Talk:Joe Arpaio/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Basis for Criminal Contempt Conviction

Hello Wikipedians,

I am one of the criminal defense attorneys for Joe Arpaio (and not an active editor of Wikipedia). I recommend a change to the paragraph describing the basis for his criminal contempt conviction, which currently states:

"Arpaio was a defendant in a decade-long racial-profiling case in which a federal court issued an injunction barring him from conducting further 'immigration round-ups' that targeted Hispanics.[16] A federal court subsequently found that after the order was issued, Arpaio's office continued to detain "persons for further investigation without reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is being committed.'[16] In 2016, Arpaio was held in civil contempt of court, and the following year, Arpaio was found guilty of criminal contempt of court for 'willfully' violating the order.[16]"

The "subsequently" and "after the order was issued" parts are inaccurate. The criminal contempt conviction was for violating a 2011 ("preliminary") injunction order that had nothing to do with race or targeting Hispanics. (See here for the verdict, which does not mention race or targeting Hispanics; or see here at page 40, paragraph 5, for an actual copy of the 2011 "preliminary injunction" order that he was accused of violating).

The confusion is that there was another ("permanent injunction") order entered later, in 2013, which prohibited targeting Hispanics; but the Sheriff was not convicted of violating that order. In fact, the Government admitted before the criminal trial that it was “unaware of facts” that would support “that he [Sheriff Joe] and other MCSO officers detained plaintiffs on the basis of race,” and it presented no evidence to support that at trial. (See its Answering Brief at page 27, numbered 21 at bottom.)

I recommend that the paragraph be corrected by replacing "barring him from conducting further 'immigration round-ups' that targeted Hispanics" with "barring his office from detaining people based only on the suspicion that they were illegal aliens."

FYI, the actual text of the Preliminary Injunction Order (that he was convicted of violating) was:

"MCSO [the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office] and all of its officers are hereby enjoined from detaining any person based only on knowledge or reasonable belief, without more, that the person is unlawfully present within the United States, because as a matter of law such knowledge does not amount to a reasonable belief that the person either violated or conspired to violate the Arizona human smuggling statute, or any other state or federal criminal law."

Thank you and respectfully - Jack Wilenchik, Esq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilenchik (talk • contribs) 17:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Wilenchik: Mr. Wilenchik, thank you for your input. I appreciate especially your putting this request in the talk page, rather than entering the edit yourself, as this would be a violation of WP:COI. After reviewing the documentation that you submitted, I agree that the present article is misleading, and will work to correct any inaccuracies shortly. While it is important that Wikipedia do its part to document misbehavior on the part of public officials in a fair and unbiased way, this end is harmed when we present information which is not supported by evidence. In that regard, I thank you for your assistance. After reviewing the edits which I will make, please provide input if you feel that any further corrections need to be made, keeping in mind that they will be subject to review, like all content on the site. --krimin_killr21(talk) 18:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

External link correction

I don't have an account. Citation #89 needs to be updated to this or something better:

http://www.pinalcentral.com/casa_grande_dispatch/arizona_news/arpaio-s-office-continues-to-investigate-sex-crime-cases/article_6ec5ec3a-0caf-11e2-ae18-0019bb2963f4.html

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.97.49.227 (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

To everyone who creates and edits important articles like this one while I'm working on my Low-stress, Low-importance articles about people who died a hundred years ago, thank you. --MopTop (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2017

Paragraph supported by footnote 14 on this page does not have a sufficient source. The link provided in footnote 14 itself is a search link on the New York Times with the keyword "Joe Arpaio", not a news article relevant to the paragraph. SourceCheck (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done replaced bad ref with citation needed tag will add an actual reference if I can find one. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 10:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Opinion pieces

I suggest we don't try to accumulate a mountain of opinion pieces in the "pardon" section. They are all primary sources about what the respective authors think, unless mentioned by additional secondary sources. See WP:OR. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Generally agree, but opinion pieces from notable individuals can be included.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The above section is related. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Anything published in reliable sources is kind of notable, and there is almost an infinite supply. Per WP:OR, "Further examples of primary sources include ... editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces, or (depending on context) interviews...." I strongly disagree with us picking and choosing which primary sources we like best. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hear! Hear! Please see the above section. This could go on forever with each side of the left/right divide adding favorable opinions to their viewpoints. I'm really disappointed in some here. I've taken the opposite side in instances like this in the interest of objectivity, not to mention integrity.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Scholarly assessments of the legal ramifications and historical context of the action are highly encyclopaedic and of timeless value. Random op-eds by non-scholars are of dubious relevance (unless the op-eds are highly notable, such as being mentioned in RS), and I would not mind removing those. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

What Snoogans^2 said. It depends on what piece we're talking about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

A New Article is warranted regarding the pardon

Since this discussion began, much more material has been added regarding the pardon and alleged constitutional issues. Since none of these considerations have anything to do with the subject per se (he simply received the pardon), then beyond mentioning here that (as of now) Sheriff Arpaio received a pardon, nothing more needs to be said. Instead, a new article entitled “The pardoning of Joe Arpaio” should be established. By all means, both sides of the argument should be represented.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Since I wrote this, someone added a "Reactions to the pardon" section. Perhaps that is sufficientHistoryBuff14 (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I oppose this. Fork. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

What are you opposing, my original note or my addendum? BTW, what does “Fork” mean, please?HistoryBuff14 (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Relevant discussion about what Wikipedia is not

Of possible interest to editors here: Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#RFC:_New_subsection_under_.22Not_a_Newspaper.22_about_commentary Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Contradiction?

I'm not sure whether there is a contradiction, or whether I misunderstand US practice. In both lead and headings, Arpaio is listed as Sheriff from 1993, his first election was 1992. Is Sherrif one of those posts where one takes up the job in the year after election? Pincrete (talk) 10:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

It depends on the jurisdiction, but it's quite possible. Someone would have to look up the specific practice in that county to say. --krimin_killr21(talk) 16:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it from what it says on the page of his successor Paul Penzone. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The Pardon: not noteworthy citation amounts to pure bias. Remove!

Why is the following noteworthy: “Harvard University Professor of Constitutional Law Noah Feldman has argued that issuing this pardon would be an impeachable offence under the U.S. Constitution, as it would mean that Trump was expressing "outright contempt for the ... independent constitutional authority of Article III judges."[215]?

This is one left wing law professor expressing a totally unwarranted opinion. Where in the U.S. Constitution does it exclude a president’s power to issue pardons for federal offenses including contempt of court ones? This is pure political bias by the editor who inserted this. This should be removed ASAP as pure political posturing. This grandstanding law professor holds no public office and his personal, subjective opinion is not noteworthy.:

From Wikipedia:

"In the United States, the pardon power for federal crimes is granted to the President of the United States under Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution which states that the President 'shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment'". The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this language to include the power to grant pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, respites, and amnesties.[23]'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon

Under: "United States,' "Federal law."HistoryBuff14 (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@HistoryBuff14: The "wing" of the professor is irrelevant in the notability but not the neutrality. This is a constitutional law expert, and so their reported views are notable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

If he or others take this to court, then it would be notable, not now. I request a consensus opinion to delete or retain this citation at the present time. Were all the criticisms of President Obama's pardoning of Chelsea Manning considered notable?HistoryBuff14 (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@HistoryBuff14: I am not saying all criticism is notable, as it depends upon who is saying it and what argument they are giving. However please read WP:OSE and discuss anything about that pardon on that page of Chelsea Manning. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

From the Manning article:

“On January 26, 2017, in her first column for The Guardian since the commutation, Manning lamented that President Obama's political opponents consistently refused to compromise, resulting in "very few permanent accomplishments" during his time in office.[190] In response, President Donald Trump condemned Manning as an 'ungrateful traitor' and said that she should 'never have been released.',[191]"

The article merely states President Trump’s political criticism of the commutation which is why I do not object to the McCain criticism in this article’s inclusion. This law professor’s opinion goes against the plain text of the Constitution and cites no legal precedent whatsoever to justify deviating from the plain text. Therefore, at least at this point it is pure political posturing by a citizen who lacks the notability of either President Trump or Senator McCain.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@HistoryBuff14 and Emir of Wikipedia: I disagree with HistoryBuff14, the notability standard only applies to articles, and a law professor's opinion piece on Bloomberg is a well-sourced opinion. I don't see a good reason to remove this. RAN1 (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

A good reason is that it is inflammatory and hyperbolic and does not warrant giving credence to by publishing it in a supposedly nonpartisan and objective encyclopedia as Wikipedia purports to be. An impeachable offense? Even if some court in its infinite wisdom should side with this lawyer’s argument, since there is no precedent negating the plain text of the Constitution applicable to presidential pardons, then the president could not be impeached for contempt of a court order that did not exist beforehand. The pardon would simply be invalidated. This is a blatant and ill-advised political commentary by a left wing citizen published in a left wing publication that does not warrant repeating. This is political cherry picking by the editor who included it.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It is "inflammatory and hyperbolic" in your mind. In other words, it's your own special WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. It's not a reason to remove anything.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

"In my mind?" You didn't even attempt to counter the arguments I've made.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I did. YOU think it's "inflammatory and hyperbolic". But so what? Wikipedia's not based on individual editors WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT but rather on reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@HistoryBuff14: None of your arguments show that you read the opinion piece or have a basic understanding of impeachment in the U.S.. Impeachment and trial are powers held only by Congress, impeachment is charging officeholders who seriously abuse their power (like the power of the pardon), and the opinion piece (published before the actual pardon) makes a fair argument as to why pardoning Arpaio is an impeachable offense (namely, because he intentionally violated constitutional protections). RAN1 (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@RAN1 There is no precedent to impeach a president—or for that matter, to convict a person of a crime—on an ex post facto basis, a clear violation of the constitution's ex post facto clause. As of now at least, the president has unrestricted authority to issue pardons for federal offenses save impeachments and that has been upheld and even expanded to some extent by SCOTUS. (Again, see the above quoted passage from the relevant Wiki article.) if the courts decide that this particular pardon is unconstitutional, the president cannot be held accountable for merely exercising his pardon powers as previously decided. He could only be held in contempt if at that point he defied such a court ruling which would then be an impeachable offense. The result would presumably be that the pardon in question would be invalidated. Do you understand this?HistoryBuff14 (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@RAN1 "The pardon power extends only to federal crimes. Otherwise, presidents are free to use it as they see fit. As the Supreme Court put it in an 1866 decision involving a former Confederate senator, Ex Parte Garland, the power 'is unlimited.'" NY Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/26/us/politics/trump-pardon-joe-arpaio-constitution.html?mcubz=1HistoryBuff14 (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The President has the power to pardon, whereas the House and Senate have the sole power to impeach and try. That's about all that needs to be said. RAN1 (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@RAN1 Except to add that the constitution clearly states that congress can only impeach a president for: “high crimes and misdemeanors.” A president exercising his constitutional powers in accordance with prior SCOTUS oversight and decision is neither a high crime nor a misdemeanor.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

We can't mention that without a source though. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia Okay, I just added a sourced (NY Times) quotation that mentions the relevant SCOTUS case from 1866 (never superseded as yet, at least), However, I admit I often have problems adding citations (and I'm amazed I did as well as I did in this instance.) Although the link works, I apparently made some minor error that is reflected in the references section. Perhaps you or somone might be kind enough to fix it? Thank you.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@HistoryBuff14: Abuse of power is a valid article of impeachment, and the source makes an argument as to why the pardon can be considered abuse of power. This discussion isn't helping the article any, so unless you want to call an RfC over this I don't see any reason to continue this. RAN1 (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@RAN1Abuse of power for using his constitutional power as stated within the constitution? I guess Giancarlo Stanton can be held for abusing his power to hit home runs in accordance with the rules of MLB! What kind of poppycock argument is that?!HistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The part that you're omitting from the NY Times piece is that what makes this pardon unprecedented is that it was a pardon NOT for violating a Congressional law, but for violating the Constitution:

"“Arpaio didn’t just violate a law passed by Congress,” Professor Feldman wrote on Bloomberg View. “His actions defied the Constitution itself, the bedrock of the entire system of government.” By saying Mr. Arpaio’s offense was forgivable, Professor Feldman added, Mr. Trump threatens “the very structure on which his right to pardon is based.”"

As far as impeachment goes: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history".Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, this comes down to Harvard University Professor of Constitutional Law versus some random guy on Wikpiedia. Guess who wins? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek And the random guy on Wikipedia will doubtlessly be agreed with by POTUS and the U.S. Department of Justice! Regarding the NY Times citation, I included the author's assessment: "It was the first act of outright defiance against the judiciary by a president who has not been shy about criticizing federal judges who ruled against his businesses," along with his apparent assessment that POTUS acted within his power connoting a degree of balance on my part sadly lacking within the apparent myriad Trump-haters here bent on turning Wiki into a propaganda organ of the DNC and other elements of the political left. Also, an "unprecedented pardon" doesn't mean it is in any way unconstitutional.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Trump doesn't count. He's only a valid source for his own personal opinions as a far-right, extremist politician, he doesn't have any expertise regarding constitutional law or anything else. He's not even taken seriously in the realm of politics to any greater degree than Mugabe and people like him. --Tataral (talk) 01:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, how in the name of God is that an argument. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @HistoryBuff14: Yes, it is in fact a possible abuse of power to pardon a political ally/government official who was found by the district court to have willfully violated a court order to stop violating the constitutional rights of others. I won't hold your hand through reading the Constitution or the source in question. Your MLB reference doesn't show a passable understanding of either. RAN1 (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Question

Why is there a controversy section?--Mark Miller (talk) 07:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Because most of his life has been a source of controversy, including his unconscionable pardon by Trump. WWGB (talk) 07:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the controversies of a given subject, Wikipedia policy on this is found at; WP:BLPCOI - Using BLPs to continue disputes. It states; "Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself.

Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all.".

At WP:STRUCTURE, part of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view it states; "The internal structure of an article may require additional attention, to protect neutrality, and to avoid problems like POV forking and undue weight. Although specific article structures are not, as a rule, prohibited, care must be taken to ensure that the overall presentation is broadly neutral.

Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.

Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view, and watch out for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints.".--Mark Miller (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Is there a way editors could come to an agreement on how to handle the controversies of the subject in a more neutral manner?--Mark Miller (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

"[M]ost of his life has been a source of controversy". That does not appear to be the case. All content on controversy seems to be in his later years.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I think this should be changed in the article to be more neutral.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Controversies regarding Sheriff Arpaio should be in a separate article. Of course, the more notable ones should stay but stuff like the KKK comparison and other trivia matters should be moved into said article. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

As far as the specific content, I am not addressing that but just the use of the separate section and the use of the title "Controversy". All of this is from his term as sheriff so it seems reasonable that this should just be under that section in a neutral manner. The content can be discussed and a consensus can determine what to keep or lose in a different discussion but I certainly support a discussion beginning.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The offense is called "criminal contempt of court"

The lede now buries the conviction in an overlong paragraph within a lot of technicalities. An it cutifies it by calling it "misdemeanor contempt of court" instead. There is no such offense. There are numerous sources documenting that fact. Arpaio's offense is called "criminal contempt of court". He was convicted.

Pardoned or not, he is a criminal. Wikipedia should document that fact. Wefa (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Barring any qualified counter-argument I will change the article accordingly Be Bold and all that ... Wefa (talk) 10:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not above suggesting recent edits are slanted towards non-neutral support for the subject. It is also possible that the editors are just incompetent. John Moser (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Birtherism can no longer be described as false?

One editor has taken it upon himself to make massive changes to this article due to a serious misunderstanding of BLP policy. I just added text that correctly labeled Arpaio's birther claims as "false", but this was immediately reverted by this particular user who said "more neutral. Please do not introduce non neutral wording". I'm not entirely familiar with the content of the rest of the article, but the user appears to have made numerous similar poor edits that fails to reflect the content of reliable sources and is a systemic case of WP:WEASEL. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

This change[1] by another editor is simply not acceptable. Wikipedia must inform readers, as all reliable sources do, that Arpaio's claims about Obama are false. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a BLP violation against Obama to let this false slander stand without describing it as such. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I had already partially reverted (same diff). I don't personally find the use of 'false' necessary ... it's a bit like telling people that the earth isn't really flat IMO. However I did think it was evasive to say 'known for investigations', he isn't, he's known for claims that the documents are false. Pincrete (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

That is not a partial revert but merely introducing original prose and would likely not been seen as a revert or partial revert. That works for me.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

"One editor has taken it upon himself to make massive changes to this article due to a serious misunderstanding of BLP policy" I made no claim that the revert of the change you made had anything to do with BLP. I stated in the edit summary that it introduced non neutral wording. However, if you feel any of the changes I made go against Wikipedia policy or guidelines, please be specific and base your argument on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Experienced editors will generally disregard such comments as they do not provide an argument towards a consensus.

Weasal words or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch is not actually a policy or guideline however, it is a "generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow", which I do attempt. Could you not discuss the contributor and explain the precise contribution you take issue with?--Mark Miller (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans you may be getting the contributions of two editors confused. Discussing only the contribution and not the contributor helps minimize these mistakes.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The section Entrapment investigation, lawsuit and Criminal abuse-of-power allegations uses the phrase allegations because it is used in the source for the claim in the section. The exact portion this is lifted from in the source is; "Apart from the civil rights probe, a federal grand jury also has been investigating Arpaio's office on criminal abuse-of-power allegations since at least December 2009...". From AZ.Family.com (appears to be RS) as archived by the internet Archive "Wayback Machine". If you still object we can always consider a different header or phrasing.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

New article is a ramble to cover objectionable actions

The new article has the virtue of not purging objectionable actions. Instead, it turns a set of distinct activities into an undifferentiated ramble. This is an excellent way to increase the effort required for a reader to identify useful content and to discourage people from reading the long, boring section about all the supposedly-bad stuff he's done in his career.

To maintain neutrality, the heading, "Failure to investigate sex crimes" should have been left in; the heading, "13-year-old rape victim ignored" should have been changed to a less-inflammatory version such as "Mishandling of Sabrina Morrison case". Structuring information to maximize the reader's ability to identify and narrow in on the parts which are personally interesting is part of neutrality; burying information in a lengthy, boring blob of text is a great way to prevent people from looking at things you don't want them to see. John Moser (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that too many sub-headings have been removed, even if I approve of the more neutral wording now used. Pincrete (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Moser. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Aloha, and thank you for beginning a discussion John Moser. What concerns me the most is how the article complies with Wikipedia policy on Biographies of living persons and that we do not introduce our own bias into the article or it's structure. You stated; "the virtue of not purging objectionable actions". We should not look at the actions of the subject of the article but the content of the article. This is not about Joe Arpaio. This is about how to approach writing about Joe Arpaio. Is there objectionable content? To be objectionable content it should fail a guideline or policy in some way. That is something that can and probably should be discussed however the edits simply addressed concerns of undue weight and non-neutral wording. Sections should be longer than a single paragraph or sentence per the MOS and there are a number of other policy issues in a discussion above. Yes, right now the article does appear to be an "undifferentiated ramble". But I would add that before the edit it was probably little more than a differentiated ramble.

"Structuring information to maximize the reader's ability to identify and narrow in on the parts which are personally interesting is part of neutrality". No I don't believe so. Can that be demonstrated through Wikipedia policy and Guidelines? This is what Wikipedia policy actually says in regard to that specific comment;

Further information: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout

The internal structure of an article may require additional attention, to protect neutrality, and to avoid problems like POV forking and undue weight. Although specific article structures are not, as a rule, prohibited, care must be taken to ensure that the overall presentation is broadly neutral.

Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.

Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view, and watch out for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints.

References

Sorry if that was long or repetitive in anyway but I want be able to demonstrate exactly why the edits were made as well as address the specific comment.

There is consensus that even I agree with, there may not be enough header separation. I believe that there is a large chunk of text that could be separated by subject but we need to keep in mind how best to do that depends on how much content there is and then create a neutral header. Does this create work? Yes, I do not deny that but that is also why we are all here...to improve the article. There is no deadline and I do not assume others must help but I do believe other do want to help.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I've added further separation. It isn't that controverisial subjects can't have headers or be mentioned, it's just the way it is approached to be broadly neutral".--Mark Miller (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Pincrete, thanks for the help. I was a little unsure if I needed to be that conservative with the one header in regards to "allegations" as the article clearly makes use of the word and is taken from the sources themselves but I do agree it is less 'headliney' without the use.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Also Misspending allegations seems appropriate as I believe the article makes use of the term as taken from sources but I have to admit to not looking too closely to verify.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, after looking closer it does appear to be using weasel words or words to watch by introducing the use of the term allegations per WP:ALLEGED as Expressions of doubt. I did a partial revert by adding the word analysis back. I hope that works but if you think there is a better, more neutral heading, perhaps new prose would work.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't speaking of WP's neutrality policy per se as much as I was speaking of style of writing in general and the mind of the reader. A campaign to redact derogatory information from a Wikipedia article would stand out as clearly-deceptive; not redacting said information lets you claim you've "left it there for all to see", even when you make that information less-likely to be seen. If Wikipedia's neutrality policies do not suggest a structuring of information so as to reduce the likelihood of any given reader actually looking at it is non-neutral, that is a deficiency of the policy.

As for strongly citing sources for living people and ensuring that conjecture, speculation, and sensation are not taken as gospel, yes, those are also important points to which we must adhere. That includes not putting too much emphasis on alleged actions unless these allegations are clearly notable—and we aren't investigators, so picking apart additional details to demonstrate why an allegation which was dropped might be true is fair-game on the dead, but perhaps not on the living; that's a tough call even with the dead, although you at least have historians instead of media pundits to source.

My point came largely as a reaction to finding the article less-readable one day than the prior, not so much to its content. John Moser (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, because it amuses me, I like the 2011 picture of Arpaio: it looks like he could be a villain in Get Smart or something, and he visually fits the role of some kind of Bond-villain-esque billionaire or Admiral from some evil military force rather well in that shot. The other pictures have him smiling, or thoughtful, or at least driven—he looks pretty good as a person in those, very electable. This is something Scott Adams had once covered on his blog. If you need a point-by-point on how to make a piece of writing maximally-damaging, you want to start there. In these political times, we should have an eye out for that side of the equation, too. John Moser (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Scott Norberg?

I searched wikipedia for Scott Norberg and was forwarded to this page, yet there isn't a single mention of him. What the hell???216.40.152.27 (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I found references to Scott Norberg on an old version of this page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Arpaio&oldid=286594683. There's still a redirect to this section https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scott_norberg&redirect=no, which is what brought you to this page. Faolin42 (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Pardon section

The pardon section seems way undue and the reaction section is only tangentially related to Joe Arpaio himself. There is now a Pardon of Joe Arpaio which is mostly taken from here. I think the section here can be cut to 3-4 paragraphs at most, removing the stuff that isn't really about Joe Arpaio and more about Trump and what he was doing. argued that issuing this pardon would be an impeachable offence doesn't really need to be here.. Galobtter (talk) 10:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The entire reactions section needs to summarize as a paragraph, or even less. Galobtter (talk) 10:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

What I'm saying essentially is that while the pardon is very important, a lot of its importance derives from matters unrelated to Arpaio himself and there shouldn't be so much on it in an article about Joe Arpaio. Galobtter (talk) 11:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Deletion discussion, Pardon of Joe Arpaio

This is to inform editors that there is a deletion discussion going on about the newly created article spin-off article Pardon of Joe Arpaio. You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pardon of Joe Arpaio (2nd nomination). _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 18:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Illegal immigrants

@Snooganssnoogans: used the edit summary:

also reverted Natureium who deceptively claimed that the cited article used "illegal immigrants" when it in fact used "undocumented immigrants". not the first time I've seen Natureium do this.

The title of the article says "illegals", and there's nothing deceptive about that just because you don't like it. Furthermore, "illegal immigrants" is used several times in this same article. Why do you insist that a different term be used in this instance, rather than using consistent language for the sake of clarity? Natureium (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The title of the source[2] uses the term "illegals" in quotes (which sounds like it's quoting Arpaio) but uses the term "undocumented immigrant" (no quotes) exclusively (three times) in the body. The term "illegal immigrant" is not used anywhere in the source. This is not the first time that your edit summaries are deceptive as to what terms that sources use.Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429013125/http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf to http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

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) 08:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

This entire article is just one big hit piece

Over his entire career - he never had any accomplishments? He never reduced crime? This is probably the most biased Wikipedia Article I've ever seen. What a disgrace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatlock29 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources which talk about accomplishments that are not in the article already, please name them. Unless you do, we can't write the accomplishments into the article, right?

We do not invent stuff. And we do not omit important stuff. If a person behaves badly, and the sources reflect that, the article will reflect that.

If you want to complain, complain to the newspapers. Or better, tell Arpaio he should become a better person. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is truly in safe hands. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hahaha, slanted journalism and the "I just copied that from another article"-excuse. 105.6.90.43 (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Tatlock has made only 5 edits, 2 in 2007, one in 2009, one in 2011, and this one over 2 months ago. I don't think we need to take it seriously or expect him to back up his claim. The first IP is a dynamic IP and edited a month ago, the 2nd one has only made the one edit. Doug Weller talk 18:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Pleas add Joey to Category: Trump campaign or Trump administration officials who have been indicted or convicted of federal crimes

Hi, please add Joey to Category: Trump campaign or Trump administration officials who have been indicted or convicted of federal crimes.

Thanks!

That’s a horrible category. Please don’t lump together people who have been convicted with people who are innocent or presumed innocent or pardoned. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. Perhaps you have a point with regard to Manafort/Gates who must be presumed innocent. But if the category is “trump campaign officials convicted of federal crimes” Arpaio’s pardon doesn’t clear him frol the category. A pardon merely relieves one of the burden of punishment, it does not erase the conviction. Judge’s decision explicitly says this. 2600:1017:B411:47F1:450F:22B:A2F7:AF6A (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Such a category should only be started after there are a significant number of members, and Arpaio doesn't even qualify. I suspect that it could end up with well over 30 members, but time will tell. Give it some time and then revisit the subject. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Slightly extra support

In one place, an editor has copied that neither McClain, Flake, nor the Speaker of the US Congress supported the pardon. I imagine these 3 were all in the same news article.

Try for a minute, if you can, outside all the things said about Arpaio, and consider this one sentence in isolation. Kitchen Sink approach seems to predominate. I agree with the paraphrase. But the intent of the sentence seems tenuous. If it's "all Arizonans", then the Speaker should be omitted or placed somewhere else. THINK! What is the point of listing the Speaker anyway, except Kitchen Sink? Okay, if the intent was to list "notable national figures", then I think Flake should be dropped. He's not a national figure just because he's a Senator. Again, I'm only talking one sentence here. The information for Ryan/Flake opposition can be placed in another sentence. Student7 (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Both Senators and the Speak of the House, is what this sentence is about. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Felix Torres

Should the case of Felix Torres, who also died in Arpaio's jails, be mentioned in the article? More info here: http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/felix-torres-death-in-one-of-joe-arpaios-jails-leads-to-a-lawsuit-6629137 217.150.190.17 (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Please add to his page ...

==See also===

• List of people pardoned or granted clemency by the president of the United States — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:e010:1100:dc1b:15d8:6c3:e7f9 (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2021

Add Wikipedia page of Paul Penzone to the electoral history of Joe Arpaio's wiki page 2.50.112.163 (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

All set. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I actually undid that. His article was already linked above in the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

"All American authoritarian" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect All American authoritarian. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 18#All American authoritarian until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Mr. Arpaios' possible Hate and would be War Crimes

Mr. Arpaios' highly questionable and seemingly unjust deputized "posses" , which, if FULLY and understandably investigated, would end with criminal charges brought onto him and his said "deputized posses".

    Arpaios' separated male, and female " chain gangs", are another entirely thought provoking and sad course of Arizonas prison system under Arpaio. Also they are said to be the only prison chain gangs left since the beginning of the 1900s.
    From his illegal library raids in search for undocumented aliens, to questionable prostitution stings that resulted in years of jail time awaiting trial, to his "tent city " jail in the Arizona desert reaching temperatures of over120 degrees F, to claiming he himself saved the state of Arizona over 70,000$ by dying prison clothes pink. 2601:18F:F00:8A60:ED85:7488:6D36:1710 (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Unless a reliable source characterized Arpaio's actions as that, it would impermissible original research and synthesis for this article to say that. --Weazie (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi you

Gjft 188.113.215.238 (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)