Jump to content

Talk:Joe Arpaio/Archive 2

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

Added info on controversies

I've added just a little bit of information on the current state of Arpaio controversies. There is far more to come.

I fully expect to hear complaints and possibly even howling from partisans that the information I've added is somehow not WP:NPOV.

Let's be realistic here: Arpaio is being investigated by the FBI, the DOJ, a federal Grand Jury, and is being sued in a major class action. His jail has been decertified, and found to violate constitutional rights. He was ordered to stop an investigation into his political enemies by a grand jury, but he continued nevertheless. These are facts, not opinions. There are many WP:RS articles detailing his violations of civil rights and abuses of power (including released grand jury transcripts and findings by local, state, and federal judges.) There are literally no WP:RS articles refuting these issues.

The only minority views which I've found with respect to these issues are opinion articles (typically not WP:RS) which laud him for his aggressive tactics on illegal immigration, while ignoring or dismissing any violations of civil rights or abuses of power he may have committed in the process. (I can find literally no citations which claim that Arpaio does not violate civil rights, or abuse his power.)

I have cited everything I've added, using reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. (If I've missed something, tell me.)

I've you want to raise the NPOV argument, please be prepared to provide citations to significant minority views from reliable secondary sources. If you want to raise the WP:RS argument on any of my citations, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard is the place to do it.

Fearofreprisal (talk) 09:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Added "Also, on September 2, 2010 Arpaio produced a document from Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) did its own investigation of Arpaio's office and gave it a clean bill of health. [[1]] -- to "Department of Justice Civil Rights Lawsuit" undone by Fearofreprisal: (→Department of Justice Civil Rights Lawsuit: Citation doesn't support statement.)
Opinions anyone? Phoenician Patriot (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
There are problems with verifiability and reliability. On its surface, the citation is clearly referring to an ICE internal document (the "report") that discussed the MCSO's adherence to the memorandum of authority (MOA) underlying at least one of its 287(g) program agreements with the ICE. Here are where I see problems:
- The article language says that Arpaio "produced" the report. There is no indication of this in the article. There is no indication in the article that the author actually had a copy of the report, or read the report. There is an implication that Arpaio's Washington DC attorney provided the author with excerpts of the report. (See also [[2]], where the citation's author does not actually say that he's seen or read the report.)
- The citation does not distinguish whether the report was referring to deputy sheriffs (field officers) or detention (jail intake) officers. The distinction is important. In October, 2009 (subsequent to the referenced report), the ICE stripped MCSO deputy sheriffs of 287(g) authority. [[3]], but renewed 287(g) authority for detention officers booking suspects at the jail. There is a strong implication, bolstered by several high profile lawsuits, that the 287(g) authority of MCSO deputy sheriffs was terminated for racial profiling. The report, which was ostensibly dated September, 2008, was superseded by the ICE's 287(g) termination action a year later.
- The citation states that the report gives the MCSO a "clean bill of health." That's, on its face, not credible. The citation stated that the report indicated that the MCSO was (in some context) living up to its memorandum of authority, but that is a far cry from the report giving the MCSO a "clean bill of health." Given that the DOJ was investigating the MCSO for violations of civil rights at the time that the report was written, it's hard to give the report (as described by the citation) any weight.
- The author of the citation, Byron York has a notable Republican bias.
- The newspaper cited, the Washington Examiner is unabashedly ideological. [[4]]
- I have not been able to verify the existence or contents of the report referenced in the citation through any other source, and all other citations on the topic point back to the Byron York article. This
Based on this, the citation is poorly sourced, and fails on WP:Verifiability and WP:RS
However... I do think that the MCSO's well documented abuse, and subsequent loss, of street 287(g) authority does bear more coverage in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearofreprisal (talk • contribs) 01:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


I was asking myself tonight "who was sheriff of Maricopa county before Arpaio?" It turns out to be Thomas J Agnos yet this external link is the only google result I could find about him. Now Arpaio took office in 1992, so this is a long time ago, but see the page I linked to there? http://www.azfop5.com/Sheriff%20T_Agnos.htm That's the Fraternal Order of Police, Maricopa Lodge 5. At the bottom of the bio of the previous sheriff there is this:

"Sheriff Agnos is credited with bringing a high standard of law enforcement ethics and performance to the Office during his term of office. Agnos gained control of runaway overtime, meeting his budget goals during each year of his administration. He brought the office to full staffing; established a rigid table of organization, quietly instituted 100% pay for all employees injured on the job -which was adopted county-wide- and gained the County Board of Supervisor's approval for a long lasting step pay plan for deputies and detention officers. He did not allow command officers to work off duty jobs or take prisoner trips ensuring that command officers could not use their rank to influence the decision about who would be given the jobs or trips.
Unfairly, Sheriff Agnos was publicly blamed for investigative deficiencies in a mass murder investigation, the Buddhist Temple Murders, and he lost his bid for re-election. Sheriff Agnos' Chief Deputy, well known within the Office as having a tyrannical personality, was most likely the reason Agnos was unable to rally employee support during the election."

Sheriff Agnos' Chief Deputy was Joe Arpaio, of course.

It's interesting to note that here we have the local chapter of the FOP ("the world's largest organization of sworn law enforcement officers"), saying things which are most likely true about Arpaio and his leadership of the sheriff's department by explicitly pointing out what Arpaio's predecessor didn't do. Compare the other brief biographies on their history page to Agnos's. (Note the use of comic sans, too.) They clearly aren't comfortable naming Arpaio directly. They also don't have anything to say about him, at all.

You see why we have an editor to this page going under the handle "Fearofreprisal" and why I made comments on this very talk page 7 years ago that one has reason to fear a corrupt sheriff. I didn't know what category to put this under, so I'm putting it under this heading. Keep this in mind when you see people link to the many controversies. Catblack (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Typo

there is a small typo that makes one section slightly ambiguous, under the heading "Feud with Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Maricopa Superior Court" it says "Legal experts agree this a rare move." Did legal experts agree "with" this rare move or did legal experts agree "this is" a rare move. This is hardly a major issue but this sentence is slightly ambiguous. 114.76.63.231 (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View, Verifiability and No Original Research

"Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, along with "Verifiability" and "No original research." Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.

This article is edited daily by a few bad apples that wish to use wikipedia as the place to make their political opinions known. This BLP needs to be protected.--OregonWrestling (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget WP:Assume_Good_Faith. Fearofreprisal (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph of this article is a disgrace in many ways, including a clearly biased viewpoint, and a lack of simple facts about Joe Arpaio that people should be able to see up front before detailing his life. For instance, put his election date (1992) in the first few sentences. What about his birthplace? Most pages separate the political axe-grinding into it's own section. This allows people to skip that section if they just want to know facts about something. It's articles such as this that are leading me to turn to sources other than Wikipedia for my basic fact-checking information. The people in charge of this particular article should be embarrassed and look to other articles as a source for how to present information in a more coherent manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skbenz (talk • contribs) 00:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Golly, I wonder who's in charge of this particular article? We should talk to him or her! I suppose the first paragraph ought to include the basic facts: That Arpaio is the Maricopa County Sheriff. That he's a "media whore" (the term used by his own press manager). That he's an outspoken advocate against illegal immigration (but only for the last 3 years.) That he's under investigation by the FBI and DOJ for abuse of power and racial profiling. That he's been denounced by everyone from Amnesty International to the New York Times. That he's the most sued Sheriff in the United States. That his jail has been declared unconstitutional. That, as of last week, his second in command is under investigation for serious misconduct. That he was just fined $154,000 for violation of election law. That he attacks his political enemies, including judges, and as a result, he (and the county) are facing over $40 million in claims. And that a lot of people think, because he calls himself the "toughest sheriff in America" that he must be alright. What of this do you think ought to go in the first paragraph? Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph takes less of a npov than the first paragraphs of the articles for Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer, Josef Stalin, you name it. If you feel the need to use such a non-encyclopedic tone do it on your flashing geocities webpage, not on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.152.5 (talk) 07:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow! this page is poorly managed and written. It is extremely biased and written with all kinds of undertone. The man has won five four term elections in a row so somebody must like him wouldn't you think? Wouldn't gather anything like that by reading this article which is a disgrace to wikipedia and information in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.125.85 (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"Tent Cities" Common in U.S.

I removed the claim “Many prisons and jails throughout the United States have used, and continue to use, tents to house inmates” because the reference, http://www.nytimes.com/1983/06/25/us/837-antinuclear-protesters-face-weekend-in-4-jail-tents.html, does not support that claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UtahSurfer (talk • contribs) 18:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

One note that those with time might look at is temperature. Half the year is covered (summer) but the winters here in Phoenix do get down to freezing (30's F). Tenants are allowed one blanket in the open tents. Being new I'd probably stick in a simple weather link as a reference while someone with more experience could find an article covering this actual aspect of the camp. PleasantDemise (talk) 08:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

An inmate has to volunteer before he receives a bed in tent city.--OregonWrestling (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a citation to a reliable source for this? Fearofreprisal (talk) 06:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Tent city has many different occupants, those convicted, those forced into plea "deals" by Thomas, but also those awaiting trial.
As a side note, the "guards" aren't very attentive. Some on work release coming in late, drug deals in the parking lot, etc. 68.104.226.190 (talk) 09:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Restored NPOV lead paragraphs

I hope the following [5] is acceptable to all. Note that both the 'anti-Arpaio' and 'pro-Arpaio' sides are allowed their say, and the prominent facts associated with both sides are mentioned:

Joseph M. "Joe" Arpaio (born June 14, 1932) is the elected Sheriff of Maricopa County in the U.S. state of Arizona. First voted into office in 1992 and re-elected four times by double-digit margins, Arpaio is responsible for law enforcement in Maricopa County. This includes management of the county jail, courtroom security, prisoner transport, service of warrants, and service of process. Arpaio has long identified himself as "America's Toughest Sheriff,"[1] and is currently well known for his outspoken stance against illegal immigration.[2] Specifically, Arpaio has become a flashpoint for controversy surrounding Arizona's SB1070, an attempt to ramp up enforcement of anti-illegal-immigration laws.[3]
Arpaio is currently the subject of FBI,[4] United States Department of Justice,[5] and Federal Grand Jury[6] investigations for civil rights violations and abuse of power, and is the defendant in a federal class-action suit for racial profiling over enforcement of SB1070.[7] Arpaio said he would fully cooperate with the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division investigation, which also concerns alleged SB1070 racial profiling; he vehemently denied its allegations and stated that the Sheriff's office had nothing to hide.[8][9]
Opponents have also attacked Arpaio in recent years for aggressive publicity-seeking,[10] retaliation against political enemies,[11] abuse of power,[12] civil rights violations,[13] and financial mismanagement.[14] Supporters and Arpaio state that the attacks are politically motivated, and in particular are attempts to curtail his anti-illegal immigration law enforcement efforts in Maricopa County.[15] [16]

Haberstr (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Not so much. You just restored the POV from a previous edit, adding back items that are factually wrong. For example, he's a defendant in many lawsuits, but none of them are for enforcement of SB1070. He initially said that he'd cooperate with the DOJ, but then changed his position, and said he wouldn't. The DOJ investigation predates SB1070. And it's not merely opponents who have pointed out the things mentioned in the lead -- it is everyone from his own media people to the New York Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearofreprisal (talk • contribs) 17:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Bad source for statement

Reference at citation #24 does not support the "surplus and spoiled food" statement, and seems like an assumption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.168.165 (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

About it seeming like an assumption... it took me 5 seconds to find dozens of citations on this through Google. I've added one to the article. The one about Arpaio gagging on the food he feeds to inmates in his jails. Fearofreprisal (talk) 10:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, Let's just put it this way. Joe's successfully managed to keep his age under wraps for a long time (He is, as I write this, actually 82) so the idea that his people are manipulating this page seems likely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.228.143 (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible advertising

There is a paragraph about a song by Contraband being added. I have let it stand because it is sourced, but I believe the editor, Xlor8923 (talk · contribs), has a conflict of interest regarding this item, namely that it is being used as advertising to promote the band and their song. It is up to the community whether or not it should stay in the article. Currently it is in a bad place as well, it is under the "Television" heading. Elizium23 (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the heading should be changed to "Media"? Fearofreprisal (talk) 10:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Restored Lead Paragraph

Once again, restored lead paragraphs. NickCT deleted a big chunk, citing WP:LEDE, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RECENTISM issues. If the problem was with WP:LEDE, he should have moved the material to the body. If the problem was WP:NPOV, he should have added the missing significant views. If the problem was WP:V... well, it wasn't, because everything he removed was properly cited to reliable sources. And, finally, there was no WP:RECENTISM because the material removed had been there quite a while (it wasn't recent.) The right way to do this, if the cited problems actually existed, would be through some thoughtful editing, rather than through wholesale deletion. Fearofreprisal (talk) 10:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"If the problem was with WP:LEDE, he should have moved the material to the body." - A lot of the material could work in the body, but it ain't my job to move material that's inappropriate in the lede to the body.
"If the problem was WP:NPOV, he should have added the missing significant views." - We can certainly have a single line noting that this guy is controversial for a number of reasons. But the gratuitous list of allegations as it stands is clearly not appropriate.
"everything he removed was properly cited to reliable sources" - A number of cites were blogs mate. That clearly ain't appropriate.
"y, there was no WP:RECENTISM" - So the current and ongoing FBI investigation isn't recent?
"the cited problems actually existed" - The cited problems obviously exist, and if I don't get a little cooperative attitude real fast, holy WP:BLP hell might start raining down.
As a side-note, I'm not an Arpaio supporter (honestly, I'm pretty far from one), but this lede stinks of WP:ATTACK and is clearly lacks an encyclopedic WP:NPOV. I'll wait 48hrs for a response, then the lead gets stripped down again. Best, NickCT (talk) 11:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
The lead is blatantly biased; looks like it was written by an activist.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Concern

This section under "Actions as Maricopa County Sheriff" >> "Abuse of Power" reads: `Arpaio is being investigated for politically motivated and "bogus" prosecutions, which a former US Attorney called "utterly unacceptable." Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon has called Arpaio's "long list" of questionable prosecutions "a reign of terror".[60]' Because the term "politically motivated" clearly expresses a POV, and "bogus" is syntactically aligned with the earlier term in such a way as to associate it with the unsourced, putatively objective "politically motivated," I will change this sentence to read:

"Arpaio is being investigated for politically motivated prosecutions, which a former US Attorney called "bogus" and "totally unacceptable." Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon has called Arpaio's "long list" of questionable prosecutions "a reign of terror." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.101.110.27 (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Sex Crimes

Interesting, Joe Arpaio does not let his police department prosecute child molesters when the child is Mexican Yahoo News link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.158.156 (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


What about the fact that he is himself the son of Italian immigrants. Latinos? What is more Latino or Latin than an Italian. Maybe he ignores that during the 1920s Italians were treated in the same way as he is treating now Mexican immigrants and non-immigrants! Some of them having been there since when Arizona itself was part of Mexico. By the way in 1924 congress passed a law aimed at limiting immigration of Italian, Jews and Eastern Europeans. How feeble is our memory! Pook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.163.240 (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

death threats?

Someone asked me about these supposed death threats due to an obama investigation, anyone heard about it? http://www.wnd.com/2011/12/375329/ and http://obamaballotchallenge.com/sheriff-arpaio-received-more-death-threats-for-investigating-potential-obama-fraud-crimes

thanks, mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Arpaio has claimed death threats in the past. The claims have never stood up in the light of day. In any case, www.wnd.com is not a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#WND_.28WorldNetDaily.3F.2C_WorldNetWeekly.3F.2C_not_sure_what_the_acronym_stands_for.29 Fearofreprisal (talk) 06:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

He gets death threats all the time but whether they are viable is a different story. There have been death threats but that was years ago, before the economy took a downturn. I read about them in the AZ Republic. I believe he is pretty proactive about them like the blog http://targetingcops.blogspot.com/ . The blog had been running since 2008 but hadn't targeted Sheriff Joe but when they did it was down in a few days. As far a WND goes I have them listed as a tabloid, I still use it on my site but it's entertainment value only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenician Patriot (talk • contribs) 23:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
What makes WND less reliable then other media outlets? Sorry, but the link used above points to a page not dealing with WND. --41.151.74.82 (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
You can find this discussion in the archives here.TMCk (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Section needs to be redone to account for WP:NPOV?

I reverted NickCT's undoing of my edit. If you think the relevant sections need to be redone to account for WP:NPOV, then do it. Don't just wholesale erase other people's work.

All you need to do is find some WP:RS that provide significant minority opinions. Sadly, in the realm of racial profiling, abuse of power, violations of civil rights, misuse of public funds, and many other areas, the only sources providing a minority opinion (saying he doesn't do these things) are Arpaio himself, and his lawyers. Even his most ardent supporters are more likely to justify his excesses than to deny them. Fearofreprisal (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Is Arpaio a Birther?

As no productive comments for improving the article seem to be forthcoming, it is time to put this 10-month old discussion to rest. (The article as it stands properly mentions the recent (March 2012) news announcement.)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

He claims that his investigation into the "birther" controversy is bipartisan and objective -- that he wants to clear the air. But birthers consider hem friendly to their side, hence the headline coverage he's getting from Worldnet Daily and little from any legit news outlet.

See http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/21/arpaio-i-briefed-santorum-on-birth-certificate-investigation/

http://www.wnd.com/arpaio-report/

Bustter (talk) 02:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Birther information should probably be included since it's what he is currently in the news for. Most major news sources are reporting that he has just concluded a six-month investigation finding "probable cause" that both the long-form birth certificate and a secondary record of President Obama's are forgeries. He claims his investigation is apolitical even though it was initiated and funded by the local Tea Party, and he is currently under investigation by the Feds (with a history of repeated violation of Federal orders).
I also find it odd there is no mention of the allegations of mishandling of sex crimes here or in the added article (which seems like it should be merged here anyway, since it's virtually all Arpaio material), even though references for them exist in the latter and this is well-established. Is someone scrubbing content? TricksterWolf (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Probably somebody is scrubbing this article. Omitting the most egregious of the allegations against him (allegations that seem pretty credible and certainly notable, given that they're the subject of an FBI investigation), downplaying his foray into the Birther movement, etc. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

yea, "sex crimes".. "Birther"... Can't you come up with more original distractions/psy-ops? Fact stands there are verifiable sources to dispute Obama's eligibility to assume the Office of the President. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oiudfgogsdf (talk • contribs) 10:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

No, there aren't. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of Neutrality and factual accuracy templates

{{POV}} {{autobiography}}

User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper removed two template for Neutrality and Factual Accuracy. I would like to point out that some of the items under Controversies are incomplete in that that don't indicate the resolution of said case. The http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com is not a reliable source for factual information unless you are looking for tips into beastuality. I also suspect any thing by the ACLU if not collaborated by another source. Federal funds, Arizona Constitution states all monies to fund the sheriff's office come from the county treasurer A.R.S. §11-441 thru §11-459. I will be putting these templates back in a day or so unless you can justify taking them down. Phoenician Patriot (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for starting a discussion about the issues you see in this article. As you already know from reading their documentation, the tags you used require the tagging editor to start a discussion on the talk page immediately. It was the lack of such a discussion that necessitated the removal of the tags. Now that discussion has started, you can put them back. Elizium23 (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank You Phoenician Patriot (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to complete any items in the article that you believe to be incomplete. This is not the place to dispute WP:RS. See WP:NEWSORG and WP:Reliable_sources_checklist. You haven't cited any neutrality issues in the article, so the Template:POV is inappropriate. Please read WP:NPOV_dispute. The Template:Autobiography is only for confirmed autobiographical content -- and you've identified none. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

NickCT added back the templates without citing any specific WP:NPOV issues, as required by WP:NPOV_dispute. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You have multiple folks who have taken fault with the tone of this article FoR. Frankly, given your history on this article, I'd suggest you steer clear of this page for a while. NickCT (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

If you don't like the tone of this article, you might follow the procedure in WP:NPOV_dispute. Adding the POV template without citing the neutrality issues here isn't helpful: We can't read your mind about what specific problems you see with neutrality. Fearofreprisal (talk) 12:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed both the RfC-tag and the POV-tag. If anyone has specific issues about POV, discuss them here. Some strange meta-discussion-RfC won't help. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Controversies Section: Big Gaps

Most of the listed controversies in the Controversies section are less notable than: 1) The exception-based clearing of cases inappropriately (notable: refusal to investigate rape cases against children when the child victims are Latino), and, 2) The birther claims made recently after six months of work performed (funded by the local Tea Party).

The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office controversies article is only about Joe Arpaio. There's nothing in that article that has anything to do with the Office of the Sheriff. It's solely about Joe Arpaio's actions as Sheriff. The article is misleadingly named.

If we want a separate article for Joe Arpaio controversies, that's fine, but the Controversies section here needs to include the neglect to investigate cases of child rape and the birther information. Both of these have substantial press coverage, whereas some of what is currently listed is more local than national in scope. TricksterWolf (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

While there may be some Maricopa County Sheriff's Office controversies that are unrelated to Arpaio's policies and actions, they seem to be few and far between. Regarding breaking off Arpaio controversies into another article: I can't see how that makes sense. Stripped of controversies, there would be little in this article of substance. Nearly everything Arpaio has done, from pink underwear, to tent city, to his focus on animal abuse, has controversial underpinnings. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Section heading and "alleged"

The first paragraph in the section Joe Arpaio#Abuse of power contains a finding by a judge that he did misuse the power of his office. There is no "allegation" in this finding of fact. My rationale also includes a reading of WP:ALLEGED. This states, in part, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear. The source is not clear when reading section headings, particularly if the reader is looking at the table of contents. In order to conform to a neutral point of view which is required for section headings, it is better to leave out "alleged" or "allegations" altogether. Elizium23 (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 June 2012

please change "Citation Needed" in "Investigation of President Obama’s birth certificate" section to a reference to URL "http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7400631n". This is verified from several sources. Thanks. Oiudfgogsdf (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

no good at all?

why is there not a single good statement about this guy? no person is evil through & through, & there is something good to say about every person. something hints at a very strong bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.86.78 (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It is partly because Wikipedia reflects viewpoints offered by reliable secondary sources, and the fact that Arpaio is a media hound, he is constantly doing controversial things just to get coverage for himself. Elizium23 (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

We may want to revisit the birther discussion

Arpaio: Obama birth record 'definitely fraudulent', via AP and Yahoo! News and current promoted on Drudge. Closing the August 2011 discussion above was probably the right decision at the time, but the situation seems to have changed. --BDD (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

No need to reopen the discussion. The news story has been added to the article.--S. Rich (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Adan Cox section

Should this be included in the Controversy section? It may be relevant to the article, but I don't see it as a controversy. Bcostley (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not a controversy, and it's not notable. Just someone making a threat. Arpaio claims to get them all the time. Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Re-elected 5 times?

The top of the page says he has been re-elected 5 times. He was elected in 1992, then re-elected in 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008. From where is this fifth re-election coming? 108.56.238.180 (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Correction(s) made.--S. Rich (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Good looking man, thanks. 108.56.238.180 (talk) 03:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe it is correct to state that he has been ELECTED sheriff five times. He defeated a recall attempt as well, this *might* be considered an "election" by some, but I'd avoid conflating that with regularly scheduled elections. ProfJustice (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The justice department shuts down its investigation of Joe Arpaio

Here is the link to the article.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/01/us-usa-arizona-arpaio-idUSBRE88000F20120901

The wikipedia info should be updated to reflect that as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.184.244.177 (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The Department of Justice did shut down its investigation, but it had nothing to do with "abuse of power" and that news article doesn't belong in the Abuse of Power section. The investigation that was shut down was all about financial concerns. Here's a link:

http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/arpaio-doj-montgomery-letter.pdf

--Tarantulas (talk) 05:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Why not calling a spade a spade?

There is no mention of the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories in the article? The fact that he is a proponent of these theories is not stated in this article. Cwobeel (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This should be in the article, although it's a relatively minor/recent issue when it comes to Sheriff Joe. Cowbell should be careful here in attribution though - Sheriff Joe has always been very careful to state he neither favors nor discredits theories on Obama's residency/citizenship. He wasn't a member of the cold case posse and they didn't make any conclusions regarding Obama's BC, except that it MAY have been fake and there were suspicious aspects of it. It would be best to review the press conference footage from that announcement to quote the exact verbage. ProfJustice (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Check more recent sources (added to the article.) On July 17, 2012, he said Obama's birth certificate is "definitely forged." Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Lead

From WP:lead: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established, or at least introduced, in the lead (but not by using "peacock terms" such as "acclaimed" or "award-winning"). It is even more important here than in the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Consideration should be given to creating interest in the article. This allows editors to avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, since greater detail is saved for the body of the article."

I've cleaned up the lead quite a bit, but I haven't added in everything that probably ought to be there. Fearofreprisal (talk) 03:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

What is notable about Arpaio?

Having followed Arpaio for his entire career as Sheriff, I see the following things as being particularly notable: +Publicity seeking, +"America's toughest sheriff", +jail conditions, +deaths in jails, +illegal immigration stance (along with pursuit of undocumented immigrant workers), +racial profiling, +abuse of power, +failure to clear/investigate cases, +rising crime rates, +malfeasance, +lawsuits (as defendant), +birtherism, +animal abuse cases. Fearofreprisal (talk) 03:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

What should be in the Lead?

At a meta level, the reason why Arpaio is any more notable than any other Sheriff in the 3,141 counties in the United States is that he makes himself notable, through conscious and aggressive self-promotion, leading to massive press coverage. (His press secretary called him a "media whore," and he openly admits to self-promotion.) So, this should be included in the beginning of the lead. It goes naturally with his self-styled "America's Toughest Sheriff" sobriquet. Next should probably be the thing that Arpaio himself feels is most notable--that is, what he promotes most strongly: his stance on illegal immigration. Next should be the widely covered result of this: his being sued for racial profiling

I'd argue that his failure to clear/investigate serious crimes (the subject of a Pulitzer Prize winning series of articles) should be next. Then probably jail conditions/deaths/suits. Then abuse of power, and malfeasance. And possibly rising crime rates

These aren't currently in the lead, but deserve to be added. The jail/conditions/deaths/suits section in the article needs to be rebuilt, since most of the information got moved to the MCSO page (even though Arpaio is the named defendant in all those suits, and MCSO is not.)

The last thing in the lead now is the birtherism issue. It's notable due to its timing, in an election year, and its association with racism. (Arpaio has been explicitly accused of racism.)[1][2] Fearofreprisal (talk) 03:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Are there positive things that should be in the article, or lead?

For those who think that this lead, and article, are unfair to Arpaio: Most of what makes Arpaio notable are his controversies. Even if you look at his core responsibilities, of enforcing the law and managing the jails, he's controversial. Crime rates have gone up under Arpaio since he's redeployed his resources against undocumented immigrants.[3] And jail conditions have languished, with Arpaio the subject of 50 times as many prison-conditions lawsuits as the New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston jail systems combined. MCSO

If I were to stretch, and try to find a subject where Arpaio is notable not for controversy, I might point to his animal cruelty initiatives. Yet, even in these he's controversial, because he uses animal cruelty cases to gain media exposure, and, as a result, does things that get him sued. He's been sued for trumping up charges (for example, against a veterinarian, for punching a dog, and against a cop in the death of his police dog.)[4][5]) He's also been sued for using his army armoured personnel carrier to crash into properties during raids, and killing animals in the process.[6]

In my experience, the only sources which provide positive coverage of Arpaio are not WP:RS. (e.g., WorldNetDaily, examiner.com) If you can identify a reliable source that provides positive coverage of Arpaio, please reply, and list it here. Fearofreprisal (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Simple answer: Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit Cwobeel (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Can someone improve this article?

I just looked at the feedback, and it's almost all negative. The one positive feedback says, "Thank you for the great documentation of the problems related to Arpaio's tenure as Sheriff. May truth continue to come to light and Maricopa county be successful in electing a sheriff who will focus on a sheriff's legitimate duties in a just and equitable manner". In other words, the one feedback post that's positive still indicates that the article is really about criticizing Arpaio.

I saw some things that were clearly espousing a POV, but I'm not here to argue over every little thing in the article. I don't know, nor do I care about Arpaio as a person, but I was interested in reading about some of his policies and their effects. I found the article light on the type of content I would expect, and heavy on "controversial" content. I understand that some people might not like this guy, but there's better outlets for such criticism, and if I decide to look after criticisms I'm sure it would be easy to find. Is there someone who can take it upon themselves to improve this article so that it represents a balanced and comprehensive overview of Arpaio? I frankly don't have the time, and probably don't know enough about Wikipedia to do so. 205.217.240.254 (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead

The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, but it does not include the controversial aspects of this person, which is covered in the majority of the article's text Cwobeel (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

How noteworthy is this?

"On June 9, 2011, Arpaio was interviewed on Fox News on KSAZ-TV about a song on iTunes called 'FUCK Sheriff Joe' by Contraband, describing him on his deathbed battling his own mortality."

Considering the amount of media coverage Arpaio receives this titbit reads like something inserted to promote the "Contraband" group. Since there is no indication that this item is more important than any of his many unmentioned interviews on immigration, prisoner feeding and housing, the Justce Department suit, and so on, I will delete it unless someone wishes to add information as to its noteworthiness aside from its use of the word "fuck". —Blanchette (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I noted this upon the date of the addition, see Talk:Joe Arpaio/Archive 2#Possible advertising. At the time I believed that the editor adding it had a WP:COI but I allowed it to stand because it was reliably sourced. Feel free to remove it; I have no objection. Elizium23 (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Done. —Blanchette (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Tent City

Tent city is strictly post-sentence. The claim that it is largely pre-conviction is neither true nor supported by the source cited. Tent city is only a small part of the jail system so while the majority of detainees in the entire jail are pre-conviction, none of them are in tent city. This is stated on the MCSO web site FAQ for Tent City. --DHeyward (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

MCSO website page at [6] does not say that Tent city is strictly post-sentenced inmates. Besides, MCSO.org is not a reliable third-party source.
This citation [7] says that pre-trial detainees are housed in Tent City. Fearofreprisal (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
No, it plays with the wording and reflects the overall jail (9000+ detained) and tent city (1500). 70% of the 9000+ are pre-sentenced inmates. Only post-sentenced inmantes are housed in tent city which is when so called "punishment" would come into play. And yes, the MCSO website on the tents is a reliable source for the tents. Do the math and you will see that tent city houses about 2/3 of the convicted population. --DHeyward (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what web page you're looking at. Not the one that I cited above, as it lists the capacity of Tent City as 2,126. Your suggestion to do the math based on what mcso.org says is againstWP:PRIMARY. Further, mcso.org fails the "self-serving" test of WP:BLPSELFPUB. Can you provide a citation to a reliable WP:SECONDARYsource for the information on Tent City? Fearofreprisal (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
It's on the jails history. The court ruling on pre-trial detainees, which your source cites, has specific mandates oversight regarding pre-trial detainees. They aren't housed in tent city. Of the 8 jails operated by MCSO, only 5 have pre-trial detainees. Tent-city isn't one of them and it's clear from the court-ordered oversight of pre-trial detention centers that it isn't subject to those rules and was not challenged. Pre-trial detainees and post-sentence inmates are not housed together for pretty obvious reasons of why jails exist in the first place. They don't ever share common areas at the same time (which tent city is a large common area). The duty for negative BLP entries is on the claimant and so far the sources provided are vague (because the claim is false - the lawsuit for pre-trial detainees wasn't about tent city). The opinion/commentary doesn't match the documents being written about - court order: "Pretrial detainees shall be incarcerated in jail cells or dormitories and shall not be housed in a dayroom or any other temporary housing facility of any kind.." page 18. --DHeyward (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Add "The facilities that house Maricopa County Jail pretrial detainees are the 4th Avenue jail, the Lower Buckeye jail, the Towers jail, the Estrella jail, and the Durango jail." page 21. "Tent city" is not listed as one of the jails housing pre-trial detainees. --DHeyward (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


How does the ISPnews source violate BLP? - [[User:Cwobeel|Cwobeel] (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Read the source and quote the line that says pre-trial detainees are in tents. It doesn't exist so it's complete misrepresentation of the source (it's a synth to conclude that 70% of all jails are pre-trial so therefore tent city must have pre-trial detainees.) The lawsuit for pre-trial detainees did not mention tent city, either. --DHeyward (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

There is this source (my highlight): '

Tent City Jail (Phoenix), Number of prisoners: ~2,000 - Who's in charge: Joe Arpaio, warden and sheriff of Maricopa County. The basics: No jail is more closely associated with its jailer than Tent City, the 20-year-old brainchild of Maricopa County's infamous tough-guy sheriff Joe Arpaio. In 1993, to save the county the cost of building a new jail, Arpaio set up hundreds of Army surplus tents from the Korean War era and used them to house prisoners. Tent City residents now number more than 2,000, most of them awaiting trial. (See this county press release (PDF) for an event celebrating its 20th year.) The tents are unheated in winter and uncooled in summer—temperatures inside them have been clocked as high as 145 degrees. A few permanent buildings suffice for showers and meals, and a guard tower displays a permanent "vacancy" sign, warning passersby to stay in line. Arpaio himself has called the place a "concentration camp," while Tent City's prisoners have gone so far as to cobble together a survival guide. [8].

I don't want to revert again, so please add that source and undo your deletion.- Cwobeel (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I will not revert as it's been provably false and negative. The Mother Jones article is not reliable and doesn't provide the basis for the pre-sentence claim and disputes the ACLU which says it isn't used (and wasn't the source you used to restore it - could it be the original source corrected it? Or that MJ was lifting the false information from Wikipedia?). They have all misinterpreted and combined two statements that are not related. "Most of the inmates of the MCSO jails are pre-sentence detainees." and "Tent city is a jail that houses over 2,000 inmates." This "Those critical of Arpaio also point out that the vast majority of inmates within Tent City have not been convicted; rather, they are merely awaiting trial." is not a true statement and nothing is more critical than the ACLU which has sued for pre-sentence detainee living conditions and tent-city wasn't listed. This statement should be left out.
The court documents I've cited above list the jails that houses pre-sentence detainees. They don't house them anywhere else. The document that Mother Jones cites as their source doesn't say it houses pre-detention detainees. The ACLU stipulates that they aren't housed there in the court documents where they list pre-sentence jails as part of their lawsuit. The ACLU was asking for relief in five permanent structures that had areas above 85F (and other concerns) and it wasn't tent-city (see listed above and below). "Most of them awaiting trial" is an obvious false statement and shouldn't be repeated when higher quality sources dispute it. He's barred from placing pre-sentence inmates there. "Sheriff Arpaio had previously decided that he would not release any inmates due to jail overcrowding, and housing sentenced inmates in the tents seemed a good solution."Court decision - page 21 list the five pre-sentence jails - "4th Avenue jail, the Lower Buckeye jail, the Towers jail, the Estrella jail, and the Durango jail." --DHeyward (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Mother Jones is generally a reliable source. The use of court records is questionable, under WP:BLPPRIMARY. Do you have another secondary source that supports your viewpoint? Fearofreprisal (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I am not proposing to use the sources to add material in the article. I only removed a statement that is poorly sourced (the original source did not support the statemtent and MJ provides are reference to their claim that also does not support their article claim). "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." It's demonstrably a false statement made in a negative light. It would require an extraordinary source to overcome its potententially libellous nature and the few sources that claim it do not overcome this. The burden is on keeping the material in a BLP, not the other way around. No one can prove the negative but I have shown that it is contentious and potentially libellous in nature especially since the original source (the IPS doc) used to fabricate the sentence doesn't support it. I am inclined to believe that at one point they made the same claim as MJ and then updated it when it turned out to be false (but the WP statement remained with that source) but that is largely irrelevant. The use of primary sources to identify and remove false statements in a BLP is not against WP:BLPPRIMARY. I don't propose using either the court record or the Sheriff's statements for adding material, only that the primary sources show the poor quality of the source that is being used to add negative information and in this case is not reliable enough for the claim. --DHeyward (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Here is the ACLU press release [9] on pre-trial detainees. Note it mentions five jails used for pre-trial detention. The court document lists those five jails (it's above). Tent city is not on the list and not because ACLU forgot to add it, but because it's not used for pre-trial detainees. --DHeyward (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Your raising the issue of libel creates a concern that you may be affiliated with Arpaio and the MCSO. While I assume good faith, I'm going to be watchful.
It is undisputed that Arpaio housed pre-trial detainees in Tent City at one point. So, a properly sourced claim that he does so now doesn't seem implausible or particularly contentious. While I acknowledge that you say this isn't the case, that doesn't carry any weight.
You'll need better sources than you've got at this point. Neither the ACLU press release nor the court document actually say pre-trial detainees aren't housed in Tent City -- and your process of inferring it is WP:OR. Same with mcso.org, with the added problem that it's not WP:RS (If you want to argue that it is, we can take it to WP:RSN.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Side note. You said "He's barred from placing pre-sentence inmates there." Are you suggesting that Arpaio is known for scrupulously complying with court orders? Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Uhh, no. "libelous" is in the little BLP tag at the top of the page. Knowingly publishing false, negative information is a bad idea and against BLP policy. Second, it is NOT undisputed that Arpaio housed pre-trial detainees in Tent City at one point. Where did you get that? From it's construction it's been a post-sentence facility [[10]. Third, the ACLU specifically mentions all pre-trial detention facilities operated by MCSO and refers to them as "the" five . It used to be 8 but was reduced to 5 when 3 facilities closed. The statement is all-inclusive and plain English reading is that these are the only facilities that house pre-trial detainees. The ACLU public statement is "The ACLU went to court last August to argue that deteriorating conditions within each of the jail's five facilities that house pre-trial detainees." The findings of fact in the court documents list the five jails (and the three that have since closed). The five are "4th Avenue jail, the Lower Buckeye jail, the Towers jail, the Estrella jail, and the Durango jail." The ACLU never alleges that tent-city was a pre-trial detention facility or mentions any conditions at tent-city as being relevant to a pre-trial detainee living condition class-action lawsuit. The consent decree and the lawsuit have been going on since the late 1990's and never has the ACLU alleged that "Tent city" was a pre-trial facility. The burden is on sourcing the statement. The ACLU has said each jail that houses pre-trial inmates had issues. Disputing the ACLU and saying they left "Tent city" out of the lawsuit will require an extraordinary source. --DHeyward (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the term "libelous" is included in BLP. But you hung onto it a little bit too long. Like you were using it as a threat. That, combined with your insistence about details of jail operations separate from published sources hints that you might work for Arpaio.
Here's one example: [11] But why argue? Like you said, you can't prove a negative.
Tent City is part of the Estrella Jail complex. But that, along with all of your WP:OR is not allowed in the article. Like I've said before -- you'll need better sources. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
If you knew anything about that picture of detainees and movement to tent city, you would have realized that those immigrants were post-conviction detainees [12]. The caption says it: "Approximately 200 convicted illegal immigrants handcuffed together are moved into a separate area of Tent City, by orders of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, for incarceration until their sentences are served." They had been convicted of a crime (i.e. DUI, assault, etc) and were also illegal immigrants. They spent their post-conviction time at Tent city. Upon release, they may have been deported or handed to CBP. But they were all post-sentence and were moved to serve out that sentence. I don't need better sources to remove false information, you need better sources to contradict the ACLU and not add false information. You can stop with the threats, too. --DHeyward (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you definitely have a lot of inside information. You can't use any of it here. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't. It's easy to spot fallacy, though, and requires no inside information. Please stop these groundless accusations or take it to a noticeboard. --DHeyward (talk) 01:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Arpaio came out?

"In late 2008 and early 2009, Arpaio came out in Smile...You're Under Arrest!"

OK, what is that supposed to mean? Arpaio is gay? Is this intentionally misleading language?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.38.117.125 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 31 January 2015

I have changed "came out" to "appeared"; I hope that is a little less ambiguous for everyone. Elizium23 (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

News

There's always news about Arpaio. Especially with his current contempt hearing. But transient things, such as his request that Judge Snow recuse himself, don't make a lot of sense to include in this already too-long article. If, in the end, Snow does recuse, and that leads to a change in the case (such as contempt charges being dropped), then it might make sense to include it here. Cinteotl (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Arpaio's request for judge to recuse himself isn't "transient"; it shows Arpaio's continued skirmishing with this judge. (And provides further context to Arpaio's successful attempt to remove the first judge from this case.) --Weazie (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Arpaio has been involved in hundreds of lawsuits, and has made many filings, with more than a few covered as news in the media. If this motion is denied, then it'll be no more than a small footnote in a legal case that's been going on for 8 years now. Irrespective of who the judge is, what will be relevant to the article is whether or not Arpaio is found guilty of civil contempt, or charged with criminal contempt.
This article is about Arpaio. If you think more in-depth coverage of Melendres v. Arpaio is warranted, possibly it would make sense to start a separate article to cover that case? Cinteotl (talk) 04:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
This is no longer an ordinary lawsuit in which Arpaio was nominally sued as the head of the sheriff's office; Arpaio personally is (I predict) about to be referred to federal prosecutors for criminal-contempt proceedings. Arpaio's last-minute attempt to remove the judge who is going to make that referral is no inconsequential matter, and it reflects something about Arpaio above the average lawsuit.
A full article on Melendres may be useful. But the (non-)existence of another article is no reason to include information about Arpaio personally in this article. --Weazie (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
As reported by reliable sources, Mel McDonald (Arpaio's attorney) has spoken to the rationale behind the motion for recusal. The filing of such a motion speaks only to aggressive legal representation by Arpaio's attorney. It says nothing about Arpaio himself. If, next week, Judge Snow denies the motion, then, for all practical purposes, the "last minute attempt to remove the judge" will have been an "inconsequential matter." If, on the other hand, judge Snow recuses... it's another story.
I think we need to be careful about WP:NPOV. Cinteotl (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
The recusal motion does not merely speak to McDonald's legal aggressiveness; it is part of an ongoing attempt by Arpaio to remove this judge from the case. But if there's no consensus for mentioning it at this point, then it need not be included. --Weazie (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
"part of an ongoing attempt by Arpaio to remove this judge from the case." Citation please? Cinteotl (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
As reported widely, the "Seattle Operation" was an attempt to attack the judge. --Weazie (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be some redundancy in the sections about Melendres, racial-profiling, and Arpaio investigating the judge. In an attempt to improve the article, I'd like to consolidate/move some things around. Weazie (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yea, there is some redundancy. Cinteotl (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2015

Towards the top of the article (after the first paragraph), it says "Diamond and Pearl! It's all about the battle! Pokemon!"

As far as I know, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department has no jurisdiction over Pokemon battles and I can't find any information to cite about Joe Arpai being a Pokemon trainer; could somebody please delete? 2601:241:8400:7570:75DC:EAA6:AB84:1155 (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

This is covered under Arizona Revised Statutes 13-2910.01, Animal fighting:
A person commits animal fighting by knowingly 1.) Owning, possessing, keeping or training any animal if the person knows or has reason to know that the animal will engage in an exhibition of fighting with another animal, 2.) For amusement or gain, causing any animal to fight with another animal, or causing any animals to injure each other.
Arpaio's powers and duties, under Arizona Revised Statutes 11-441, are to:
1. Preserve the peace.
2. Arrest and take before the nearest magistrate for examination all persons who attempt to commit or who have committed a public offense.
3. Prevent and suppress all affrays, breaches of the peace, riots and insurrections which may come to the knowledge of the sheriff.
Clearly, if a Pokemon battle breaks out in Maricopa County, it is Arpaio's duty to suppress it. (However, he should be careful to avoid racially profiling the Pokemon trainers.)
In any event, we probably need a reliable third-party source that "It's all about the battle." Cinteotl (talk) 08:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Done https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Arpaio&type=revision&diff=667730598&oldid=667696103 Cannolis (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Random comments

Hi my name is Alice and I support Joe Arpaio totally, I respect him to the utmost. I'm Navajo Indian and I live in San Diego, CA and I'm discriminated against, I don't speak Spanish, the Mexican people frown on me for that mear reason. I grew up speaking English, I don't even know my own language (Navajo). Joe Arpaio should run for President, I'd vote for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.214.21.86 (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


Yeah, Alice, dream on, Arpaio is a criminal of the worst kind as you will easily find out by reading the whole article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:45:4904:DFB3:CD29:E074:A19A:BE65 (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM. Thanks. --Weazie (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Its Wikipedia. This article was made by a person. People are biased. Thats all I have to say 65.101.22.202 (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Joe Arpaio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Joe Arpaio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Joe Arpaio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Bias much?

Instead of talking about him as a person, the article just goes right into the things he's done wrong, in addition to placing a huge emphasis on those things as well. Seems a bit biased to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.202.194 (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC) I agree...this whole page reads less like an unbiased report than an attempt to paint a man in the worst possible light. The conditions they talk about in "Tent City" were about the same as I enjoyed when I was stationed in Iraq...Inhumane...not really...uncomfortable for sure. Also I ate UGR's for 18 months...semi fresh meat or a bruised apple was more than welcome... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.7.102.111 (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

You got a problem with the article? Start editing. As for tent city being the same as soldiers experienced in Iraq: Fat chance. But feel free to cite any reliable sources you'd like that actually say this. Cinteotl (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

If Wikipedia wants donations the HMFIC should enforce the rules. The Arpaio article in no way adheres to the "NPOV" (Neutral Point of View) rule. No doubt the article is factual.. I wouldn't argue that... it's just conveniently incomplete and serves as a biased screed to promote the writers' POV. (Akin to "confirmation bias") So, fair-minded folks will react exactly the opposite to what the writer wants. But no fair writer should be looking to influence...this isn't an opinion journal. 174.96.17.172 (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)jpf411

feel free to contribute to the articleBcostley (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
This discussion was started almost two months ago, and there hasn't been any valid example cited as to a bias. 2600:8804:400:22:4868:4CC7:A32D:95B9 (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joe Arpaio. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joe Arpaio. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2016


All this is obliviously opinions of bias ppl. How about we look into and/or add all the GOOD that this man has done.

184.176.140.131 (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: This is not an edit request. Topher385 (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

WAY OUT OF DATE

holy shit is this shitty shitopedia making their pages out of date.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/20/us/arpaio-criminal-contempt-charges-referral/index.html

Shitty shitopedia hasn't even listed his CONVICTION OF CONTEMPT OF COURT IN MAY 2016.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/joe-arpaio-guilty-on-three-counts-of-civil-contempt-criminal-contempt-still-possible-8293359 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.6.210.97 (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Another editor has mentioned the conviction. Altamel (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2016


Remove duplicate period in the last sentence of the second paragraph in the intro section. Flyboyrob2112 (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Hopefully, given the history of this page, that is not too contentious ;-} - Arjayay (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Arpaio was defeated 11/08.ALEXANDEReBARNEs (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Joe Arpaio. 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) 23:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

POV - Joe Arpaio

I have no axe to grind one way or another, but this article strikes me as extraordinarily biased. With the second sentence — immediately following the barest of descriptions of the subject — it *immediately* segues into "Arpaio has been accused of ..."

It's as if the author(s) of this entry couldn't wait to unload a laundry list of accusations. Yes, I understand this fellow is a controversial figure, but really, how about a description of who he actually is before getting into what he's been accused of.

And, btw, the concluding sentence of that first paragraph, which states that "the U.S. Department of Justice concluded..." is 'not' borne out by the cited reference, which is simply a link to a collection of articles about Arpaio in The New York Times. This kind of (at best) barely disguised bias is why people are skeptical of Wikipedia's neutrality.

NicholasNotabene (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

→It's funny that you should mention that. I was literally just reading the leading section and the first thing I read was a laundry list of allegations (not even convictions) against him. Even if we ignore the fact that he's innocent until proven guilty, it seems unfair to define the man through his negative attributes. The leading section should be neutral, and there should be sections detailing both the good and the bad things about him.

I'm going to remove the lists of accusations. Please feel free to contact me if you disagree.

Schuddeboomw (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I just removed the following text:

"Arpaio has been accused of various types of misconduct, including abuse of power, misuse of funds, failure to investigate sex crimes, improper clearance of cases, unlawful enforcement of immigration laws, and election law violations. A Federal court monitor was appointed to oversee his office's operations because of complaints of racial profiling. The U.S. Department of Justice concluded that Arpaio oversaw the worst pattern of racial profiling in U.S. history, and subsequently filed suit against him for unlawful discriminatory police conduct.[2]"

I gave this explanation:

"Removed laundry list of unproven and partisan allegations from the lead section. Left a note on the talk page detailing my reasoning. Please feel free to discuss."

I briefly considered adding the text to another section, but decided against it because I felt that it didn't fit in well with others.

Schuddeboomw (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

About the material you removed: it's neither unproven, nor partisan. It's all substantiated by citations to reliable sources within the body of the article. Arpaio was a lightning rod for controversy, and was widely recognized for his misconduct. It's fundamental to his notability.
While I do believe the article needs cleanup, I also believe the material you removed belongs in the lead. So, I'm going to restore it. Cinteotl (talk) 07:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Joe Arpaio. 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) 09:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Joe Arpaio guilty of criminal contempt of court

Joe Arpaio guilty of criminal contempt of court July 31 2017 by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton. http://www.azfamily.com/story/35890030/guilty-judge-rules-in-former-sheriff-joe-arpaios-criminal-contempt-case — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.190.182.33 (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Please note that while it is proper, indeed very important, to document Mr. Arpaio's criminal status, doing so in a way that brings it up at times where it is irrelevant, such as in the lead paragraph, is likely a violation of WP:NPOV. If and when Mr. Arpaio is granted a Presidential pardon, then his pardon should be mentioned in the lead. But otherwise, Mr. Arpaio's public history covers far too much more than his conviction for it to be treated as the defining characteristic of the article. I am no fan of what he did/does/is doing, but that doesn't justify political bias in our coverage. --krimin_killr21(talk) 16:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

In articles about criminals, that's usually the only thing mentioned in the lead sentence--we don't describe people as "former truck driver and serial killer"--so describing him as a "former sheriff and convicted criminal" is more generous than usual. In addition, his status as sheriff is in the past, whereas his status as a criminal is current. If he's pardoned that will get due attention as well. EEng 18:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
@EEng:He was convicted of a misdemeanor. Can you provide an example of an individual who was famous for other reasons and convicted of a misdemeanor whose conviction is mentioned in their lead? Mr. Arpaio isn't a serial killer and the crime he committed does not rise to that stature. --krimin_killr21(talk) 23:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Can you provide an example of an individual whose conviction was the subject of a presidential speech, which in turn sparked riots? EEng 00:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)p
@EEng:Definitely not sure about any riots significant enough to be newsworthy. For right now I'm going to rephrase it but I really don't think it should be included at all. If we get some other editors to weigh in we can go from there. --krimin_killr21(talk) 02:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Arpaio is not notable only, or even largely, as a "convicted criminal"; therefore, he should not be defined as such in the first sentence. I do not see any cogent policy-based reasoning in EEng's comments above.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
The contempt conviction is mentioned in the last sentence of the lede -- which is the right place for it. Putting it in the first sentence too seems inappropriate. Arpaio is notable for many things, but the misdemeanor criminal contempt conviction is just a footnote in his career. (I think it's more significant that he continues to claim innocence. The denial is strong in this one.) Cinteotl (talk) 12:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Joe Arpaio. 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) 08:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/10/nation/la-na-nn-joe-arpaio-20120510
  2. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFTUQ71Aq0o
  3. ^ http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3789
  4. ^ http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2008-10-16/news/a-dog-of-a-case-andrew-thomas-again-proves-that-indicting-the-innocent-isn-t-a-good-idea/
  5. ^ http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2012/04/13/lawsuit-targeting-arpaio-over-dog-death-case-settled/
  6. ^ http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/09/02/actor-steven-seagal-and-sheriff-joe-arpaio-dispute-puppycide/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Arpaio/Archive_2&oldid=1164839412"