos to the wikimedia commons from the march in LA.

Feel free to use photos where and if appropriate. --Fluxaviator 00:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

GA Review
Review of Great American Boycott


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

After looking this article over, I have decided to fail this article, for several reasons.
 * 1) The lead is too long.
 * 2) Rather obviously, there are "citation needed" tags (of which I have added to) that need to be dealt with.
 * 3) The "Initial response" section contains several one-line paragraphs.
 * 4) The "Regional demonstrations" is just a long list that takes up most of the article. It really needs to be incorporated into a paragraph form.
 * 5) The "Summary" section is really just unneccessary.

Those are a lot of things that need to be changed, so I think it would be best just to fail this article, and work on the necessary changes first, before coming back to GAN. Noble Story (talk) 10:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Alien is the correct legal term
In the USA, an out of state corporation is a foreign corporation. A British firm is an alien firm. Likewise any non-citizen who is human (as well as a corporation) is an alien. They maybe legally here as a tourist, student or a permanent resident. Legally all immigrants, like the late Peter Jennings was, like Ted Koppel is, and like Bill Mazer is, are actually citizens. They were just born outside the USA. John wesley


 * Yup! I pointed that out earlier when someone went and changed the word Aliens everywhere to Immigrants, because they said it 'sounded' pejorative.
 * If Illegal Alien is offensive, then is Resident Alien also?
 * a·li·en n.
 * An unnaturalized foreign resident of a country. Also called noncitizen.
 * BillyTFried 18:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * ET Phone Home.... ET Phone Home.... 204.52.215.107 04:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC) (sorry, but that's what I think of when I think of "aliens". Would you rather transsexual transvestites from the planet Transylvania?)

It doesn't matter what it sounds like to you because it is the correct term. Besides, Undocumented Worker sounds like a carpenter who showed up for work without his build permit one day.BillyTFried 04:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, alien means extraterrestrial creatures. By calling these people "illegal aliens" you are saying that they are extraterrestrial creatures that are here illegally. Get it straight. You say either--now say it slowly-- "Undocumented worker/immigrant" or if you prefer "Illegal worker/immigrant". And no, none of these terms imply that "they symbolize an invited guest, which they are not". They are what they are. Illegal/Undocumented Immigrants. Not Aliens. End of story.--Anonymous--


 * Just because John to you means a guy soliciting a hooker, doesn't mean that's what John means to the rest of us, Mr. Anonymous. That train of thought is alien to us, you know, meaning it's Yoda to us. By the way, one of my best friends is a Resident Alien, and as much as it may surprise you, he has no problem expressing that at all. BillyTFried 08:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry I haven't check recently, but I think the article now has the perfect word. I'm enmbarassed not to have thought of it: non-citizen; the term is not pejorative and it is 100% accurate. It pins down the meaning to citizenship status!!! No ambiguity as to space invaders. John wesley 16:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether you use the term Immigrant, Alien, Non-Citizen, or Undocumented Worker, you still have to make a clear distinction between Legal and Illegal. H.R. 4437, which is what this boycott was formed to protest, is about foreigners who are in the U.S. illegally. It is not about the legal Non-Citizens I work with in my IT department. It is not about my Resident Alien ex-girlfriend. And it is not about my Legal Immigrant great grandfather. It is about Immigrants/Aliens/Non-Citizens/Workers, who are in the Unites States ILLEGALLY. BillyTFried 19:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It is importaint to use the term illegal, as that is what the issue is about; people entering the country illegally.--130.191.17.38 21:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

How about illegals who came in the mayflower? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.243.106 (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)