Jump to content

Talk:Arizona SB 1070/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Protests

begs to question what ethnic groups are the protesters made up of...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.127.44 (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The protestors are mostly carpet baggers, illegals, those who profit from illegals, and those who (like Holder and Napolitano) haven't bothered to read the Act before protesting.-69.199.32.202 (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Please provide an objective source for your assertions. Travis in travisland (talk) 01:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The article itself points out that the rallies were largely either Hispanic or carpet baggers outside of the state. It also references the politicians who criticized the act before reading it. However, this summary isn't going to be added to the article because (like the statements you just added to the article), doing so would violate Wikpedia policy.-69.199.32.202 (talk) 02:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Cool, please show me the detailed tables where it goes through exactly what percentage of said protesters were as you describe. I am very interested to know exactly how they achieved representative samples. At every single protest in the entire country.Travis in travisland (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The text in the "Protests" section does mention that some of the rallies were largely Hispanic, while others are unspecified and presumably more mixed. The three photographs of protests also give the reader some general idea. Wasted Time R (talk) 09:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Article naming

I'm disappointed to see that someone has moved the article back to the old, erroneous "Arizona SB 1070". I've moved it back to the title of the law. Please bear in mind:

  • Common practice on Wikipedia is to title articles on laws by the title of the enacted law.
  • The law is not SB 1070. It's not a state bill, it's an enacted Act. The enacted law is also not the original SB 1070, as it's been amended by subsequent legislation.
  • WP:COMMONNAME is not a licence to mistitle articles. Note the end of the section: "Titles which are considered inaccurate descriptions of the article subject, as implied by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more common. For example, Tsunami is preferred over the arguably more common, but less accurate Tidal wave."

I'm aware that some people dislike the name for political reasons but this is not a valid reason for avoiding the use of the Act's official name. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Chris, common practice isn't a substitute for common sense, and there was a very strong consensus among the principal authors for moving the page to Arizona SB 1070, the legislation's common name. The reasons for the move had nothing to do with politics; the technically correct name was unwieldy as well as uncommon. It also was incomplete; at least one other state (Minnesota) has introduced a bill with the same act title, so the title would need include Arizona, making it even more unwieldy. At least to me, Arizona Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act seems confusing, so we'd need something even trickier.
If you cherry pick quotes from Wikipedia guidelines, you can support almost any position; for example, WP:COMMONNAME also says
“Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name.”
Here there is a tradeoff between the more technically correct version that almost no one uses and the admittedly imperfect name that is almost universal in reliable sources. All of the objections that you state above (and more) were discussed extensively, and the consensus was that the common name was the lesser of evils. That the DOJ's suit and Judge Bolton's preliminary injunction both use SB 1070 to refer to the Act seems a pretty good vindication of the choice to use that title here.
I'm disappointed you made a summary move with no attempt to find consensus, though I'll retract that statement if you can convince those of us who decided on the change that the previous title clearly violates Wikipedia policy. But unless this can be done, or another sufficiently persuasive argument given that leads to consensus, I think the page should be moved back to Arizona SB 1070. JeffConrad (talk) 09:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
ChrisO is a former admin, and admins do what they want. But to amplify upon what JeffConrad said, note that Judge Bolton's 36-page ruling refers to the law as "S.B. 1070" throughout, with only one cursory mention of "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" and with an initial footnote explaining that "S.B. 1070" collectively refers to the original SB 1070 as modified by HB 2162. That's the point here that ChrisO isn't seeing: "SB 1070" now has a dual meaning; it is both the name of a specific phase of the legislative process that led to a law and the common name the enacted and now-ruled-upon law is referred to as. I also like the way ChrisO threw out the rationale for the name choice as "original research" ... yeah right, like this is the first time Google hits or Google News hits were ever used to choose an article name or decide an AfD. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't really see the problem here. Chris is going against consensus, didn't bother to read the talk page before making the edit, and made an unsupportable claim regarding whether "SB 1070" refers to the entire legislation. I'm also confused as to why he thinks some people don't like the name for political reasons. Just go with consensus and revert his edit. Not a big deal. -69.199.32.202 (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I have restored the consensus. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I did read the talk page discussion and, to put it bluntly, you got it wrong. This move did not go through the proper process as far as I can see (WP:RM) and it goes against WP:COMMONNAMES and our standing approach to article naming. I will put in a move request to get it put back to the proper title. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus appears to be that "SB 1070" is indeed the common name, and not erroneous. Ucucha 05:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


Arizona SB 1070 → Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act — This enacted legislation has been moved to an erroneous title that does not match the name of the law. This has multiple problems:

  • It is inaccurate, as the law is not called "Arizona SB 1070". The law is not a state senate bill. It is not state senate bill 1070, as it has been modified by subsequent legislation.
  • Wikipedia's approach to naming legislation is to use the name of the enacted legislation, as set out in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government and legislation) - I cannot find a single example anywhere else on Wikipedia of an enacted law that is still referred to by its pre-enactment designation.
  • WP:COMMONNAME has been cited in favour of this move, on the grounds that "SB 1070" has been used as a nickname for this enacted law, but it specifically requires us to avoid inaccuracy: "Titles which are considered inaccurate descriptions of the article subject, as implied by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more common. For example, Tsunami is preferred over the arguably more common, but less accurate Tidal wave." As another editor has put it, "Common usage should not trump fact".
  • It overlaps with other bills, as the term "SB 1070" is merely a legislative designation that is reused in each new legislative session. There have been many previous Arizona SB 1070s: 2006,2007,2008, 2009 etc.
  • Readers are not put to any inconvenience by having this article at the correct title, as redirects from "SB 1070" (and many other variants) already exist. ChrisO (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

You cite "Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name." However, the same section clearly states that inaccurate descriptions of the article subject are avoided even when they are more common. The key thing here is accuracy. An accurate common name is preferable to an accurate rarer form. However, what we have here is an inaccurate common name which you are preferring to an accurate official form. The naming policy clearly states that accuracy is the goal here, not perpetuating a common inaccuracy (hence tsunami instead of tidal wave). -- ChrisO (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Another editor has mentioned to me a good parallel example. The tallest building in Chicago is still commonly called the "Sears Tower" (611,000 Google results). However, its proper name - and that of the corresponding Wikipedia article - is Willis Tower (which only has 131,000 Google results). By your reading of WP:COMMONNAME, we should still be using "Sears Tower". But as he has said, "Common usage should not trump fact". -- ChrisO (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Neither of your examples is relevant to your point when you look at news sources. Over the last month, "tsunami" has about 10 times as many Google News hits as "tidal wave" (5778 to 598) and "Willis Tower" has a few more Google News hits than "Sears Tower" (59 to 53). (Doing a straight Google web search for the tower names will give misleading results because many documents found will have been written before the name change and thus of course refer to the older name.) Wasted Time R (talk) 03:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
BD2412, I'm confused by your reasoning here. The popular name is SB 1070, which is used in news articles 400 times more often than the longer name (see Google News stats below). In fact, the ratio of Lady Gaga to Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta hits in Google News is only 82 to 1, a lesser disparity. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - the most common name used by the media is "Arizona Immigration Law," but "SB 1070" is used significantly more than "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act." Due to the media usage, and the corresponding likelihood of it being used as a search term, I would tend to support the Az Imm Law title, but don't have a problem with any of the 3, given suitable redirects. BTW, SB stands for 'Senate Bill', not 'State Bill.' Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 16:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
"Arizona Immigration Law" has the disadvantages of being a purely descriptive term - it's not the name of the legislation - and it's too vague, since it doesn't specify which immigration law. It could just as easily be used for an article about "immigration law in Arizona", rather than something focusing on this specific Act. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Doesn't the Arizona senate produce a bill numbered 1070 basically every year? The more precise name of the specific bill (Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act) is probably the best name for Wikipedia. It also has the advantage of being more formal and therefore more encyclopedic than the kind of slang-y bill number. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
That's a very good point. There have been multiple previous SB 1070s. Previous SB 1070s: 2006,2007,2008, 2009 etc. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The large majority of introduced bills never become law, and the large majority of state laws never become notable enough for a WP article. In the unlikely event one of these does both, a hatnote at the top of this article will point to it. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
At the relevant policy, the community names precision as one of the most important principles for choosing an article's name. The actual name of the bill is far more precise than the routinely re-used numbering scheme. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I disagree that the bill title is more precise. As has been mentioned here, at least one other state has proposed legislation with the same title. Presumably, this could be covered by Arizona Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act , or perhaps Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (Arizona). If we were to interpret WP:AT literally, we'd need to use Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act 2010, perhaps with Arizona somehow prepended or appended. But a quick glance at relevant titles suggests that literal conformance is the exception rather than the rule; the more common, and in my opinion, more appropriate, format, at least for legislation within the U.S., would be Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act of 2010, again with Arizona prepended or appended. This really gets unwieldy, though several commenters have suggested that's not a valid consideration. Whether or not that consideration is valid, I think common sense must prevail: an article title using an uncommon name is simply more difficult for the reader to find, especially from a Google search. Related discussion at Talk:Article titles reveals that quite a few articles actually use the bill (or ballot proposition) title. For example, California Proposition 13 (1978), which no one refers to by its official title: People's Initiative to Limit Property Taxation. As Shakescene indicated in that discussion, appending the year removes any ambiguity.
I think it might be reasonable to append the year in the article title here, but I'd like to see that it didn't inhibit a Google search for “SB 1070”. I'd stick with the short form of the bill title, as we've done here, because that's the way such legislation is commonly referred to, both at the federal and local level. Formal practice in the U.S. Congress and in most state legislatures seems to include periods (e.g., “S.B. 1070”), but this is seldom done in the media, and in my opinion, adds unnecessary clutter.
In summary, we could do something like
  • Arizona Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act of 2010,
  • Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act of 2010 (Arizona), or perhaps even
  • Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (Arizona, 2010),
but in this instance, I think the far better choice would be
  • Arizona SB 1070 (2010).
Frankly, I'd like to see this as the standard format for an article using a bill/proposition/whatever designation as the title, for the sake of consistency if nothing else. For a bill at the national level of the U.S. (and possibly any other country), the prepended jurisdiction could probably be omitted.
In attempt to discourage ponderous polysyllabic pronouncements in student writing, an English teacher of mine constantly drilled into his student's heads that the best English is that which effects maximum communication, and in my view, he's been proven right time and time again. I think we've embraced that principle in choosing the current article title. JeffConrad (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I oppose the move, per WP:COMMONNAME, for much the same reason as Seb az86556. The main reason for the move was to make the article easier to find and possibly increase the readership; almost no one, including the U.S. government and the State of Arizona, refers to this legislation by its official title. Much of the problem is that the title is just too long, in addition to having almost nothing to do with what the legislation is actually about. Chris makes a good point in citing WP:NC-GAL, which states
“For legislation, acts should be titled with the short name form and then the year, without any comma between them ...”
Unfortunately, the Arizona Legislature declined to provide a short name form, so technically, we cannot comply with that directive. There are many pieces of legislation whose article titles don't strictly match the given format, e.g., Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (which everyone in California knows as AB 32). Now inserting of is arguably a minor deviation, and it's consistent with legislation references in the United States, but it does suggest that the guideline doesn't strictly describe WP practice.
I've said here several times that Arizona SB 1070 isn't technically correct, for most of the same reasons Chris has given. I've also raised the possibility of another SB 1070 in a future session, but conceded that one of similar notoriety is probably unlikely. As I mentioned above, if we're concerned about ambiguity from other legislation with the same title, we should be concerned about some other state enacting an identically titled law, as has been proposed in Minnesota. So we would need to include Arizona somewhere, though I suppose we could cross that bridge when we come to it.
Ordinarily, I would agree with Chris. And if it is determined that using the name of a legislative act is a mandate rather than a guideline, I'll defer to WP policy. But absent that, with all things considered, I think the common name here is the least of evils, despite its several shortcomings. But once the reader has found the article, the mission has been accomplished, and I think we should refer to “the Act” within the text of the article unless we specifically mean the original SB 1070. JeffConrad (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the argument of "enabling the reader to find the article" is a red herring. If you search for "SB 1070" within Wikipedia, this article is returned. If you search for that term on Google, you get the same. Likewise if you search for "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act". There are multiple redirects catering for a whole range of alternatives. The search argument simply isn't relevant. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree that searching within Wikipedia is equally easy either way but I disagree about Google visibility. It has been my general experience that Google does not take redirects into account in its searching or page ranking. Unfortunately the page view stats at http://stats.grok.se/ are a bit ragged lately so I can't prove it, but I'm pretty sure the article gets a higher readership under the SB 1070 name than under the long name. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Extend comment. There is at least some precedent in Wikipedia for using other than the official act title: the recent California Proposition 8, which almost no one knows as the California Marriage Protection Act. And there was a previous California Proposition 8 (1982), far less commonly known as the Victims' Bill of Rights, which essentially eliminated the exclusionary rule for evidence obtained in violation of the California Constitution, so it was (and is) quite significant. The years of passage seem adequate for distinguishing the two. Again, I'd normally agree with ChrisO, but I think it's sometimes a judgment call—and in this case I think we made the right call. In any event, we're hardly breaking new ground. JeffConrad (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
There's also precedent in WP articles on California state laws for using the bill number, e.g. California SB 1827, California's Assembly Bill 540, and the unfortunately prefix-less Assembly Bill 811 and S.B.242. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
None of these bills had an official title, so there was little alternative to using the bill number. The variation in titling sure seems to suggest that we could use some guidelines on titling legislative bills. JeffConrad (talk) 04:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. I understand the basis of ChrisO's position but I don't think it holds for this case.
First, the disparity is usage is overwhelming. Check out Google News hits over the past month for "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act": 24. The same for Arizona SB 1070: 9,741. That's a 400:1 ratio!
Second, the 'officialness' of "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" is tenuous at best. If you look at all the documents in our References and External links section that point to official copies of the law, they are not titled and do not frequently reference the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" name. Instead they mostly use SB 1070. There's just Clause 13 down in one of them that says the act may also be referred to as "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act". In fact, the debate over the bill was always phrased in terms of SB 1070; the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" name was cooked up late in the game right before final passage and has never caught on.
Third, other official legal and governmental documents use "SB 1070", not "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act". JeffConrad has already mentioned the U.S Justice Department legal action and Judge Bolton's ruling as examples of this (in the latter, there's one cursory reference to "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" and dozens to "SB 1070"). Another good example is the SB1070 Public Information Center from the Arizona Police Officer Standards and Training Board, which are the recently published guidelines and training that police officers will use in interpreting the law (very important!). It uses "SB 1070" throughout, not "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act". Another example are official statements from the office of the Governor of Arizona, such as this one about the appeal of the injunction. It uses "SB 1070", not "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act". And so on. I haven't really seen official or quasi-official documents using "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act".
So at this point, SB 1070 effectively has a dual meaning. It is both the specific name for a particular legislative phase that the bill went through before becoming law, and the general, common name that the law is now known by to the government, to lawyers, to the press, and to the public. And so should it be known to Wikipedia too. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The disparity of usage isn't nearly as dramatic as you claim: "Arizona SB 1070" gets me 285 hits in Google News (yes, two hundred eighty-five). You are comparing a quoted exact phrase in the one search to an unquoted any-three-words, anywhere-on-the-page search, which is an unfair and inappropriate comparison. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Not so. I didn't put "Arizona SB 1070" in quotes because "Arizona" is often nearby but immediately preceding "SB 1070" in news stories, and I didn't put "SB 1070" in quotes because that enforces a space between them that isn't always there. But how many news articles are there that have "Arizona", "SB", and "1070" in them that aren't about this law? Go ahead and check the results of the search the way I do it. Check the 6th page of results ... they're all about the law. Check the 14th page of results ... ditto. Check all you like, and let me know what percentage of false positives you find. By contrast, the search for "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" was quoted because it wouldn't be used in this context with the words spread apart and because these are all common words that might easily generate false positives if not quoted. For example, this is the 3rd page of results for an unquoted search of that and about half the hits appear to be unrelated to the law. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. I can only think of two instances where there is a legal significance to what the Act should be called. First, there is a motion on the floor that passes by vote on what the act should be called. This was the case with our recent naming of the Dodd-Frank Act, whose name passed by unanimous consent of Republicans and Democrats. The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was also known as Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010, but it is simply the Dodd-Frank Act among all of the recent legal litterature generated by the overhaul and the news reporting on the subject. Second, courts may refer to the Act by a specific name. We see this in the Mann Act, also known as the White-Slave Traffic Act, but not commonly referred to as such. For the instant act in question, the ruling by Judge Bolton uses both, but she refers to the law as SB 1070 throughout, most likely because it is shorter and law clerks like to save time when writing district court and Supreme Court opinions. You can expect future opinions to use both names as well. Despite a legislative action concerning the name of the bill, courts may pick another name to make it short. I think from a legal perspective that either name would be fine. A lawyer would/should use both in a memorandum only for the reason of clarity by being more descriptive. Gx872op (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. Come the next Regular Legislative Session the bill number SB1070 will be used again in the normal cycling process of the senate. If by chance this number is used by another high profile bill then there could be a conflict. The number of high profile bills is small and may not cause a conflict, at least in the near future. Phoenician Patriot (talk) 05:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Such a conflict is easily dealt with by using a title such as Arizona SB 1070 (2010), as several have suggested, and for which there is considerable precedent in WP. As I mentioned above, I think we should do this as a matter of course unless it interferes with a Google search on this topic. JeffConrad (talk) 06:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
That standard would require us to move No Child Left Behind to "HR 1 (2001)". I think this is a bad idea.
I also think that appointing Google as the entity that controls our article titles is a bad idea.
IMO, with few exceptions (e.g., amendments to the US Constitution, which are normally identified by their numbers), acts that are on the books should normally be referred to by their names, not by the pseudorandom numbers assigned to them by one stage of the legislative process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Your argument is with the collected news sources of America; Google has nothing to do with this, I'm just using Google News to do the kind of searching that serious journalism analysts use Lexis/Nexis for (and that I don't have access to). Wasted Time R (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
No one has suggested that all titles for articles about legislation use the bill number, but simply that in some cases, such as here, it may be the better choice. And Wasted Time R and I have suggested that if the bill designation is used, it would be better to use a consistent, unambiguous format. Use of the bill number is very uncommon at the U.S. federal level, though sometimes the public law number is more common than the legislation title, and it's the only option for an act that has no title (e.g., Public Law 106-206). JeffConrad (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Southern Poverty Law Center

The SPLC are a credible organization, but their opinions must be indicated as such and not as facts, much as we would do for the ACLU or SB 1070 proponents such as Kobach. So it may be OK to say that SPLC have classified FAIR as a hate group, but definitely not to refer to “the known hate group ...” JeffConrad (talk) 02:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I should add that 166.205.15.217's extremely POV comment in reverting Travis's edit is equally out of line; whether it's appropriate to mention SPLC's labeling of FAIR should result from consensus, not fiat. For now, I have no position one way or the other. JeffConrad (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care, either, but agree that Travis' version was unattributed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the SPLC are great (have been a member contributor for many years), but I'm not sure how much the 'Tanton web' and the founding of FAIR have to do with Kobach and SB 1070. This SPLC piece doesn't directly connect any dots between Kobach and hate groups. But I agree with the others that if FAIR is characterized, there has to be in-text attribution as to the characterizer. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The SPLC has a well-earned reputation for being unreliable.

This article is an example. Not only is the evidence they give tenuous and the connections they give indirect, even the evidence they do give is questionable. For example, they say that the picture of JT Ready and Russel Pierce has them hugging - implying a close relationship. In fact, the picture has them standing, but not hugging, together. The article claims that Pierce forwarded (and implies he supported) racist email. But, after spending a large amount of time searching, I've found no forensic evidence to support this claim. They seem to have fabricated it out of thin air. Given the SPLC's track record of unreliable fear mongering, this source is not reliable.-166.205.12.8 (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, they are a hate group, I agree to use weasel words however and not repost it that way. Travis in travisland (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Travis, Wikipedia is not a soap box. There are a lot of examples where you've claimed something was in a source only to have it discovered by several of us that it was not, cases where you've repeatedly demonstrated a lack of concern for npov in the article, etc. Your personal politics aren't relevant. If you've got a -reliable- source which makes critticism bad on verifiable facts against Kobach et al, then provide that source. The SpLC isn't it.-70.59.214.244 (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


If it's added to the article, it must be attributed to SPLC and it must be obvious from whatever is cited that SPLC have specifically characterized it as described. We cannot make our own characterizations, and cannot cite opinions as if they were facts. Whatever is added must also reflect a reasonable consensus. JeffConrad (talk) 06:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
If it's added to the article, we must not only be sure to attribute the assertion to the SPLC, but we must also point out the misrepresentation of verifiable facts (for example, point out that the SPLC says the two guys are hugging in the picture when, in fact, they are not).. The fact that the SPLC's reporting of facts conflicts with objective facts should be made clear. Having said that, there has been a lot of baseless fear mongering against Kobach et al and I think it would be good to show this as an example of that.-70.59.214.244 (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Support as well as controversy

Does “considerable support as well as controversy” make sense? Controversy implies disagreement, so it would seem to imply that there is both support and opposition. JeffConrad (talk) 08:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

All that stuff came from a sock (now blocked); I think we can ignore that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Changes in fine from SB 1070 to HB 2162

Will people please read what they're changing before making the changes? The original fine was $500 for a first offense and $1000 for subsequent offenses; the fine after HB 2162 is a maximum of $100 for any offense. The way we had it was correct and consistent with the first paragraph and with SB 1070 and HB 2162. The way the IP editor and Hunter Kahn have put it makes no sense. Again, please think before changing this again. JeffConrad (talk) 03:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

  • The reason I reverted it is because I misunderstood: as the current wording stands, it sounded like the fine was lowered from the original fine to a new fine, and that that new fine was a range of $100 to $500. Therefore, I thought the new fine was a minimum of $100 and a maximum of $500. I'd venture to guess that's what the IP editor thought. I understand the current wording now thanks to your explanation here, but I still think the wording in the article could be reworded to be more clear. — Hunter Kahn 13:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that “lowers the original fine from a minimum of $500 to a maximum of $100” is fairly clear if one takes the time to read lowers, but we've been through this at least once before, so perhaps it isn't. And I personally find original a bit confusing in this context (including my explanation above); I think we could eliminate it with no loss of meaning. I think the intent was to avoid a complete repeat of the statement in the preceding paragraph. Perhaps the answer is to restructure the entire section so that repetition isn't necessary. JeffConrad (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Correction in statement of INA 287(g)(10)

The summary of Section 287(g)(10) of the INA says that nothing requires an agreement between state agencies and the Attorney General ("AG") in order to enforce provisions of the INA. This is not really what Section 287(g)(10) says. Section 287(g)(10) states that an agreement is not required in order to "communicate" or "cooperate" with the AG's office in its enforcement of the laws. That dinstinction is significant. Communicating and cooperating with the AG without an agreement seems logical. Enforcement of immigration laws by states without an agreement is something entirely different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.101.1.115 (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

NPR investigative report...

[1] Its pretty shocking, any thoughts on how best to incorporate it? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Shocking, how?
'This supposed conspiracy was hatched at “a meeting of a secretive group called the American Legislative Exchange Council,” or ALEC. ALEC is a group of state legislators, businesses, and scholars devoted to implementing conservative principles at the state level, and noted for preparing model legislation on just about every topic you could name. It’s so “secretive” that its website lists all the members of its various boards and committees, its events and initiatives and publications, its state chairmen, staff, model legislation — if that’s secretive, I’m Kemal Ataturk. What the reporter seems to mean is “ALEC, a group I’d never heard of…,” which ignorance, if true, is a pretty bad sign for a journalist.'[2]
—WWoods (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, back to the "what are we gonna do with this"... is there more of that to be found or is it only one NPR-report? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm also for waiting until we have more than one source. JeffConrad (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added two uncontroversial aspects from the story to the article. One is that model legislation was drafted in a December 2009 meeting of the American Legislative Exchange Council. As the NR quote from above states, this is no secret; that's what ALEC does, draft model legislation, and all parties in the NPR story agree that this happened. The other is the date that the bill was introduced in the Arizona legislature (January 2010) and that it quickly gained a lot of cosponsors. These additions fill in the history of the legislation's origins. As for the rest, I'm leery of including the prison industry's role in it until there's a second source, especially one that analyzes whether the pattern of that industry's donations was any different than the many other industries and lobbyists that are always banging on the door of state government. I'm also leery because Corrections Corporation of America issued a flat denial of having lobbied over the bill; if they had in fact lobbied I would have expected a vaguer statement. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Should this be added to the impact section?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40141843/ns/us_news-immigration_a_nation_divided/ ? JCDenton2052 (talk) 07:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added it, as well as a couple of other stories appearing recently about the impact of the boycotts. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

When the reporter uses the adjective secretive, she means that ALEC is not a transparent organization. That doesn't mean that the reporter or the people don't know about the organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.145.164.178 (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Changing Article Name to Include Date

Looking through the archives I can see that the name has been in dispute numerous times before and the consensus has been to keep the name SB 1070 because that is what it is known as colloquially (at least outside of "the Arizona Immigration Law", which is far too vague for an article name). One major problem with this approach is that bill numbers are recycled for each session of the legislature. In just the past 5 years alone (not including 2010) SB 1070 could refer to:

Since the Arizona Legislature is about to go into session again SB 1070 will likely be assigned to a different bill this year. To avoid any confusion I propose that if we are going to keep the SB 1070 name that we rename the article to reflect the year or change it to reflect that it was SB 1070 of the 2nd regular session of the 49th Arizona Legislature. --nn123645 (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Technically we arent supposed to unless there is another article on Wikipedia it could be confused with. I saw WP:IAR and saves us the trouble. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Naw, let's wait and see if someone actually writes something about any of the others. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Well clearly none of the other SB 1070s of recent years are notable, at least for wikipedia. If we don't rename it I do think we should mention it somewhere in the article. As more time goes on it's just going to get more confusing as I doubt people are going to mention it as SB 1070 50 years from now. --nn123645 (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I would speculate otherwise, but we'll see; all you'll need to say around here is "ess-bee-ten-seventy", and my guess is that's what it's gonna be years from now. Just like there are many "watergates", but only one is watergate. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Also agree not to change the name now. Cross that bridge if and when another Arizona SB 1070 gains a lot of attention and the phrase becomes ambiguous. Right now, everyone knows which legislation is meant by it. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Needs some context

the broadest and strictest anti-illegal immigration measure in decades ... where? In Arizona history? US history? World history? howcheng {chat} 20:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

good point. "in U.S. history" Thanks.  Done Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Very good article

I just wanted to thank the author(s) of this article. It is very well written. Seldom have I read an article dealing with a controversial topic that dealt with it in such a fair and un-biased manner. It was very informative and presented both sides fairly. Thank You. Van Vidrine (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Praise like this is rare in WP, so thanks very much for taking to time to state it! Wasted Time R (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, in fact, usually people show up to complain. So thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Ninth Circuit ruling

I wonder if we somewhat overstate the case in saying that the Ninth Circuit “ruled in favor of the Obama administration”; the qualifying phrase “upholding the district court's ban on parts of the law taking effect” [emphasis added] seems more accurate. Could we just use the latter part and still have the majority of readers understand what we’re saying? JeffConrad (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It was my understanding that the Ninth Circuit ruling was as favorable as it could be to the administration ... or was it possible that they could have gone even further and blocked the entire law? Wasted Time R (talk) 03:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Your understanding is the same as mine. The Administration did not cross appeal partial denial of injunctive relief; because the only issue before the Ninth Circuit was Arizona’s appeal of injunctive relief that was granted, the ruling was as favorable to the Administration as it could have been (save perhaps a unanimous ruling). If it’s clear that what was upheld was the district court’s temporary injunction against enforcement of parts of the law rather than against the entire law (as was originally sought), we’re OK. But I wasn’t sure this was obvious; perhaps it would be more clear if we were to say something like
upheld the district court's ban on parts of the law taking effect, ruling in favor of the Obama administration and against Arizona (one of the three judges dissented in part from the ruling).[ref]
I think removing the redundant citation of the NYT article would also make for easier reading. JeffConrad (talk) 06:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Either way is probably fine. I'll take out the double-ref, that's kinda overkill. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I've changed it to JeffConrad's wording. I've also added that the next appeals step is undetermined at the moment. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

(Tool)

  1. ref 96., access-problems(redirect to mainpage);  Done replaced
  2. ref 155., access-problems(redirect to mainpage);  Done replaced
  3. ref 118., dead link;  Done replaced
  4. ref 176., dead link  Done replaced
  5. ref 44., dead link; (no replacement found, url stripped)
  6. ref 104., dead link; (no replacement found, url stripped)
  7. ref 92., dead link; (this is the only snippet I can find, and it doesn't support all of the article's text)
  8. ref 160., dead link; (it's here, but I don't know if it's the whole thing)

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the lead on this. I found an alternate url for the 5th one, an archived url for the 6th, found a full alternate url for the 7th, and verified that the url you found for the 8th covers all the points. I've made the changes and rerun checklinks and everything is green or better. I actually thought there would be even more problems than this, given how dependent this article is upon recent news stories. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Odd read...

Something's strange about the section "Concerns over potential civil rights violations" — it basically starts with "There are no concerns." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the HB 2162 discussion needs to come after those other (often hyperbolic) statements, since those comments were in part the motivation for HB 2162. I've done this. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Yepp, my point exactly. :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

may 26 addition

I don't think this is relevant. it's commentary on a different law (2007), and the tangential mention of SB1070 was a choice the newspaper made, but isn't directly related Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Completely agree. JeffConrad (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree also, the addition the IP is making does not belong here. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm... seems like this person refuses to communicate. Well, my 3 reverts are up. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

RE: May 26 addition: Current events that mark the route and the end result of this law that started in Arizona; are relevant due to nature of its kind. I understand this is a touchy issue and needs to be portrayed without any leanings -to the left or to the right- and events that concern or has to do with it needs to be updated as they happens. I hope that none of you guys are leaning to the left.

Wikipedia is an open source of content as long as the source can verified. NO ONE OWNS THE ARTICLES ONCE YOU AGREE TO UPTOAD YOUR CONTENT; the one and only entity who in deed owns it is Wikipedia it self, thus you may agree -or not- on something that some one added to the original article; thing is, if the majority of users agree that needs to be there, then it should stay. (smash95608) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smash95608 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Several issues, starting from the last one: 1) Wikipedia is not ruled by majority (even if it was, the majority incidentally disagrees with you) 2) Commenting on others' political leaning is personal commentary, please refrain from going there 3) more than half of your posts tries to lecture us on policies we are well aware of 4) your last post contained mostly unverified original research and synthesis 5) (and most importantly) you haven't made any convincing case how a tangential mention in a newspaper-article on a different law warrants inclusion here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
That no one owns an article does not mean that anything goes; we work by consensus, which there clearly does not appear to be for this addition. The relationship of Chamber v. Whiting to this article is peripheral at best, and the op-ed at the end of the last edit not only contains original research and synthesis, but also violates WP:NPOV, so its inclusion is wholly inappropriate, as several others have indicated. If you think you can make the case for inclusion, please do so on merits rather than pointless rhetoric. JeffConrad (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Smash95608's addition is one part overly long unattributed quote and one part personal opinion. So it clearly can't stay as it is. However the straight AP report on Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting spends a lot of time reporting views about whether this ruling indicates how the eventual ruling on SB 1070 will go. A long piece on SCOTUSblog also ponders this question, without reaching a firm conclusion. So arguably one sentence could be added to the article, something like "In May 2011, the Supreme Court's 5–3 ruling upholding Arizona on a different state immigration law case, Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, indicated to some that the court would eventually uphold SB 1070." On the other hand it's all speculative (and the court could uphold parts of SB 1070 and still block others, whether on preemption or other grounds) so it could be omitted from this article as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
That's what I'm saying: we can keep an eye on it, and if this — in retrospect — had any influence, mention it. At this point in time, it seems akin to "Is Angelina pregnant? and if so, some say it could be a boy that will look like Brad, and his cousin said he's very much pleased with that idea." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
And this would no doubt weigh heavily in the Court’s decision in U.S. v. Arizona . . .
That the claims that Whiting tips the Court’s hand seem to come mainly from SB 1070’s supporters suggests that, at least for now, we′re better off without mention of Whiting. But if we were to include a sentence, I couldn’t see anything beyond “indicated to some” (mainly the authors), while also mentioning that to others, it did not. I think it would also be imperative to carefully screen what we cited; for example, though Denniston’s analysis seems fairly well reasoned, he nonetheless states that SB 1070 “gives police wide authority to arrest and detain any individual that an officer believes is an unlawful alien”, which it most certainly does not (perhaps he should read this article). JeffConrad (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Certain Aliens

The second paragraph starts by saying "U.S. federal law requires certain aliens to register with the U.S. government." It would be nice if the criteria for being a "certain alien" was explained.

Muleofatlantic (talk) 08:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Done. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Arizona SB 1070/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Quadell (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Nominators: Wasted Time R (talk) and Seb az86556 (talk) and JeffConrad (talk)

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Generally the prose is excellent. I made copyediting and rewording changes as appropriate, but not much was needed.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The lede is generally excellent, but has one issue, detailed below. Organization is good. There are a few problems with See Also, listed below.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. It's less than ideal that some notes refer in shorthand to items in the reference section in longhand, while other notes contain the full longhand references themselves. I don't think this should be an obstacle to achieving GA status, however.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Citations are excellent. I checked many, and all backed up their assertions.
2c. it contains no original research. No problems with this.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. All major questions answered.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Issues (mostly with "Reactions") are mentioned below.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. This is an especially great challenge, given how controversial the subject is, but both sides seem well represented. There are a few minor lapses, detailed below.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Happily, this isn't a problem at this time.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. All images are legit.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Placement and captions are great.
7. Overall assessment. Most of this article is excellent, and it saddens me that I could not pass this article. Besides a few minor unresolved problems, the main issue is that the "Reaction" section is disproportionately long, full of trivial and unnecessary details, clearly failing criterion 3b. Since all nominators have either abandoned the nomination or ceased to work on the article, I have no choice but to fail the nomination.

Open issues with Arizona SB 1070

  • The 2nd sentence of "Provisions" says that the act "obligates police to make an attempt... to determine a person's immigration status if there is reasonable suspicion..." This is possibly the most controversial provision. But when the lede summarizes the provisions of the act, it mentions several parts, but not this. The lede's later description of racial-profiling charges looks confusing without it. I think the lede should mention this part of the act.
 Done — though any reasonable "sound-bite" in the lede will have to be incomplete, lest we repeat the entire section. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
After some hand wringing, I’ve added the “reasonable suspicion” requirement to the lead, because the specifics of what police can/must do have been among the most misunderstood aspects of this law. Let’s tweak the wording if what I have is too unwieldy, but I think we need to retain the concept—we should keep it as simple as possible but no simpler. JeffConrad (talk) 09:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
True; I think your version can remain, it's not too bloated, either. It's a petty that most people just look over the lede without actually reading the whole thing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Good job. I linked reasonable suspicion as well. – Quadell (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
  • "Arizona is the first state with such a law as" is clunky and needs rewording, though I'm not sure quite how.
{{not sure}} Done"Arizona is the first state to propose such far-reaching legislation." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Looks good now. – Quadell (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The article says "Arizona has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants..." with a cite from April 25, 2010. Has this changed since? By saying "has" and not "had", the article in indirectly claiming the law had no effect on illegal immigrant populations. Is this true?
 Done made it past tense with month mentioned; these number are of course fluctating — since we're writing about the state of things when the law was written, past tense should make more sense anyways. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
  • This sentence is clunky: "A December 2009 meeting of the American Legislative Exchange Council in Washington, D.C., resulted in model legislation embodying the ideas that Pearce presented and which gained the support of that group." Also, "model legislation" can mean different things. Could the sentence be reworded?
{{not sure}} Done Beats me; Jeff? WTR? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I've changed it to "A December 2009 meeting of the American Legislative Exchange Council in Washington, D.C., resulted in that body supporting model legislation that embodied the ideas that Pearce presented." But I wasn't aware that "model legislation" had multiple meanings. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Rewording seems fine to me, though I’m not quite sure what you mean by “multiple meanings” of model legislation. JeffConrad (talk) 09:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
A "model citizen" is an ideal citizen. A "model airplane" is a smaller representation. "Model legislation", in this case, means, I think, "an example of potential legislation to fill desired goal", which may be neither ideal nor smaller. (Certainly the act's opponents would not hold it up as "model legislation" in the sense of being ideal.) Would "preliminary legislation" fit the bill? – Quadell (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I understand it more like "prototype-legislation". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Perfect. – Quadell (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
maybe — but that might be just my interpretation. Since it's Pearce's own word choice, let's just attribute it to him: "...resulted in that body supporting what Pearce called "model legislation" and which embodied the ideas that he had presented." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, well, there's where the ambiguity comes in. If by "model" Pearce meant "ideal", then it's a POV and should be attributed to him. If by "model" he meant "prototype", there is no bias problem, and we can just use the word "prototype". The "what Pearce called" wording would seem to indicate Pearce meant the former. Either wording is fine by me, although the "prototype" wording is more flowing, in my opinion. – Quadell (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
In any case, I guess for the purpose of this review we can call this "done". The points below will take a little longer it seems. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The meaning is closer to “prototype” than to “ideal”; model legislation is typically written by organizations such as the American Law Institute or the American Legislative Exchange Council, with the intent of having it adopted by state or local jurisdictions. Webster’s Collegiate has “5 : an example for imitation or emulation”, SOED, 6th ed. has “10 A person or work proposed or adopted for imitation; an exemplar”, which aren’t especially here, and offhand I can’t find anything on WP to link to. In any event, Pearce’s statement is OK. JeffConrad (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I guess I forgot to add that we should remove the scare quotes. JeffConrad (talk) 03:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
The current formulation is the worst yet, in my view. It makes it look like the term "model legislation" is Pearce's own concoction, which it is not. If you look at these search results, you'll see that the term is used by a variety of organizations. There's even an organization with that as their website name. There's nothing "POV" about it. The sentence should go back to "... resulted in that body supporting model legislation that embodied the ideas that Pearce presented" with the redlink to indicate that it is a well-defined term and to encourage someone to write an article about it. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize it was a well-defined term; the redlink-solution is indeed the best in that case. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
A full-text search finds several articles that mention model legislation, but none of the articles seemed to make for good links. A model building code is similar to model legislation, but sufficiently different that I don’t think it makes for a good link, either. That several people here were unfamiliar with the term suggests that it would make for a useful article. A Google search shows a number of typical examples; there are far more private organizations involved in this than I would have thought. JeffConrad (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
We do have Model act, which is essentially the same as a model bill or model legislation. Perhaps we could use it, but that article covers only organizations that specialize in drafting laws, and overlooks the many organizations (such as ALEC) with far narrower interests. JeffConrad (talk) 08:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a great wikilink to me. Thanks, Jeff. – Quadell (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I suppose it’s better than a red link, so I’ve changed the WL to point there. I’ve also suggested on that article′s Talk page that the article be broadened a bit and that a few redirects be created. JeffConrad (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Consider removing "They added that 'she agonizes over these things,'[47] and the governor also prayed over the matter.[35]" The entire paragraph is long, and spends a lot of text saying it was a difficult decision, much longer than discussing the motives of anyone else involved. It would be more balanced to shorten the paragraph, and this sentence would be a good one to remove. Since one's internal agony and prayer is entirely unverifiable, sourced to statements by partisans, I don't think it's useful.
 Done Concur; statement is tabloidish. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
For the record, I am responsible for this "tabloidish" content being in the article. There are real humans involved in the drama over this law, with real emotions. I was trying to represent some of that. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • McCain's statement about illegal immigrants "intentionally causing accidents on the freeway" doesn't make a lot of sense, doesn't refer to the law, and isn't needed in the article. I suspect it was chosen to make him look bad. The paragraph would read better if that sentence were removed.
 Done There were quite a few people throwing little pieces of mudadding snippets into the paragraphs; we probably missed this one. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
For the record, I am responsible for this "piece of mud" being in the article. I'm the major author of two FA and two GA articles on McCain; I write things about McCain if they are important, without regard to whether they make him look good, bad, or indifferent. This comment was representative both of McCain's sudden ideological swerve at the time and of the kind of disconnected rhetoric that was common in reaction to SB 1070. A lot of blogs commented about it and it was written about in sources like this Arizona Republic piece. And it was still being referenced a year and a half later. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
The SB 1070 does not address illegal immigrants (allegedly) intentionally causing highway accidents, no matter how many blogs talked about it. – Quadell (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, the Opinion polls section gives too many details on exactly what the numbers are for each question by each polling company, especially since the preceding section already gave polling numbers for the state of Arizona. Couldn't much of it be summarized? When several polls asked the same question, you could say "National polls found XX-YY% in favor of..." or whatnot, with the individual specific polling results in the footnotes. This would make it much easier for the reader to make sense of.
The problem is that the polls aren't all asking the same question. And even of those that are, many paraphrase or restate what the law does, and how they do that can easily affect the poll's response. Also, several of the polls described were done by Rasmussen Reports, which has been sometimes criticized by poll watchers for having a Republican-tilted 'house effect'. Given all this, I think the current approach to describing the poll results is warranted. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
It's tricky. Many polls do ask different questions, but some don't seem to, at least given the text in the article. (I can't see all the actual poll questions, since some are behind a paywall.) For example, the Rasmussen-in-Arizona question (support vs. oppose the bill) seems the same as in the Gallup poll. The Rasmussen-national poll and the Angus poll both ask whether the person would support legislation with the check-documentation-at-stop-on-reasonable-suspicious provision. The NYT/CBS poll asks the same questions as the later CBS poll. And Fox is out there on their own. My concern is that the paragraph contains 16 separate numerical statistics, and the average reader's eyes will glaze over. If some of the data can be moved to footnotes without compromising accuracy, it will greatly improve the readability. Can it? – Quadell (talk) 12:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Like many articles on recent events, the "reactions" section is disproportionately long, compared to material on the topic itself. Have you considered having a Reactions to Arizona SB 1070 article, with only summaries in this article? Regardless, not every statement by anyone deserves to be reprinted, even if sourced. This gives problems of "unnecessary detail". Items which seem particularly trivial to me include the quasi-related Sanchez vs. Miller debate, and the opinions of unrelated individuals such as Sheriff Arpaio, a St. Paul mayor, a member of the Texas House of Reps, and an LA Councilwoman. And what do Shakira and Linda Ronstadt think? This needs serious trimming. Specific ways are listed in sub-bullets.
As a general comment, before getting into the specifics below (which are very useful, thanks), one whole point of SB 1070 is that it got a ton of national and international attention and reaction, especially for a state law (most state laws, even consequential ones, exist in obscurity). And much of the reaction it got was partly or fully based in hyperbole. But that can't be ignored just by saying that the reactions were uninformed or came from 'unrelated individuals'. For better or worse, the reaction to this law is a big part of the story of this law, and it's that reaction that the article is trying to capture and describe. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The reaction to the law is important, and should not be omitted. But the article is not Reactions to Arizona SB 1070. Currently the "Reactions" section is around 7,500 words (in Wikicode), and all other sections combined (omitting the lede and See Also) are around the same total length. I'm just looking for some balance; reactions are just one element. And I still assert that it is unnecessary to list the opinions of a random unnamed protester in Phoenix, a state senator from a different state, Tenacious D., or "some Latino leaders" not notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages. – Quadell (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
That's right; this is another case where all sorts of people dropped in some politician's quote in drive-by-style, and then the next person deemed it necessary to add someone else's quote to "counter-balance" it. While the poll-numbers are important, the quotes-jungle should be pruned. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
For the record, everything in the "Reactions" section is there because I put it in or because someone else put it in and I vetted it. I'm a little disappointed that I've been working with Seb az86556 and JeffConrad on this article all this time and they never said how bad they thought this section was. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
This isn't meant to be personal. The reactions section is too long, compared to the rest of the article, and the article can't pass GA criterion 3b unless significant cuts are made. That's not meant as a personal attack against anyone who contributed to this section. – Quadell (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not taking it as a personal attack, but I'm trying to clarify that this was an article by design, not by chaos. To me, the story about the law so far is the reactions to it (especially given that most of the law hasn't gone into effect (yet)). Are comparisons to Nazi Germany and the Japanese internment and Apartheid ridiculous? Of course. But people in responsible positions were making them. Like it or not, that's part of the history of this law. I didn't just pick comments at random; I read over lots and lots of news sources and everything that was put in the article represented some viewpoint or perspective that was relevant to the overall reaction, in a weighting that I thought was justified. The "Hey Obama! Don't deport my mama" sign, for another example, serves both to illustrate the frustration of law opponents with the middling position of the administration and to give a humorous example of American protestese. Similarly, the Elton John quote provides a lively example of part of the reason why the boycotts failed. And so on. Your position seems to be that all the stupid or off-target reactions should be removed and only the sensible debate retained. And that only the result in the end matters, and not what led up to it or why some things that could have happened didn't. Those are reasonable goals for a terser, shorter, narrower article, but it's not the article I've been working on all this time. It's clear at this point that my vision of the article is fundamentally at odds from the rest of you. I'm not saying that I'm right and you're wrong, just that we're at odds. And of course it's quite possible that I've become locked into a single way of approaching things. So I will recuse myself from further participation here. You and Seb az86556 and JeffConrad are all very good editors, so you can take it forward. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I'm the one who should probably recuse himself. I agree this isn't going to be an exercise in "slashing" the whole thing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I would hate for either of you to leave the discussion based on a misunderstanding, so I'd like to clarify, if I may, since I think my position has been misrepresented here. I don't think that non-sensible statements be removed. The think the non-notable statements should. If someone in the Arizona state senate, or a drafter of the law, or the head of a notable group opposed to the act says something notable, then it deserves mention whether it's sensible or insane. If "Latino leaders" who aren't notable enough to have Wikipedia articles say something, or if a state senator in a unrelated state says something, then it doesn't belong in a Good Article on this topic, regardless of whether the statement in sensible or not. See the difference? I believe that if you're still willing to continue, that the cause doesn't have to be lost here. – Quadell (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Under "United States", there are frequent references to whether individual commentators had read the entire law. All are accusations that Republican made against Democrats. There are a total of eight sentences devoted to this. Most laws are not read in their entirety before people comment on them. Laws are often best understood through summaries, rather than an attempt to plow through the legalese. When one side of a debate points out that spokespeople on the other side didn't read the entire law, this is a common smear tactic, but is inherently misleading. Yes, such an accusation was made, and should be noted, but it should be given due weight. After all, this section is supposed to be about reaction to the act itself, not about reaction to the reactions. I will offer an attempt on the article's talk page.
      If my suggested fix is acceptable, there's actually nothing further to do here. If not, we'll have to work something out. – Quadell (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't find this "fix" acceptable, because I don't think you've understood the situation. While many laws are indeed very long and unrealistic to read all the way through, this particular law is actually quite short (see the References/External links) and can be read by ordinary folks, and especially can be read by government officials. And given that there was much dispute/disagreement about what the law actually did, actually reading it did become a relevant thing to do. Your change omits that the charge of passing judgement before reading was leveled against the Attorney General and the Homeland Security Secretary, the two government officials most responsible for illegal immigration law and actions. If this question was unimportant, why did Obama made a point of reading the law himself? Wasted Time R (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, the "didn't read the law" discussion is notable, and should be mentioned. But eight sentences (in a section allegedly devoted to reactions by United States officials, not devoted to reactions to U.S. officials' reactions), in full-on rebuttal style, is not appropriate. My version cuts that down to four sentences, in a single paragraph. I'm not fixated on my own version though; any version that mentions the accusations without giving them undue weight would be fine. – Quadell (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Similarly, under "Mexico", is it notable what a USA Today pundit says about President Calderon's speech? In a section dedicated to Mexico's reaction, why is an entire paragraph given to one pundit's reaction? Even if Calderon is being hypocritical, the endless rebuttals detract from the article. I think that paragraph should be removed.
    • The section "Religious organizations and perspectives" doesn't seem to actually be about the reactions by religious organizations. Only one organization, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, is shown to have a reaction. Certainly the first sentence is true, but a section on reactions by religious organization should have reactions by religious organizations, not individuals who happen to be religious. The last sentence of the section doesn't make much sense with only one example given (and it's questionable whether we should quote a conservative think tank for summary analysis anyway). Either more reactions by religious organizations need to be given (and other material cut), or the section needs to be removed.
    • In "Concerns over potential civil rights violations", the first, second, and last paragraphs seem useful. The rest is opinions by random people, and an ADL call for people to have perspective. Either the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth paragraphs need to be summarized into a single paragraph, or they should be simply removed.
    • In "Protests", there are some truly trivial bits. One unnamed activist called the measure "racist"? Someone had a sign that said "Hey Obama! Don't deport my mama."? A 40-person protest outside Wrigley Field based on a misunderstanding? In a very long article, this sort of thing detracts and trivializes the import information in the rest of the article. The section also suffers from the "rebut everything" problem -- do we need Obama and Limbaugh's reaction to a given protest?
    • The "Boycotts" section is very long, especially since it concludes they weren't particularly effective. Much can be cut. For instance, it's true that Obama had no opinion on the matter. Neither did a lot of people; it doesn't need to be said. The paragraph on Sound Strike is too long and goes off on tangents. You might consider cutting the list of performers boycotting, as it feels bulky. It's silly to quote Elton John for 5 sentences just to emphasize he isn't boycotting, since most performers didn't boycott. Etc.
  • In "Department of Justice lawsuit", it is certainly noteworthy that many officials oppose the DOJ action. But is it responsible to give three separate quotes from different Republican politicians, when no supporters (outside the DOJ suit itself) are mentioned? I think the third quote by Issa doesn't add anything new, and leads to balance problems.
  • The "Hearings and rulings" section gives clear indications it was written as new information became available, without older lines being rewritten in light of new information. "Judge Bolton asked pointed questions of each side during both hearings, but gave no indication of how or when she would rule" makes much more sense back when we didn't know how she would rule. Saying the Ninth Circuit "gave indications that it might reinstate but weaken parts of the law" was worth saying when we didn't know how they would rule. I would remove both these sentences entirely. Also in that section, I don't think state senator Pearce's predictions are notable in the article, even if they are well sourced.
Agree The navbox was recently added after the GA-nomination; I concur that "See also" is basically redundant now. I'll prune it out. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Anyone object to me taking this out? – Quadell (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"Didn't read the law" issues

I brought up an issue on "undue weight" above, at Talk:Arizona SB 1070/GA1#Open issues with Arizona SB 1070. In an attempt to resolve this I changed the "Public officials: United States" section in this way. The reason is, this section is supposed to be reactions to the bill, yet eight sentences were given to identify a reaction to those who were reacting against the bill. I believe the new version keeps all important information and sources, but gives a better balance to this. – Quadell (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Coming back to this after a good passage of time, I kept your restructuring and removal of Crowley's not having read it. But the section seemed incoherent to me without mentioning that the two cabinet officials most affected by the law, Napolitano and Holder, both acknowledged not having read it, so I added that back in as succinctly as possible. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Alabama HB 56

If anyone is yearning to write another SB 1070 type article, Alabama HB 56 awaits you. The law is tougher, much of it was upheld and in effect instead of being blocked, and it's starting to get national attention, but the article has barely started. I've done enough to get it to DYK but that's enough for me ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 02:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Supremacy clause section -- original research?

'The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) criticized the statute as a violation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, which gives the federal government authority over the states in immigration matters and provides that only the federal government can enact and enforce immigration laws.'

The Supremacy Clause doesn't say anything specifically about immigration, it just says that the federal laws are supreme over state laws. The references given for this sentence relate to the fact of ACLU criticism, not a justification for this interpretation of the Supremacy Clause. Miraculouschaos (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The text was subsequently changed to "The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) criticized the statute as a violation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, which states that federal law, so long as it is constitutional, is paramount over state laws.[31][198]" Wasted Time R (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

No person is illegal

by using the term illegal instead of undocumented this article is showing a bias and is non-neutral. A human can not be illegal a human can be undocumented. Since being illegal would actually mean that just by being alive they are breaking a law. There is now law like that in Arizona. There is a law demanding documentation. I am reverting it back for now 69.74.253.62 (talk) 02:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

If you look at Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States and its archives, this naming matter has come up frequently there. It's yet another attempt to persuade people by renaming the way an issue is referred to. There are a lot of stories out there that discuss what media sites have decided to do, such as this HuffPo one. I personally think it's a bit silly – no person is illegal, but people can do illegal things. Would you call a thief an undocumented purchaser? But regardless of what I think, that article has remained at that title because that's what the large majority of mainstream sources still use when discussing this issue. And the same here with SB 1070. If you just scan the titles of the sources used in the References section of this article, for example, you find "illegal" used a number of times and "undocumented" used zero times. So that's the term I think this article should use. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
"It's yet another attempt to persuade people by renaming the way an issue is referred to" Please refrain from telling me what my motivations are and are not. I do not enjoy being personally attacked like that. As for your counter-example do you call a thief an illegal thief or just a thief? The article should use the term undocumented because it make sense in syntax. No one ever calls a car for example an illegal car, they call it an unregistered car. They do call it an illegal firearm when the firearm itself existence breaks the law but when it is isnt documented they call it an unregistered firearm. 72.69.132.170 (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I object to the word "undocumented" because if a person lacks documents concerning what country/conuntries the person is authorized to be present in, there is no way to know (other than asking the person where he/she thinks he/she belongs) if the person is a citizen, permanent resident, authorized to be present through some other classification, or not authorized to be present. In the case of persons who came to the US as children, or have difficulty speaking English, even the person in question may not know his/her exact status. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Thinking a little more, "authorized" isn't such a great word. Aliens are authorized to be present by the government, but citizens have an inherent right to be present. It is the citizens who authorize the government to exist. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I understand your point of view, "undocumented" would imply "no documents" instead of "not documented in the country they are in" Which is why it should be "undocumented immigrant" which implies that there status of being an immigrant is not documented. If I were to say "undocumented doctor" I dont literally mean he has no documents I mean he has no documents supporting his claim of being a doctor. Which is why the article says "undocumented immigrant". It is not that the article is saying they literally have no documents at all, the article is saying they have no documents supporting the claim of being an immigrant to the United States. 72.69.132.170 (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
That undocumented doctor would be illegally practicing medicine in most jurisdictions. And that person driving an unregistered car or owning an unregistered firearm is breaking the law in most jurisdictions too. If all you object to is the point of grammar, are you okay with changing every use of "illegal immigrant" to "immigrant in the U.S. illegally"? Wasted Time R (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy

The section Impact is misleading and not factually accurate because the economic depression caused by declining population in Arizona is explained wrong.

These issues are discussed in a responsible way by university research and government research that can be found at the following links.

Inaccuracy creates a neutrality issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.80.248 (talk) 06:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Your first two links are published before SB 1070 came into being – in one case, ten years before – and thus don't have much use in this context. They are also from advocacy organizations, which lessen their value as WP:RS. Your third link isn't working. Wasted Time R (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

In the introductory paragraph, "in 2010 was the broadest and strictest anti-illegal immigration measure in a long time." "in a long time" is a distractingly vague amount of time. 71.13.248.86 (talk) 04:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Arizona SB 1070. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Content from Secure Communities article

I removed the following content from the Secure Communities article as off-topic. Please review it for merging into the present article. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

On June 25, 2012, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling regarding the federal government's challenge to Arizona's 2010 immigration law. Arizona was the first state to pass a law concerned with immigration enforcement issues, based on the state's claims of the federal government's failure to fulfill its obligations and protect the state's interests in the area of immigration. Several other states have since followed suit adopting their own legislative efforts to enforce existing immigration law, and the Supreme Court's decision in Arizona's case is expected to affect also the validity of those laws.[1] The state laws have been criticized by the Obama administration as interfering with the government's constitutional domain of protecting the country's borders and controlling immigration.[2]

The court's split decision gave both sides a reason to claim a measure of victory. The law's provision regarded as central and most controversial was upheld unanimously, while the possibility of its further challenges was left open. The three remaining clauses were struck down as unconstitutional. The Arizona government will not be able to criminally penalize persons for seeking work, or for failing to register with the federal government. The police will not be able to make warrantless arrests based on their belief of the suspect's deportability under the federal law.[2] Immigrants will not be required to carry federal proof of their legal status.[3]

The "show me your papers" provision was sustained. It obliges state law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of a person stopped or arrested, if they have reasons to suspect him or her of being in the country illegally.[2]

"The state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law", and "detaining individuals solely to verify their immigration status would raise constitutional concerns", wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy, expressing the majority opinion. Justice Antonin Scalia vocally objected not only to the majority argument in the case, but also to the administration's immigration policies.[2]

President Obama expressed his fear that the provision accepted by the court may lead to racial profiling.[2]

References

  1. ^ Lance Griffin (2012-06-25). "Alabama weighs impact of Supreme Court rulings". Dothan Eagle. Retrieved 2012-09-03.
  2. ^ a b c d e Adam Liptak (2012-06-25). "Blocking Parts of Arizona Law, Justices Allow Its Centerpiece". The New York Times. Retrieved 2012-09-03.
  3. ^ "US Supreme Court cuts parts of Arizona migrant law". BBC News. 2012-06-25. Retrieved 2012-09-03.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on Arizona SB 1070. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arizona SB 1070. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arizona_SB_1070/Archive_4&oldid=1192495825"