Talk:Raúl Grijalva/Archive 1

Award
What's our source for this? Thanks, -Willmcw 00:47, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * ''While a Pima County supervisor, Grijalva pointedly snubbed an award from an environmental group named for Edward Abbey, and attacked Abbey's views.


 * Edward Abbey: A Life by James Calahan Kaibabsquirrel 01:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * And do we know the name of this group and what his commetns were? This is such a short reference, it would help if it were expanded. Thanks, -Willmcw 02:04, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * This reference makes it seem that Grijalva is on good terms with a group called the "Western Watershed Project, which give out a "Edward Abbey Memorial Hooved Locust Award" . -Willmcw 05:19, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know if that was the group or not. The name of the group wasn't specified in Cahalan's book.  I'll replace that part of the article with the verbatim quote from Cahalan as soon as I can dig out the book. Kaibabsquirrel 03:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Since it appears to give a different slant than other sources show, and since we haven't been able to find out more, I'm going to remove the assertion. We can add it back when we learn more. -Willmcw 05:35, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

In April 1990, while a Pima County Supervisor, Grijalva declined an environmental award named after Edward Abbey, saying that he was "uneasy because of Abbey's views on immigration, Mexicans, and population growth." (Cahalan, James M. Edward Abbey: A Life p. 213; Arizona Daily Star, April 21, 1990, p. 5B)


 * I believe this Abbey "controversy" is a case of WP:Undue Importance, especially given that we can't seem to dig up any of the facts about this so-called snub. I don't see why turning down an obscure award in 1990 from an unknown group, the name of which we don't list, is encyclopedic in any way related to Rep. Grijalva. It seems more like a failed political smear or an old grudge than proper content for Wikipedia. I've cut it and placed it above for consideration. Just because it's sourced (but poorly) doesn't mean it's particularly important. --Kynn 04:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand, why isn't there any reference to Mr. Grijalva being associated with MEChA? Wasn't that a big party of this controversy? Does somebody keep deleting this?

anon added
anon added and an endorser of the Genocide Intervention Network to a bunch of pages.

Don't want to revert if it's true.

Mikereichold 07:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

List of Links
The critical links listed here seem to be a violation of WP:EL and WP:RS which dissuade us from using extremist sites. "Widely acknowledged extremist or even terrorist organizations or individuals, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should never be used as sources for Wikipedia..." The Southern Poverty Law Center is very critical of the first source and states that American Patrol head honcho Glenn "Spencer posts dozens of immigration-related articles but replaces the words "illegal immigrant" with "illegal alien," among other editing touches."

The second site is anonymous as documented by one blog and may be in violation of election law in addition to featuring pictures of Grijalva with the Mexican flag and Osama bin Laden.


 * Raul Grijalva Watch critical website
 * Shame on Grijalva critical website

I think it would be great to link to critical sites, but I feel that the ones chosen here don't measure up to the standards for external links. One is almost a hate site, and another is an anonymous site that is barely linked to besides this site and blogs critical of its criticism.

I say those two links should be removed. (Full disclosure: I'm a resident of AZ district 7, Grijalva is my congressman, I've met him, and I voted him. But I am not in any way affiliated with his campaign nor have I ever been.) --Kynn 04:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. -Will Beback · † · 17:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation for MEChA membership: found!
The original link for Grijalva's MEChA membership was a partisan, anti-MEChA conservative site with many unsourced and exaggerated allegations about Grijalva.

While his MEChA membership does not seem to be disputed, the source used is very questionable and I suggest it be replaced with a more reputable source. I've added a request for sourcing.

This may be a possibility, but it isn't a great one:


 * OC Weekly mentions his MEChA membership in passing

--Kynn 00:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I found a Communist Party article, and a Michelle Malkin commentary, but neither are good sources. -Will Beback · † · 01:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I listened through the audio link given by an anonymous editor, and on the Alex Jones(radio) program, Grijalva himself vouches for his membership in MEChA when he was a student at the University of Arizona. So that settles the question, I think -- despite the fact that that the show he was on is more than a bit dodgy, and the hosting site for the audio clip (the American Patrol) is way questionable. --Kynn 01:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Alex Jones interview links
On November 26, 2002, Grijalva was interviewed on the Alex Jones radio show, where he said private border patrol groups like the Minuteman Project in southern Arizona were "racist." For audio - www.prisonplanet.com/grijalva_11_26_02.mp3]. In December 2002 he said that his first official act in office would be to ask the FBI to investigate them for alleged ties to white supremacy groups, saying "If you shine the light on the cockroaches, they don't like it." www.prisonplanet.com/news_alert_122302_general.html].

I'm at a loss as to why this particular interview is being highlighted on this entry. These are statements from a 2002 interview with a controversial media figure, which is only used to quote one word from Grijalva. The second link is not actually a source, but is a copy of an article in the Tucson Citizen newspaper.

I cut this paragraph, but it could be replaced easily. --Kynn 04:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivia
With the exception to being added to his school's hall of fame, none of the Trivia was about Grijalva, but rather about Arizona's 7th congressional district. So I moved all those factoids there instead. --Kynn 04:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Arizona Growler incident links
I am the blogger involved with the Arizona Growler incident recently added to the article. In the interest of neutral point-of-view, I will refrain from editing the page myself, but I would like to include some more-specific links users may want to add at their own discretion.


 * Original incident report
 * Other interviews from the same day
 * Further explanation in regards to initial misconceptions
 * Arizona Daily Star story (Probably a more authoritative source, but they also never approached me for comment.)
 * Arizona Daily Wildcat story
 * My reaction to the Wildcat story
 * Archive of all posts regarding Rep. Grijalva

Thanks and regards, Gpohara 21:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The Wildcat link doesn't work anymore. I'll replace it in the article with the Star link. Unless someone presses charges this appears to be a minor incident. -Will Beback · † · 23:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, I was attempting to record a conversation that was out in the open between Rep. Grijalva and his Republican opponent Ron Drake. I had already interviewed Grijalva before the microphone-pulling incident took place.  Please see the clarification link above and feel free to ask questions.  It may also be worthy to note that in the Wildcat article (whose link is working for me), Grijalva's office claimed that they thought I was from the Wildcat.  Thanks again.--Gpohara 23:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I won't ask you any questions because that would be original research, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. What we can do is verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. I will rephrase that it was not during an interview, as that was a misreading by me of the AZStar report. The Wildcat link still doesn't work for me, maybe you have to be on campus. -Will Beback · † · 00:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough on the question deal. I don't live on campus, and the server is actually College Publisher run.  Try their website or one of the other papers, such as the Daily Texan.  If those don't work, it's something between the ISP and CP.  I can't imagine only one of their papers being inaccessible from your location. --Gpohara 01:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The College Publisher main site is up, but the Wildcat and Daily Texan won't load. It may be some temporary problem. I'll try again tomorrow. -Will Beback · † · 01:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
The page was vandalized on January 6, 2007 by a particularly annoying vandal, and it needs reversion. Thanks. (Also, would be nice to get that user blocked from Wikipedia.) --Kynn 22:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That vandal would be my little brother. Ban him.  Please.  --Gpohara 21:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone tell me how to become a recent changes patroller and someone change Garrett's name back to Garrett not TTerrag. TheChroniclesofratman. user

Election Results
Can anyone find the election results for his last three races? Most other congressmen have them on their wiki entries. Demoman925 08:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Start here for Arizona election results. --Kynn 20:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"some" civil liberties
I reverted to Meelar's version again; I deleted "some" before "civil liberties". I don't think it sounds very charitable to say someone supports "some" civil liberties. I know nothing about this particular biography, actually. Another possibility might be to say the person supports "certain" civil liberties; that sounds slightly better, but probably it's better to just say "civil liberties". --Coppertwig 00:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"some" civil liberties
Is Wikipedia a site of being “charitable”, or factual? Why would Wikipedia choose words to “sound slightly better”, rather then be as accurate as possible?

Meelar has suggested that it is biased to call the Second Amendment a Civil Liberty. I will say to deny that classification is an act of bias. Meelar has let stand the text “Grijalva is a supporter of civil liberties. “ That text, as written, states an absolute and denotes bias. Meelar could have chosen to change the text to find a middle ground but he/she did not. By simply reverting to the contested text it reinforces the view that Meelars edit was an act of bias.

Meelar argued that because there are differing views on the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights being a Civil Liberty that it should not be an issue of merit in the Civil Liberty topic on the Raul Grijalva page. Let us test the argument.

If the statement was made “Raul Grijalva, as an operator of gas chambers in Germany, was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Jews during the holocaust.” Would it be a valid dismissal of that statement to say “There are people that do not believe the Holocaust ever happened, so that statement cannot be on Wikipedia”?

NO! In the interest of factual discovery it would be appropriate to dismiss the statement by means of bringing to light the fact that Raul Grijalva had not been born yet during the events in question.

By saying “remove biased sentence--that's certainly a contested way to characterize the second amendment” Meelar adopts an approach that can dismiss any statement by only recognizing there are people that it is not their belief. Thus you can undermine any fact by saying it is not held to be true by all. You should use material experts to define the truth. It would not be appropriate to dismiss the physics of String Theory by noting it is not held to be true by Baptist ministers. If you, Meelar, are “not going to argue one way or another that gun control is a civil liberties issue” than dismiss yourself from the topic. If you wish to contribute then consult several constitutional experts and then edit based on their view.

Have you read the most recent authoritative writing on the subject? Here is a link. I would suggest you give it a good reading. http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

Consider first that, although these people may not share your view on the topic, it should still be classified as the most resent thorough review of the topic by experts in the field. If you do not hold that view of this document, I can only ask if you are a Judge on the United States Supreme Court. If you are not, then I hold these Judges as the authority on the matter.

Here is a quick quote: “To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.” http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf --- SHELLY PARKER, ET AL., APPELLANTS v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND ADRIAN M. FENTY, MAYOR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Sounds like that pretty much classifies the Second Amendment as a Civil Liberty to me.

If “it is not neutral to refer to gun control as a civil liberty without reflecting the debate over this terminology”. Would providing a link to this Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States) be enough to let readers make up their own mind? Or better yet how about a link to: http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

I have, by my edits, contested that the Raul Grijalva Wikipedia page is not neutral, and now, I say it here. --199.64.0.252 05:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think "civil liberties" is pretty vague to begin with, and not very encyclopedic. I think the phrasing should be redefined to say what, specifically, Grijalva is a supporter of. --Kynn 18:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a sad commentary that citizens think that "Civil Liberties" is a vague phase. But, maybe you are on to something. Why is a statement made about a phase that the definition can not be definite? Because it sounds good? We certainly cannot agree that it is true. Why don’t we just remove the whole statement. --199.64.0.252 08:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's "vague" because it doesn't represent a single position on anything. Read Civil liberties on Wikipedia to see that it's a very broad term and not as focused as, say, the section listing Grijalva's views on immigration. As I suggest, it's a better idea to list specific rights and liberties and positions which a politician supports. --Kynn 18:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Kynn. Saying the subject is "a supporter of some civil liberties" is not clear and informative. Listing his actual stances on specific issues is better. -Will Beback · † · 18:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good grief. He can be a supporter of civil liberties without having to support your favorite, 199. It is literally and figuratively correct and a fact. Being a supporter of more than one civil liberties is quite sufficient for that statement to be true; being a supporter of all but one makes it obvious that -you're- PoV pushing. I note your choice of comparison; the Holocaust is a notoriously unsuitable comparison with anything. Putting this issue in a vice and giving the handle a couple turns, you have succeeded in browbeating all comers; I, on the other hand, will be quite happy to go all the way to Arb over this simple statement of fact. I suggest you bring evidence that not supporting a civil liberty makes the statement that one supports civil liberties, untrue. Unhappy as you may be with the fact that supporting the carrying of guns is not widely considered a brave stand in defense of the downtrodden, the fact is that "a supporter of civil liberties other than the right to bear arms" could go straight onto Sesame Street as "One of these things is not like the other / One of these things does not belong", for 10 year olds. In other words, not notable. The minority, WP:FRINGE exception thusly breaks down, and is shown to be irrelevant to the majority statement, 'supporter of civil liberties'.

In lieu of a list, "a supporter of civil liberties" would be just fine. Once a list is added, it also makes a fine overview sentence as introduction. I came here to add the fact that he was supported by environmental groups for the position of Secretary of the Interior for Obama's cabinet (being passed over for Salazar), but I shall restore the sentence if need be. Anarchangel (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree "civil liberties" without listing is a cop-out. It's nonsense like this that makes Wikipedia less and less tolerable daily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.217.27 (talk) 11:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The insertion of "some" is clearly driven by ideology, not a desire to improve WP. -- 98.171.173.90 (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Have you ever heard anyone say "I'm opposed to civil liberties"? I have not. I think that almost everyone will describe themselves as in favor of "civil liberties." But they may disagree drastically as to what is defined as a civil liberty. Like "reform" and "good government," it is a glittering generality without much concrete meaning. Rather than put a vague to meaningless phrase into the article, the wording should be as concrete as possible. Even on seemingly specific liberties such as freedom of speech, everyone is supposedly in favor of it, but may have very different ideas of what that should mean: often they mean freedom of speech for views with which they agree, and much less freedom of speech for views they oppose. So let's make the article as specific as possible on this topic. Regards Plazak (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Re-organization, photo needed
The material in "Immigration and Mexico" doesn't belong under "Criticism and controversies", in my opinion. So certain groups -- in this case, one led by a man with ties to white nationalists, predictably object to a certain politician's policies. This isn't actually a criticism of the person, but rather his votes/views; he's not being accused here of fraud or explicitly mishandling the public trust. If anywhere, these two sentences -- which, to be perfectly honest, seem more like an excuse to embed links to "Immigration reduction" and "Glenn Spencer" -- should go under the relevant "Policies" section, just as his negative NRA ratings go under a "Policies" section.

And maybe it's the grammatical error (should be "dedicates [...] to opposing him") that made me think about this, but I have to wonder why we need a sentence about how this site "dedicates a regularly-updated page to oppose him," within a two-sentence section. Were there to be more (critical) information here, perhaps. But this group also has pages "dedicated" to former Lieutenant Governor Bustamante and current S.F. Mayor Villaraigosa (this one with news updates), among others, and not Glenn Spencer, nor immigration reduction, nor American Patrol receives any mention on these pages. Also, considering the last news posting on Grijalva's page is from Aug. 2006, I think the expression "regularly-updated" has to go.

Also, since he's a sitting rep., we should probably have a photo; there must be something in the public domain. Maxisdetermined 21:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I took it upon myself to move the section and remove the "regularly-updated" modifier. I still doubt the appropriateness of these two sentences, at least as they currently exist. Maxisdetermined 20:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"Politics" section
From the perspective of someone unfamiliar with this congressman and his district, a quick reading of the "politics" section leads me to believe the article was written by a user inherently biased against Grijalva. It hardly offers a balanced perspective, instead coming across as though it was written by a far right-wing xenophobe with an axe to grind against the congressman. Wikipedia bans such posts under its neutrality and point of view guidelines. For this reason, I dispute the balance of this article in the strongest terms.

128.164.181.105 (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Ron Martin, 18 December 2007


 * The sad part is that you're probably right, AND that the page is better than it used to be. (You shoulda seen some of the junk that used to be in there.) I suggest just cleaning it up and editing yourself, though, rather than disputing the entire post. --Kynn (talk) 08:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously,this article is controversial because Grijalva is one of the most progressive people in the U.S. Congress - I'm not going to track down sources, but someone might want to, as the Tucson newspaper has cited sources putting him at the top in this category.

Second, I plan to add a section on Grijalva's environmental record, which is not only progressive, but is currently his strongest legacy. The absence of this from the article suggests the article is biased against him or poorly researched (I'm being polite).

Third, I plan to remove the whole blogger controversy, which is ancient, trivial in the life and significance of a U.S. Congressman, and suggestive of grinding axes. Pcrosen (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Peak oil related?
i would like to know for which reason he got into the "peak oil related person" category?

can't find any context for this! anybody knows?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra%C3%BAl_Grijalva&diff=264485777&oldid=258947402 thanks --Stefanbcn (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

if this has to do with his asignments as member of Committee on Natural Resources (* Subcommittee on Water and Power(!)) please give details or references! --Stefanbcn (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The subject is part of a "peak oil caucus" and is a cosponsor of a peak oil-related resolution. Check google. It appears to be a fair connection.   Will Beback    talk    18:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent Additions and Edits to Grijalva Page
I'm Rep. Grijalva's communications director, and my account name is Owen Ruagh McCarthy. I recently added information to (and deleted outdated information from) the Congressman's page, and since I'm new to Wikipedia, I wanted to ask others here to check it for neutrality. I have no experience editing pages, and joined so that I could do this -- it's something we've been discussing for some time, because the policy information was badly out of date. I am not covertly editing the page to add a favorable slant, and I want everyone here to be aware of my identity. I thought making the edits myself would save time rather than suggesting them one by one on the talk page, especially since I didn't know how often the talk page is monitored. Please let me know whether anything needs to be altered, undone or redone to conform to Wikipedia standards. Thanks for the help.

Owen Ruagh McCarthy (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing transparency. It's much appreciated. I took a quick look at your edits and see only one specific cause for concern. On Wikipedia we try to rely mostly on independent secondary sources, such as newspapers, magazines, and books, rather than self-published primary sources, like personal or professional websites. See WP:PSTS. One reason is that those independent sources serve to filter out the less important issues. In this case, you added information about a letter written by the subject to a government department regarding the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Legislators frequently write such letters and if we noted every one then the biographies would be swamped with minutiae. It would be better to wait to report on the subject's letter-writing until it has been reported in a mainstream source. Once we have reference which establishes the notability of the action, then we can use a citation to the primary source for details.   Will Beback    talk    22:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I did a new edit that removed links to press releases and replaced them with independent sources. Then, I undid all my edits so that a Wikipedia editor can independently decide what should be published and how. The simplest way to republish the correct, updated version would be to simply un-revert my last four reversions, but I won't be doing that myself because I'd prefer Wiki officials to make the final call. Thanks for responding promptly. Owen Ruagh McCarthy (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing those cites, that's much better. I've restored your edits since I don't see any further problems. Other editors are, of course, welcome to make further edits as needed.   Will Beback    talk    23:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Death Threats
I'm fairly new to Wikipedia so I wanted to check first. Rep. Grijalva has received death threats, a window in his office was shot at by a gun, and most recently, someone sent a package containing an unidentified white powder that turned out to be highly toxic, causing the local fire deptartment to shut down the office and raising the incident it to the level of domestic terrorism. Shouldn't these incidents be included in his history, or is it considered too new? Saffi Anne (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge from Peoples Budget
A short unreferenced section at The People's Budget (2011) would be better merged into this article.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Raúl Grijalva. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=81&sectiontree=5,81

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Raúl Grijalva. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090303032717/http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/cs_20090228_9659.php to http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/cs_20090228_9659.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Complaint settlement
A section concerning a financial settlement of a personnel complaint against Grijalva has been added to the article. I'm treating the | Washington Times article as a reliable source, but have changed the inflammatory POV title of the article to conform to Wikipedia standards. Tapered (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Hiding the Justice Democrat affiliation
Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.152.14 (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 24.47.152.14, as you know we are discussing "why" right now on your talk page. Summary is that you claim that Justice Democrats are equivalent to Tea Party which is mentioned in the lead of many politician articles. There is no comparison. For one thing, the Tea Party Caucus is an actual congressional caucus while the Justice Democrats is not. For another the Tea Party has received massive publicity for many years and is virtually a household word; not the case for Justice Democrats. Let's continue to discuss on your talk page so we can settle this in one place for all of the half-dozen members where you want to put this in the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)