Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States/Archive 1

Illegal immigration to the United States
This is a start in moving this topic to it's own article. It is largely been copied from the main Illegal immigration article. Please please add nice things to it. Wallie 11:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments on POV statements
Hi Wallie;

I've added a few additions to your original scheme and hopefully expanded the discusion on this issue. It will be interesting to see if anything useful develops out of your new topic. Unfortuantely, many seem to be prejudices wired for sound and don't want to discuss things in a civilized manner.

Good Luck

D&#39;lin


 * D'lin, it appears that you inserted a large number of POV statements. Have you read over our WP:NPOV policy? We need to reflect all points of view, but we mustn't appear to endorse one or the other. Let's make sure that this article is verifiable and NPOV. -Will Beback 01:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

--

Hi Will beback,

Have YOU read over the NPOV policy? It appears you strongly endorse one side and not the other. Its hard to put in an opposing factual information if one side decides (in their infinite wisdom) that everything they disagree with must be POV material. Trying to present both sides of an argument with those kinds of ground rules is not only patently unfair and dishonest it doesn't help inform people of the true situation.

For example you recently deleted: "Many believe that this illegal immigrant flow has costs that far out weigh any slight benefits. Only by significantly reducing the number of illegal immigrants, drug dealers and criminals crossing the borders can important ecosystems, cities, cultures and traditional lifestyles damage be minimized. Government administrative apathy and failure to act along the Southwest border and in the interior enforcement of existing laws is the single biggest obstacle to doing what the majority want."

I would like to know 1 [one] point that is NOT factually correct.

Cheers,

D'lin


 * What is your source for that information and opinion? We can include POV statements, but they should be attributed to the speaker. So it'd be OK if we wrote that, "John Smith, a notable commentator, says that government apathy is the single biggest..." But we can't write that as if it were an undisputed fact. -Will Beback 19:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving day
Moving stuff over from Illegal Alien. Good news is that much is duplciated aleady, i.e., here already, and I have de-duped this. If I have clobbered anything (I don't thinkl I have!), it is not intentional, and anyone is welcome to put it back. Also, if you think anything new is POV, well I have just copied it across. Lets keep this article free of POV tags (big challenge huh?). Happy editing. Wallie 18:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Partial "Clean up"
Hey, this is User:ProfessorPaul. I have begun the process of "cleaning up" this article; I have completed the first 1/3 of it (approximately). I agree it does need to be cleaned up, but I believe we can easily maintain NPOV. I will try to work on the rest of the article tomorrow. ProfessorPaul 05:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please explain each of your edits. So far you haven't explained any of your work, except for this note. -Will Beback 05:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Will/Professor Paul


 * Hope you don't think I am interfering here... I really hope you two guys can work together, as I'm sure you can. I can see that the work presented by you, Professor Paul is of a very high quality, and it would be a pity to see it all reverted, or some silly edit war begin. On the other hand, Will may have some reservations as to the changes. It would be really nice if Professor Paul's changes were made, and fully agreed by Will.

Wallie 07:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

PS. On having further thoughts, it may be best to leave the article changed as it is now by Professor Paul, and for you, Will to edit/put back anything that you disagree with. What do you think? Wallie 07:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As long as edits, especialy deletions, are explained, then we can all work together. Unexplained deletions are very close to vandalism, and tend to be reverted. -Will Beback 19:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, check out this odd Wiki link
Hey Wallie and Will, check out this Wiki link Mexican Immigration Propaganda. It is a "stub" of an article that HARDLY has NPOV. It also has a single author. I may want to "wade into it" and NPOV it. What do you two think? Check it out. ProfessorPaul 03:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds OK. Bit of a strange topic, though. You never know, though. Might turn out OK. Wallie 21:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Giving the Bush speech its own "small" section
Hey, how about we give the Bush speech its own "small" section in this article? I will move the small paragraph from "border security" and use that as the starting point. I have a reliable source of the speech's text Text of Speech from the Associated Press via Yahoo!. And (hope this goes without saying), I will maintain NPOV. ProfessorPaul 04:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Political Groups POV
The section of the article which discuses Political groups is very biased and needs to be entirely re-written.

NPOV - entire article should be reviewed
Sections discussing political organizations are biased.

Sections discussing illegal immigration in general are biased and only directed at illegal immigration from the Mexican border. There is no discussion of illegal immigration from other countries.

The article does not cover both issues of the debate - if that is indeed the intention of this article then both sides should be adequately discussed or referenced.

If this is an article about illegal immigration then both sides of the issue should be discussed from a neutral perspective. Arguments about taxes/healthcare/etc. should contain a neutral perspective and no offer speculations as to the effects of illegal immigration unless they are discussed in a section for "arguments of effects".


 * O boy. Wasn't long before this came along. To be expected, considering the subject matter. However...
 * Would you be so kind as to sign your comment. Thank you.
 * If you think the article is POV, or there is any other part you are unhappy with, :please please change it.
 * Naturally include both sides of the debate.
 * Please also illustrate with examples from of illegal immigration to the US from the other countries you mention. This is highly relevant, and would be helpful.
 * Wallie 19:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * NPOV is corrected. It was overly biased to the right. Liberal102 04:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Section 2.7, beyond the first sentence, seems almost on the point of worthlessness. Is a citation of an editorial (i.e., an article written from a point of view) enough to validate the statement that "many native English speakers are unhappy with bilingualism"?? If the "issue is not specific to illegal immigration", why bother including it at all? A b 03:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The paragraph as is does seem weak. Perhaps, someone could give a better source and expand upon the impact of differing languages and cultures as relevant to immigration.  I do think that the paragraph could possibly contribute to the article as whole.  Those opposed to immigration see non-native speakers as an inconvience and other cultures as threatening to their version of the "American way"; however, their xenophobia and motivations against immigration are truly realized by such sentiments. Kimathi 04:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Benefits Section
I think the article should go into more detail about the benefits illegal immigrants receive. Everybody knows that illegals get school, food stamps, medical care, and do indeed have fraudulent social security and medicade cards and this was even covered by CNN. If you want to give credibility to the article it should cover this in more detail or people will think its a joke.
 * So don't wait for others. Include anything you think is relevant. Naturally, you can expect others to have different viewpoints. This article will always be controversial, but hopefully, as you said, it will be "not taken as a joke", and be informative. Wallie 19:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Bush Speech has a new "critics" section
Hey, everyone, I have noticed a lot of back and forth with people calling President Bush "a liar" in the article. :(  If you think he is a liar (and you have no sources), then say it HERE on the talk page.  If you have a source, let your SOURCE say he is a liar, then let the source back it up and list the reason/fact/theory WHY Bush is a liar (lots of people said Clinton was a liar too; same rule in his case, too).  *whew!*  Now--I hope this will help--I have added a "critics to Bush speech" section.  It is sourced from CNN and lists critics from the political left and the political right.  If anyone wishes to ADD a critic to the Bush speech or policy, add it there.  OK?  :)  Have a good day. ProfessorPaul 03:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, the coverage of the Bush 5/15/06 speech is spread across at least three articles, but this is the most comprehensive, so whatever we want to say let's say it here and we can consolidate them all together in time. -Will Beback 06:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Organized political groups 2
''Why do you think this is biased...? ''

Many organzied political groups have begun to speak out on the issue of illegal immigration (and also legal immigration) resulting in a wide range of policy options under active consideration. One proposal is to reduce the levels of both legal and illegal immigration into the U.S. (see: immigration reduction). Probably the most important group advocating this position is the Federation for American Immigration Reform (sometimes referred to as FAIR).''

* This bit is probably neutral

Another notable political group, the Minuteman Project has been lobbying Congress for stronger enforcement of the border laws and is reported to be organizing private property owners along the U.S.-Mexican border for the purpose of building a fence to discourage illegal border crossings.

* This bit probably presents side 1 of the debate

Other groups are organzing protests against the federal classification of illegal immigrant status as criminals. These groups also demand various rights be established in law for illegal immigrants to become permanent legal residents (with permission to work) or (eventually) a path for full U.S. citizenship. These groups have also organzied large protests and rallies in many major urban centers in the U.S., including New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, and Dallas.

* This bit probably presents side 2 of the debate

However, some have reported that the movement may have generated a significant backlash among those opposed to illegal immigration, which, according to a number of political polls, includes the majority of Americans.

* This bit probably presents (only slightly) side 1 of the debate

''So, if you analyze it, it's maybe not too bad.... ?''

Wallie 20:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

POV/NPOV Tags
What's wrong with the article? Please say so. We can then make it OK, and remove the tags. Thank you. Wallie 22:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I also don't see why the POV tag is necessary. I haven't carefully read every word, but it looks alright to me. Tix 22:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. So you think everything is OK now. (no news is good news). The POV tags can be removed, if everyone is OK with that. Thanks. Wallie 18:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. I now have removed them. Thanks. Wallie 06:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Merging with the US Immigration Debate
The two are definitely connected.

Options:


 * 1) The US immigration debate article should be merged into this one.
 * 2) This article should have a short precis about the debate, and the rest of the debate text could be merged into the "Debate" article. Naturally, bits outside the current debate should remain here.

The second option is probably trickier, as which bits of text should go into which article? The subjects are intertwined. Both options have their merits. Note, however, this article is the parent and the "Debate" article the child, just as this article is the child of "Illegal immigration.".

Wallie 19:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I approve a move in the direction you indicate. The long section on the bill there, should have its own article or be placed in an article on that bill maybe. Just one thought if they are merged. Depends what others think. --Northmeister 19:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the second option better. The debate encompasses legal and illegal immigration, so merging is not a good option.--Rockero 19:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Language
Illegal immigrant is the preferred language per the AP Stylebook and should be used consistently throughout the article. Any attempt to change the language, whether to illegal alien or undocumented alien/undocumented worker, is POV, and will be reverted. Calwatch 04:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The language matters are not clear, and we don't need to be dogmatice about it. This isn't the AP, and their stylebook does not apply here. -Will Beback 07:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Will Beback, I agree. I changed the opening paragraph to make a little more sense (calling an 'undocumented worker' an 'illegal immigrant' defeats the purpose of defining 'undocumented worker').  Would it be better to use different terms throughout the article so that revert wars do not ensue on such a sensitive topic? Kimathi 00:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, we need to stick to one term. I propose illegal immigrant, since it's the title of the article. The point of that paragraph is that politicans talk about "undocumented workers" but they do not say that they want to deport the children and parents of their undocumented workers, nor of their brethren that don't work. Calwatch 01:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, why one term? I thought the point of that paragraph was to explain that there are differences in labels - not to push an agenda.  I've read the entire article again and the number of times the term, illegal, is used becomes quite annoying.  'Illegal immigration' is the title of the article and represents an action - not a person.  I plan to contribute to this article by making it more readable without bias.  Hopefully, we will continue in discussion.  Kimathi 02:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've made a few changes to the language, corrected some grammar, and cleared up a few paragraphs. Please discuss here before reverting.  There is a great deal of redundancy between the sections labeled 'Illegal immigration debate' and the sections 'Documentation', 'Legal issues', and 'Criminal activity'.  I think we should work to avoid that. Kimathi 03:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The person is here illegally, however, and their very presence in the country is an illegal act. I will concede "undocumented worker" when dealing specifically with the issue of those who are not authorized to work in the United States. However, "undocumented" implies that someone forgot their papers and not that they are in this country illegally. I would be fine with "unauthorized immigrant" which appears to be the legal term used by the BCIS: but I concur with the AP Stylebook's explanation of why undocumented is unacceptable. Calwatch 04:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Major Crossing Points
I'm currently searching for some major crossing points on the U.S.-Mexico border. A) Does anybody have this info? B) Should we add it to the article?


 * B) I don't really understand what such an addition would contribute to the article.  Additionally, the article already has numerous points about immigration along the US-Mexico border.  Kimathi 21:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We already have U.S.-Mexico border. That would be the appropriate place for listing licit and illicit crossing points. -Will Beback 22:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Human Rights
This section is more than a little incoherent. It needs to be clarified as to how the various things it talks about relate to human rights. It also badly needs a topic sentence that mentions (or at least alludes to) human rights. I'd work on it myself, but it's 12:45 a.m. where I am and I'm not nocturnal. --WikiMarshall 07:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal
DKalkin has proposed a naming convention for immigration-related topics. Please join the discussion at Naming conventions (immigration).--Rockero 19:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"Statistics"
A user with the IP 172.198.20.32 added in a list of "Illegal immigration statistics", citing his or her source as "2006 (First Quarter) INS/FBI Statistical Report on Undocumented Immigration". I find this unlikely, since the INS became ICE and was folded into the Department of Homeland Security since its creation in 2002. A websearch revealed numerous references to this report of anti-illegal-immigration websites (ALIPAC, etc.), but no hits for the report itself, and none from government websites. Some of the stats may be accurate. However, some of them had only tenuous connections to illegal immigration (i.e. number of Spanish-language broadcasters). The emphasis on crime leads me to suspect an agenda. I have removed the stats in question and am leaving a note here so that if we can get some accurate statistics and reliable sources for them, they can be included at a later time.--Rockero 18:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Summary Data
Shouldn't the table marked "Illegal Immigration Info" which provides profile summary information on illegal immigrants be in the profile summaries of illegal immigrants section?198.97.67.57 11:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The Quote at the beginning.
The quote at the beginning is incredibly biased and I removed it because it does not provide any new information and comes from a biased website.

I pasted the deleted quote below.

"We are letting in criminals, subversives, the insane, the diseased and the poverty stricken, uneducated and helpless of the world and all of these mentioned categories become a burden to America's middle class. We are experiencing an invasion, a "reconquista," if you will, designed and orchestrated by the Mexican government. America's immigration laws were set in place to protect the American public. The American public is being victimized by our own government through its pandering to the cheap labor, ethnic identity groups and victimology groups in our society." US Border Patrol Supervisor David J. Stoddard


 * Please sign your comments with 4~s. Thank you for protecting the integrity of the article.  That contributor has had multiple biased, unsourced, and editorialized postings on this article - including the lastest where s/he gives an opposition point only to counter it within the same poorly written sentence.  Your efforts are appreciated.  Keep up the good work.  Kimathi 01:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree the quote does not provide any new information, it just confirms what is known from many other sources, but it does have a lot of credibility and is a good summary of the issues. David J. Stoddard is an experienced Border Patrol Supervisor with a lot more on the ground experience [17+ yrs] then all of us and may very well be correct. The website the quote is stored on is totally immaterial.

D&#39;lin 03:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous user placed another opinionated quote in the introduction. I have deleted it. Please discuss here before adding commentary to the intro. Thanks! Kimathi 23:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's the quote let the readers judge for themselves: "Yet while these workers add little to our economy, they come at great cost, because they are not economic abstractions but human beings, with their own culture and ideas—often at odds with our own."

D&#39;lin 00:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

half the article focuses on the Mexican border
But if you look at the statistics provided, about half the visa overstayers and about half the illegal immigrants in this country originate from Mexico, so that seems reasonable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.97.67.57 (talk • contribs)

Actually you are correct, the article should spend more time on Mexican illegal immigration what with about 1,500,000 illegal immigrants per year -100,000 from Canada and perhaps -400,000 more from the rest ot the world this would seem to indicate that 2/3 [67%] of the illegal immigration [1,000,000/year] is occurring from Mexico.

D&#39;lin 21:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute
I attempted to delete a link that appeared to be an advertisement for an "anti-illegal" (sic) website. My edit was reverted. In response, I added a link to offer a balance of opinions. I propose that either both should stay as phrased or both should be removed. Please discuss before taking action. Thanks! Kimathi 23:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Leaving the issue of it being full of loaded language (like "shrill"), the link you want is full of information which is unverifiable or flat out wrong (such as its claim that "AICF's web site suggests that immigrants have 'sown the seeds of ethnic strife in America'" - I checked, it doesn't). What isn't unverifiable or wrong is insinuation, such as when the author of that piece insinuates that these groups are overreporting their membership. This link is an attack piece plain and simple. What's more, the SPLC has been accussed by several people (Horowitz being one of them) of overreporting the threat of racism in order to increase monetary donations it receives. The link you provided is questionable (as it is full of unverified data, flat out wrong data, and unsupported accusatory insinuation, and has its publisher has a contested track record) and the article is full of loaded language. To call it "an attack piece on anti-illegal immigration groups by a left-wing activist group" is being kind.71.74.209.82 00:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Both the discussed links are POV. Either both should stay or both should be removed. If Horowitz says something isn't racist, then it must be true, right? I mean African Americans should be grateful for the enslavement of ancestors...at least according to his statements. He is far from anything moderate if you were attempting to make a point. I will change back the description, and will avoid calling the POV numbersusa website what it really is. Additionally, I have placed a POV tag due to the current disagreement and numerous anonymous posts that have an obvious bias to them. Kimathi 23:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If a link is POV isn't relevant to whether it should be in this article. What is relevant to this article is whether the overall effect of _this_ article is NPOV and whether POV sources have verifiable data. You disagree with NumbersUSA. That's fine. How about addressing your disagreement in a productive way by providing verifiable data which paints a different provides a different perspective? This attack piece by SPLC doesn't do that (it is demonstrably false (such as when it lies about what are on other web pages), unverifiable (such as when it accusses others of racism), and spineless (such as when it insinuates that others are lying about the size of their membership)). Again, I have no problem with you disagreeing with me. (I actually dislike people who agree with me but can't defend their position in a responsible manner. I don't dislike people who disagree with me but can defend themselves in a responsible manner.)  Step up to the plate and provide intellectual content. The tactic you have taken (making unsupported accusations against NumbersUSA because it provides statistics you don't like) is agenda driven and does nothing to address this dissention between you and I in a productive way. We can, and likely will, change the link to SPLC back and forth until the end of time if we stay on our current path. I'm open to reason. Give me something to reason with. As for Horowitz, he didn't say that blacks should be grateful for their ancestor's slavery. He said that blacks should be grateful to the US for their current quality of life. Go to the source, not to some second hand left-wing demogogue.71.74.209.82 00:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * as stated above: flat out wrong (such as its claim that "AICF's web site suggests that immigrants have 'sown the seeds of ethnic strife in America'" - I checked, it doesn't). umm, actually it does, located here - These changes including amnesty for several million illegal aliens have sown the seeds of ethnic strife in America. Today, over 85% of all immigrants to the U.S. are non-European.

Now if you are going to include a link to any article, please list the correct name of the article. Wikipedia is after all an encyclopedia, not a blog, and it should retain some level of maturity and professionalism. The article is named “Anti-Immigration Groups” not “Attack piece on anti-illegal immigration groups by left-wing activist group”. If you are unclear on this point, please refer to Neutral point of view, particularly the part about “NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." Thanks, Brimba 03:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of creating an encyclopedia article, use verifiable sources (and there's no policy on naming links the same as the title of that page). I recommend that you review the NPOV policy yourself.71.74.209.82 13:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC) Actually, the best way to resolve this dispute is to remove the SPLC link and you do your homework and find a legitimate source which has verifiable data which disagrees with NumbersUSA.71.74.209.82 13:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC) Also, the link you want doesn't discuss illegal immigration. It discusses anti-illegal immigration groups. If you want to create an article focusing on anti-illegal immigration groups, your article has a better chance of belonging there. It doesn't belong here.71.74.209.82 14:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've remoevd both advocacy websites, pro and con. Let's stick to news sources. -Will Beback 20:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Images
The recently-added images, Image:Immigrant fence.jpg and Image:Immigrant.jpg, are not appropriate. The picture of an individual is recognizable, and so may an infringement on the individual. The photo of people climbing over a fence is original research - they could be anywhere. -Will Beback 00:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits
It is hypocritical to argue that links to advocacy groups should be removed and that we should stick only to news articles then TWICE reinsert the link to an advocacy group just because it supports your political agenda. Also, the Arizona Star link is just a link to some deaths. It doesn't really make the point that it is used for. The only point it makes is that peope have died in the desert.71.74.209.82 21:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The Arizona Daily Star is not an advocacy website, it's a newspaper. However there is no rule against using advocacy websites as for references if they meet relaible sources. There is a difference between using a website as a source for a specific facutal assertion, and simply adding it as an external link. The advocacy sites were removed from this page because a) they are included in several other pages already, and b) there was a dispute over which ones to include here. -Will Beback 21:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The Arizona Star doesn't make the point its claimed to make. Further, you wrote "Let's stick to news sources" and are now moving the goal posts. I know of no policy which establishes a relevant distinction in how external links and links to support claims in the article are used. Simple logic suggests that, if there is to be made a distinction, links in the article should have a higher standard than external links. There is a dispute as to whether advocacy groups should be used in the article. We can't pick and choose which advocacy groups are permitted based on our own political agendas.71.74.209.82 21:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The relevant guidelines are WP:RS and WP:EL. Note that there are many articles on this topic, and some already have full lists of advocacy websites. -Will Beback 21:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to those sources, they make my point even stronger. The Arizona Star article, by its own confession, is full of unverifiable data. A reference to unreliable data is an unreliable reference. As per Wiki policy, "bear in mind that edits for which no reliable references are provided may be removed by any editor". Therefore, I'm deleting it. Further, as per the SPLC article, it isn't necessary to lower the numbersUSA source to its level as the SPLC link (as originally linked to) fails on the point of "One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view" (which means that it needs to be linked to as an unreliable source) and its claims that anti-illegal immigration groups are racist are unverifiable (they aren't supported in the SPLC article). Again, thanks, but by pointing me in the direction of these policies, you've made my point stronger.71.74.209.82 22:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted as it is an advocacy site http://regulus.azstarnet.com/borderdeaths/results.php?month=00&year=2006 removed as it doesn't make the point claimed for it. "In some areas like the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona and new Mexico these illegal methods are often dangerous. " deleted as it doesn't have a source. http://www.derechoshumanosaz.net/deaths.php4 deleted as per discussion earlier on talk page "In addition to all these hazards illegal immigrants are often abandoned by their human traffickers if there are difficulties, often leaving them to die of thirst, suffocation or heat prostration in the process. Others may be victims of intentional killing, rape or robbery by their often unscrupulous "coyote" guides as at least ~7% of all deaths documented in the desert's of the Southwest are the result of gunshots or blunt force trauma. (See details in :, overview in Immigrant deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border) " deleted as derechoshumanosaz is an advocacy site and, without it, the other doesn't have a source. "This extensive illegal immigrant traffic through inhospitable deserts in Arizona and New Mexico has resulted in hundreds of illegal immigrants dying as well as extensive ecological damage to the fragile desert environment and extensive property owners along the border. " deleted as it doesn't have a source and, btw, these issues were discussed in my last post to the talk page, so don't ask "what note", just read here198.97.67.58 12:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please get a username, it's impossible for other eidotrs to know that "198.97.67.58" and "71.74.209.82", etc. are the same person. -Will Beback 19:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

A name wouldn't stop someone from logging on with more than one name. That being the case, "it's impossible for other eidotrs to know that "198.97.67.58" and "71.74.209.82", etc. are the same person" isn't much of a reason to get a name. How about just addressing the issues without worrying about who brought them up?


 * If you want to be intentionally sneaky, then yes there are ways to do so. If you want to be open and forthright, then you'd get a username. Regarding the info, the www.derechoshumanosaz.net site appears to qualify as a reliable source, as does the Arizona Daily Star. Please don't remove sourced informaiton. -Will Beback 20:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

On its top page, the derechoshumanos site states it "fights the militarization of the Southern Border region". This is an advocacy site. You stated you want to not use advocacy sites. Ever since you said that, you've demonstrated an intention to use advocacy sites only when they "support" one side of the issue. Please stop moving the goal posts. The Arizona Star cite was removed because it doesn't say what it is claimed to say. Please stick to verifiable data and sources.71.74.209.82 22:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Advocacy sites are permissible if they qualify under WP:RS. My comment about removing advocacy sites only concerned the list of external links. Also, who is Sher Zieve and why are we quoting her? -Will Beback 22:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sher Ziev's byline states, "Sher Zieve is an author, political commentator, and staff writer for The New Media Alliance (www.thenma.org). Zieve's op-ed columns are widely carried by multiple internet journals and sites, and she also writes hard news. Her columns have also appeared in The Oregon Herald, Dallas Times, Boston Star, Massachusetts Sun, Sacramento Sun, in international news publications, and on multiple university websites. Ms. Zieve is currently working on her first political book: 'The Liberal's Guide To Conservatives.'"

As for the advocacy links, Wiki policies make no difference between external and internal links. It makes sense, though, to put a higher standard to internal links.71.74.209.82 22:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * An author with no book and no Wikipedia article doesn't appear sufficiently notable to include. Where does it say in WP:RS that advocacy sites are forbidden? As I recall, they are only banned if they express extremist views. A catalog of dead illegal immigrants isn't an extremist view. -Will Beback 22:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You want to put advocacy groups -in- the article now? I wish you'd make up your mind.  Fine.  Put all of the advocacy gruops back in which have been taken out in the past week.  You don't want to be biased do you?

Assuming, of course, that there isn't some other reason to leave them out - such as derechos (which is taking data from the Arizona Star and claiming it is saying something which the data doesn't actually support. As for Sher Ziev, I think a reporter whose work has appeared in the Oregon Herald, Dallas Times, Boston Star, Massuchusetts Sun, Sacramento Sun, international news, etc. can hardly be called a minor reporter. What's your standard for a non-minor reporter?  Maybe we need to delete other cites (how many news articles in the article were written by people who don't meet your definition of a non-minor reporter, I wonder?) in addition to links to advocacy groups.71.74.209.82 23:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't play dumb. There is a difference between links that are used to support a reference, and links which are appended at the end. The standard for notability around here is having an article. -Will Beback 23:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

""There is a difference between links that are used to support a reference, and links which are appended at the end." Where is a relevant difference mentioned in Wiki policies? "The standard for notability around here is having an article."  Okay, so you think Sher Ziev wrote for all of those papers, but never wrote an article??71.74.209.82 23:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As for Sher Ziev, I think a reporter whose work has appeared in the Oregon Herald, Dallas Times, Boston Star, Massuchusetts Sun, Sacramento Sun, international news, etc. can hardly be called a minor reporter.

For what its worth:

The Oregon Herald: She has had 5 columns printed in The Oregon Herald this year. “''The Oregon Herald is a non-profit online news site that provides local, state, national and international news in a headline list format. Updated bi-weekly.''”

“''Many of our reporters are college journalism students, both graduate and undergraduate from universities around the globe. As you might see, we offer an alternative to the standard news website.''”

Based on this page, these 5 columns appear to have been self-submitted; without any expectation of financial compensation.

Dallas Times Dallas Times Herald (aka: Dallas Times) ceased publication on 9 Dec 1991. (This is the only Dallas Times that I could find per Google)

Boston Star, Massuchusetts Sun, Sacramento Sun The Boston Star, [Massachusetts Sun Massuchusetts Sun], and the Sacramento Sun are news feeds/News portals run by NewsIsFree “NewsIsFree is an online news reader, RSS Directory and news search engine.” Brimba 05:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting. I didn't know that. On the one hand, she's been writing for over ten years (assuming she wrote for the Dallas Times before 1991). On the other hand, several of them are newsfeeds. Still, many well-known newspapers use newsfeeds for various articles. In the end, I don't think the case has been made that she's not a respectable source, but I think you've made the point that she is questionable. If you want to remove her comments from the article, I'm okay with it - assuming we will hold other journalists in the article to the same standard. On one condition, that we establish an operative definition of what is and what is not a good news source.198.97.67.59 11:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This all seems kind of silly, the web sites listed could easily be replaced with other sites with similar information and the authors cited could be replaced by other authors. The information is the key not the authors who report the information. Of course some of the information is from advocacy sites of one kind or the other; but even they do have some valid information even if there advocacy is patently obvious and easily discounted. Its impossible to get any where near a balanced view on this subject without reading the different points of view put forth by different advocacy web sites. The advocacy sites that do not have valid information, and there are many, should not be included. Some here seem to want to censor the information that's available because it disagrees with their pre-conceptions and think the rest of us should be "saved" from being exposed to other information.

Cheers,

D&#39;lin 16:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If someone wants to take the time to find proper sources for the same statements and provide them in a way which makes an effort towards NPOV, I'll have no objection. Laziness in not doing that, however, isn't going to fly as an excuse71.74.209.82 19:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

bringing NumbersUSA back
An administrator suggested that we leave links to advocacy groups out of the article. Then he chose to try to push for that in a very biased way (working to leave some pro-illegal links in while removing pro-border security links). Now, another pro-illegal link has been put back in. At this point we need to reexamine how we are going to treat the issue of links to advocacy groups. Until we do so, to maintain a balanced perspective, I'm going to put the NumbersUSA link back in the external links section for as long as there is a pro-illegal link in the external links section.198.97.67.57 11:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm new to the discussion but I would argue that in is in the Wiki spirit to have as much information as posible, as long as the information is relevant and presented in context. The solution may be to have sub-headings for the links. Something like: "These a pro and these are against" Morlesg 05:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We have an article about NumbersUSA so it's better to provide an internal link to that article rather than an external link. In general, we want provide information on our pages rather than sending readers out to other sites. -Will Beback 17:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Wiki policy (under WP:RS) states, "Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source—that would be a self-reference". In other words, we do -not- want to provide information on our pages rather than sending readers out to other sites.  Doing both seems reasonable (as Wikipedia makes a good tertiary, summary source), but using Wikipedia as a primary source is against policy.  We should include primary sources wherever possible.198.97.67.59 18:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We're not citing NumbersUSA as a source. We already have an external link to NumbersUSA in the article about that topic. Incidentally, secondary sources are preferable to primary sources. -Will Beback 18:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "We already have an external link to NumbersUSA in the article about that topic." I did a search for NumbersUSA in the article and couldn't find it. "secondary sources are preferable to primary sources" where is that stated in Wiki policies?71.74.209.82 20:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's at the bottom, under "External links". For the second item, see WP:RS. -Will Beback 20:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Explain what it means to provide information, but not be a source of information.71.74.209.82 22:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Legal Issues
"There have been occasional incidents where immigration status has been an issue in politics." Is not a legal issue.71.74.209.82 19:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you stop editwarring for every single edit made. I would also suggest you take a break from editing, before you find yourself forced to take such a break. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 19:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest you spend more time learnig Wiki policy and abiding by it and less time talking about others.71.74.209.82 19:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

NSF on Immigration Economics
I deleted the information under this heading as it is repeated word by word under the heading "Illegal Immigration Economics". Also, the sub topic "immigartion with and without quotas" was moved to "legal Issues".

Morlesg 00:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Visa overstay
I cleaned up the definition of "overstay" to make it more generic as tourist visa overstay are only one part of the definition. The new definition includes all visa oevrstays.

Morlesg 00:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

illegal immigration on wikipedia
There are multiple instances where an editor has utilized the word, "here", when talking about where immigrants have gone. Currently to my understanding, the wording states the immigrants are on wikipedia. I think they may be referring to the United States, but this article is full of unintelligent, poor writing. If someone would clean this up, maybe the article could be taken seriously. Kimathi 14:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You have very poor reading comprehension skills if you think "here" refers to Wikipedia in the article. "Here" refers to "the United States".  Feel free to edit to clear your confusion.71.74.209.82 14:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If "here" is to be assumed as the United States, then its usage would be POV. Someone living outside of the United States would not understand the current assumption.  Kimathi 21:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks
Regarding some comments in this page: '''There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia.'''

Some suggestions:


 * Discuss the article, not the subject;
 * Discuss the edit, not the editor;
 * Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
 * If you feel attacked, do not attack back. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of external link
Why is the external link being deleted by anon? I would argue that it is may be useful link. The fact that advoactes "pro-immigration" and that is a Catholic group, is not ground for deletion, unless the material on the website is irrelevant to the subject of the article, or contains original research as stated on WP:EL. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Justice for Immigrants: A Catholic, Parish based organization that supports comprehensive immigration reform]


 * If this link is allowed in the article, we should also have links to Catholic groups on other side of the issue and to Muslim, Buddhist, Baptist, Mormon, Atheist, Wiccan, and Shinto groups on both sides of the issue. Every pro-illegal immigration link needs to be balanced with an anti-illegal immigration link.  Every Catholic link needs to be balanced with a link to another religion.  Are you willing to have the article cluttered up with external links? 70.108.100.130 23:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Two more things:
 * What is "comprehensive immigration reform"? Meaningless politicalspeak.  Any link should have an accurate description of what the group actually stands for, such as: "This group supports large increases in legal immigration levels and widespread amnesty for illegal aliens."
 * That Miami Herald "No human being is illegal" editorial should go too. As an aside:  just what in the world is a "human being"?  Do we talk about our pets as a "cat being" or "dog being"?  Is that tree in your backyard an "oak being" or a "maple being"?  The term is absurd.  Either say "human" or "person", but whoever invented the term "human being" needs to be prosecuted for crimes against linguistics.  That aside, the editorial doesn't belong here anyway unless it can be balanced with some on the other side.  As a matter of fact it looks like every single external link here is pro-illegal immigration.  70.108.100.130 23:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

As stated in your talk page, you need to cool-off. Your editing behavior is becoming disruptive. Read WP:EL for guidelines on what can be included on External links sections. You are welcome to add other links, with the caveat that we should end up with a short External Links section. Wkipedia is not a web directory. Also note that Wikipedia is not a battleground. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I reserve every right to not cool off when good faith edits are met with a patronozing "test" script from some would-be alpha wolf.  70.108.100.130 00:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Anonymous: I am just warning you, that with this attitude of yours, you will (a) piss-off a lot of fellow editors; (b) make this article a pain to edit; and (c) earn youself block for disruption. Take a break, maybe? ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 00:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, in all these responses from you I have yet to see you apologize or admit wrongdoing for leaving the "test" script on my talk page.  70.108.100.130 00:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I would, if there was a need for it. The deletion of material from an article, such as what you did here, with the edit sumamry "rm advocacy spam", is considered vandalism. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 00:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Adding links advocating in favor of illegal aliens, especially if they also promote religion, is just what the edit summary said they are: advocacy spam. It is also not vandalism.  This is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit.  If somebody thinks certain links are inappropriate they have every right to remove them and not be called a vandal.  Maybe it's you who needs to take a break. 70.108.100.130 01:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Editorializing
Wikipedia is not a soapbox. For this text to remain it needs to be cited from a reliable source, in which the controversy is described in these terms, and attributed to that source. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Moved from article:


 * Who are the big losers in illegal immigration?


 * 1) The average taxpayer who has to subsidize the illegal immigration as well as live with the higher taxes, more crowded schools, emergency rooms, hospitals, highways, prisons and higher crime rate. According to census data the fraction of labor costs in the final finished product are: farm produce (6%), construction (20-50%), service industry (20%) and production (20%). Assuming that illegal immigration cuts these labor costs by 5-10% the savings to the consumer are very small (1-2% on these items only). The additional taxes needed to susidize these low income households overwhelm this savings.
 * 2) All low education workers as they have to compete with all the like wise low educated illegal immigration. The unemployment rate for high school dropouts is typically double that of non- high school dropouts. The wages of the lowest quintile of workers essentially hasn't improved in 20 years. The growing wage gap between low income and higher income workers is due in large part to the fact that the higher educated workers are getting ever higher salaries and the bottom wages have stagnated.
 * 3) Even bigger losers are native United States Hispanic and Black workers who have a larger percentage of less than high school educated workers who must compete against an increasing number of low cost illegal labor.
 * 4) The environment, of the projected 120-130 million increase in U.S. population by 2050, post-2000 immigrants legal and illegal and their descendants will account for two-thirds, given present trends.
 * 5) Government at almost every level as it is bribed, corrupted or co-opted by illegal immigrant advocates to disregard the law.

Who are the big winners in illegal immigration?
 * 1) The illegal immigrant and his family although possible family separation tempers this.
 * 2) The businesses who hire them may be temporary winners as they get cheaper labor costs often without paying Social Security Insurance, un-employment insurance, workers comp, etc.
 * 3) Mexico, it gets to export its unemployment and under employment problems to the United States and gets up to $13-20 billion dollars remitted into its economy.
 * 4) The border smugglers (the "coyotes") and their associates on both sides of the border who take up to 90% of all illegal foot traffic (the "pollos" or chickens) across, deliver them to others in the U.S. who in turn deliver them to an employer or relatives for a fee. This business is lucrative and potentially deadly costing each illegal immigrant or his sponsor/family about $1,000 ea. Total business is variously estimated at $2 billion/year to $7-8 Billion (Ken Ellington, "Hard Line", pg. 85) second only to wage remissions in dollar volume.
 * 5) The illegal document forgers who are thought to operate muti billion dollar operations
 * 6) The labor contractors who often act as go betweens for some businesses and the illegal immigrants.
 * 7) Drug dealers,criminals who prey on the illegal immigrants or commit crimes in the U.S. and then run across the border, terrorists who all use the existing illegal immigrant flow to hide their own illegal forays across the border.

I admit I haven't had the time to more than skim these articles, but I would think I would have seen this at least in the headers, and so far, I haven't. I'm looking for any information on the health concerns that unregulated immigration poses, e.g. illegal immigrants entering the U.S. and then spreading tuberculosis (or other diseases that have been basically eradicated in the U.S. but not in nearby countries). I know that a few decades ago (not sure if it's still going on), incoming migrants were screened for serious diseases, which kept major diseases from spreading to those already in the United States. Since this sort of screening can't happen when people enter the country without going through the legal process, obviously it's a concern. So first, where is the article dealing with this, and second, are legitimate concerns about diseases and terrorists "not NPOV" and therefore not to be found on Wikipedia? It's clear that portions of the above removed text are inappropriate, but the financial burden of taxpayers is a legitimate concern and could be phrased more appropriately. (Then again, it's possible that I missed it in the article...I really need to reread this when my eyes aren't falling asleep.) Kilyle 07:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Mentioning that identified people are concerned about terrorism and disease wrt illegal aliens is NPOV. But it still needs to be properly attributed.  Most of what was mentioned in the deleted part was not properly attributed and, thus, was editorializing.  One issue did have proper reference - the ecological impact issue - and should probably be restored.  I haven't done so yet because I'm not sure of the best way to do it.  If you want to give it a shot, go ahead.198.97.67.59 16:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay. I don't actually have time to hunt down sources at the moment, so I hope someone else will.


 * I will note: That illegal immigrants are not screened for diseases needs no source; it is obvious. The real or potential impact of unscreened diseases entering the country (e.g., cases of tuberculosis traced back to illegal immigrants) needs a source, though.


 * Also, that illegal immigrants receive services that they do not pay for, that are in fact paid for by "public funds" (that is, paid for by taxpayers), that too may not need a specific source. Illegal immigrants do not pay taxes.  Yet the public schools are required to provide education for children freely (whether they are in the country legally or not).  This means that their children receive education paid for not by their families but by legal citizens who pay taxes.  I'd also like to see a link to recent legislation (in California?) that grants reduced college tuition to illegal immigrants&mdash;and the amount of the tuition reduction is paid for by taxpayers.


 * I'm more hazy on the details of hospital/health care access. But anyway, that people are receiving free services and benefits while breaking the law&mdash;and that their lawbreaking is the only reason they are receiving such services&mdash;is a fact, and should not need a source (although I expect it could be phrased better). Kilyle 22:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Edits
I have attempted to cleanup obvious POV statements bt summarizing and attributing to sources. There is still much work to be done for this article to be considered compliant with Wikipedia content policies.
 * 1) Statements that are not supported by reliable sources need to be removed;
 * 2) Material that is supported by statements for advocates, both pro and con, need to be attributed to these and not asserted as fact;
 * 3) Unreliable sources such as blogs or personal pages should n0t be used.

This article needs to read as a neutral resource and not as a pamphlet. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved a group of external links attached to a POV sentence to the external links section. If editors want these back in the main article:
 * 1) Summarize, cite from these sources
 * 2) Attribute the POVs to these making them

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Keyes
There is no dispute that Keyes is a Conservative, just that "Conservative" is a sloppy description of the POV of the web site which is already well defined with the descriptors I've already added. Its not redundant, its less than redundant it repeats the same data, only less of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.97.67.56 (talk • contribs)

Unbalanced tag added
It is clear from the discussion and the edits that there is an "invasion" of this page by one point of view. I propose that we allow all points of view instead.

Morlesg 23:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that the tag is unnecessary. If you believe that the article is unbalanced, you need to explain what is missing from the article. If you assess that there is an "invasion", you need to explain what does means. Tags are not there to make a point, but to encourage a discussion and collaboration. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 00:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I’m (slowly) learning the rules and etiquette and may have jumped into a topic for passionate people. But there is no question that this article presents an unbalanced point of view. This article presents the “anti” illegal point of view quite stridently but it is not balanced by a “pro” illegal point of view. I would prefer that the article be neutral; but if that is not possible, then lets have both (all?) camps represented.


 * I have attempted some contributions towards making the article “more neutral” or “less inflammatory”. For example, I changed:
 * The policy of Posse Comitatus states that the military will not be used for domestic issues. Some argue that using the military to defend the country from invasion by illegal aliens is a violation of Posse Comitatus. According to former US Border Patrol Supervisor David Stoddard, these people are seemingly ignorant of the fact the army patrolled the border for more than 46 years after the passage of the Posse Comitatus act.
 * to
 * The policy of Posse Comitatus states that the military will not be used for domestic issues. Some argue that using the military to aprehend illegal aliens is a violation of Posse Comitatus. Others, including former US Border Patrol Supervisor David Stoddard, argue that the army patrolled the border for more than 46 years after the passage of the Posse Comitatus act.
 * In under 15 minutes it was back to the original wording. Notice that in the original wording one camp is presented as an officer of the US government and the other camp is “ignorant”. The person who “undid” my edit uses “defend the country from invasion” in a derogatory manner; and cowers under “see the M-W definition”. Well here it is (from the MW website0:
 * 1 : an act of invading; especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder; 2 : the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful


 * Notice “conquest and plunder” and “harmful”.


 * Maybe I need to change tactics and fight fire with fire and change from a small attempt at being neutral to a big attempt to be a radical extremist pro my own agenda. Sorry, feeble attempt at humor. Practical things: more citations from respected sources, less inflammatory language, more openness to the point of view of others (I do not want their point of view to go away, but mine should be give some space too). Maybe we can consider dividing the article in two: pro and con (??). I’ll continue to add a grain of sand; one day we’ll have a mountain. Thank you. Morlesg 17:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Aye, Aye, Morlesg! be bold and improve the article. the key to NPOV is to describe significant viewpoints without asserting them. See NPOV tutorial. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 17:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Look at the entire definition of "invade". M-W states, "invade

1 : to enter for conquest or plunder 2 : to encroach upon : INFRINGE 3 a : to spread over or into as if invading : PERMEATE b : to affect injuriously and progressively  synonym see TRESPASS - in·vad·er noun" You claim that millions of foreigners illegally trespassing into this country is not the same as them invading it. Is it "plundering"?  Again, using the same dictionary, "plundering" means "to make extensive use of as if by plundering : use or use up wrongfully".  Are they using the resources of the country wrongfully?  If they were using it "rightfully", they wouldn't be illegal.  So, yes, millions of people are trespassing into this country to take from it wrongfully.  Clearly when we are talking about several million people, we are talking about -extensive- use.  The first definition is met.  Are they encrouching upon the country?  Once more, the dictionary states that "encroach" means "1 : to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another 2 : to advance beyond the usual or proper limits". They are entering by stealth into the possessions or rights of another.  They are advancing beyond the usual or proper limits (the national borders).  Clearly the second definition is met.  Are they spreading over into this country?  There can be no debate on that point.  The third definition is met.  So, if all three definitions of the word are met, the word is accurate and, therefore, appropriate.  Regarding Stoddard's comment, I'll see if we can replace the above with a quote.71.74.209.82 20:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry Anonymous. You express your point of view very vehemently, excellent. But you make my point: by using “invade” you are expressing a point of view that has no place in an encyclopedia. You are convinced “illegal aliens” are “plundering” and “abusing/encroaching” “by stealth”. You have a right to your opinion, but this is not the forum for this sort of discussion. Give me a break, do I have the same rights? Far as I know there are no Wikialiens (smile).Morlesg 01:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I replaced the reference to Stoddard's comments with Stoddard's quote and an admin claimed it was against POV. I'm contesting him on that (he hasn't pointed out how, exactly, it is against POV and unless he does soon, I'll revert).  To avoid a revert war, I'm waiting for a reply.  But I just want to let you know that I am working towards a tighter reference on that point.  I'm not skipping out on it.71.74.209.82 20:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This isn't Wikiquote. It's the task of encyclopedia editors to summarize wherever possible. We cna say what the individual's POV is without quoting him at length. We should also make sure to include differing POVs as well. If we quoted a paragraph from every notable commentator the section would be too long. All we need to say is that some believe the use of military in this instance violates the Posse Comitatus while others do not. -Will Beback 20:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you need to review the policy on that. Its very clear.  "Some people believe" is the kind of words which are discouraged.  We should mention specific people and give specific reference.  You say this isn't Wikiquote, but it sure isn't Wiki_say_whatever_I_want_and_make_vague_references_to_'some_people_saying_it' either.


 * We can summarize an individual's position. Something like, "Some commentators, including a former border guard, believe that the Posse Comitatus does not apply." It's not that hard. -Will Beback 21:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wiki policy is to never delete information unless it is duplicate, redundant, irrelevant, patent nonsense, a copyright violation, or inaccurate (and note that redundant data must be judiciously weighed for deletion as redundancy as reducing redundancy increases inaccruacy). The content we are disputing meets none of those criteria.

Also, note that there is no policy against posting quotes. In fact, Wiki Policy states under reliable sources, "When reporting that an opinion is held by a particular individual or group, the best citation will be to a direct quote, citing the source of the quote in full after the sentence, using a Harvard reference, a footnote, or an embedded link. " Finally, note that your proposed alternative "some commentators.." would force the disputed content to use weasel words (which are against a Wiki guideline). In short, the edits which have been done here by one administrator and those which have been further proposed by another administrator are in violation of three wiki guidelines and/or policies.71.74.209.82 21:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wiki policy is to never delete information unless... Where does this policy appear? -Will Beback 04:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * See Editing policy about half way down the page it states, "So, whatever you do, try to preserve information. Reasons for removing bits of an article include: duplication, redundancy, irrelevancy, patent nonsense,

copyright violations, inaccuracy, or where the accuracy of the information cannot be established"198.97.67.56 11:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not so fast, my friend. Your interpretation of these is out of whack. Yes, you can cite these as part of the citation format, but not on the body of the article (e.g. "using a Harvard reference, a footnote, or an embedded link") . I would suggest that before you throw policy around, you learn the ropes first. It will save you and all involved editors a lot time and aggravation. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 21:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Where's the source of your quote above? Its not what I just wrote.  What I wrote states clearly, "the best citation will be to a direct quote, citing the source of the quote in full after the sentence".  Take the entire quote as a whole and it is clear that "citing the source of the quote in full after the sentence, using a Harvard reference, a footnote, or an embedded link" are listing four different options for putting the quote in the article.  We can choose which of those four to use, but to not use any of them is against policy.  If you are referencing another policy, point me to it.  I want to read it in context.71.74.209.82 22:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)