Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States/Archive 1

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

message: Hi Wallie;
I've added a few additions to your original scheme and hopefully expanded the discusion on this issue. It will be interesting to see if anything useful develops out of your new topic. Unfortuantely, many seem to be prejudices wired for sound and don't want to discuss things in a civilized manner. 
Good Luck
D'lin
:D'lin, it appears that you inserted a large number of POV statements. Have you read over our WP:NPOV policy? We need to reflect all points of view, but we mustn't appear to endorse one or the other. Let's make sure that this article is verifiable and NPOV. -Will Beback 01:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your source for that information and opinion? We can include POV statements, but they should be attributed to the speaker. So it'd be OK if we wrote that, "John Smith, a notable commentator, says that government apathy is the single biggest..." But we can't write that as if it were an undisputed fact. -Will Beback 19:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on POV statements

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

message: Hey, this is User:ProfessorPaul.  I have begun the process of "cleaning up" this article; I have completed the first 1/3 of it (approximately).  I agree it does need to be cleaned up, but I believe we can easily maintain NPOV.  I will try to work on the rest of the article tomorrow.  ProfessorPaul 05:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain each of your edits. So far you haven't explained any of your work, except for this note. -Will Beback 05:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Hope you don't think I am interfering here... I really hope you two guys can work together, as I'm sure you can. I can see that the work presented by you, Professor Paul is of a very high quality, and it would be a pity to see it all reverted, or some silly edit war begin. On the other hand, Will may have some reservations as to the changes. It would be really nice if Professor Paul's changes were made, and fully  agreed by Will. 
Wallie 07:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as edits, especialy deletions, are explained, then we can all work together. Unexplained deletions are very close to vandalism, and tend to be reverted. -Will Beback 19:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Partial "Clean up"

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

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

message: Sections discussing political organizations are biased.
Sections discussing illegal immigration in general are biased and only directed at illegal immigration from the Mexican border.  There is no discussion of illegal immigration from other countries.
The article does not cover both issues of the debate - if that is indeed the intention of this article then both sides should be adequately discussed or referenced. 
If this is an article about illegal immigration then both sides of the issue should be discussed from a neutral perspective.  Arguments about taxes/healthcare/etc. should contain a neutral perspective and no offer speculations as to the effects of illegal immigration unless they are discussed in a section for "arguments of effects".
:O boy. Wasn't long before this came along. To be expected, considering the subject matter. However...
:* Would you be so kind as to sign your comment. Thank you.
:* If you think the article is POV, or there is any other part you are unhappy with, :please please change it. 
:* Naturally include both sides of the debate.    
:* Please also illustrate with examples from of illegal immigration to the US from the other countries you mention. This is highly relevant, and would be helpful.
:Wallie 19:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV is corrected. It was overly biased to the right. Liberal102 04:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: Hey, everyone, I have noticed a lot of back and forth with people calling President Bush "a liar" in the article.  :(   If you think he is a liar (and you have no sources), then say it HERE on the talk page.  If you have a source, let your SOURCE say he is a liar, then let the source back it up and list the reason/fact/theory WHY Bush is a liar (lots of people said Clinton was a liar too; same rule in his case, too).  *whew!*  Now--I hope this will help--I have added a "critics to Bush speech" section.  It is sourced from CNN and lists critics from the political left and the political right.  If anyone wishes to ADD a critic to the Bush speech or policy, add it there.  OK?  :)  Have a good day.  ProfessorPaul 03:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, the coverage of the Bush 5/15/06 speech is spread across at least three articles, but this is the most comprehensive, so whatever we want to say let's say it here and we can consolidate them all together in time. -Will Beback 06:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bush Speech has a new "critics" section

message: Why do you think this is biased...? 
Many organzied political groups have begun to speak out on the issue of illegal immigration (and also legal immigration) resulting in a wide range of policy options under active consideration.  One proposal is to reduce the levels of both legal and illegal immigration into the U.S. (see: immigration reduction).  Probably the most important group advocating this position is the Federation for American Immigration Reform (sometimes referred to as FAIR).''
* This bit is probably neutral
Another notable political group, the Minuteman Project has been lobbying Congress for stronger enforcement of the border laws and is reported to be organizing private property owners along the U.S.-Mexican border for the purpose of building a fence to discourage illegal border crossings. 
* This bit probably presents side 1 of the debate
Other groups are organzing protests against the federal classification of illegal immigrant status as criminals.  These groups also demand various rights be established in law for illegal immigrants to become permanent legal residents (with permission to work) or (eventually) a path for full U.S. citizenship.  These groups have also organzied large protests and rallies in many major urban centers in the U.S., including New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, and Dallas.  
* This bit probably presents side 2 of the debate
However, some have reported that the movement may have generated a significant backlash among those opposed to illegal immigration, which, according to a number of political polls, includes the majority of Americans.
* This bit probably presents (only slightly) side 1 of the debate
So, if you analyze it, it's maybe not too bad.... ? 
Wallie 20:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Organized political groups 2 

message: What's wrong with the article? Please say so. We can then make it OK, and remove the tags. Thank you. Wallie 22:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also don't see why the POV tag is necessary. I haven't carefully read every word, but it looks alright to me. Tix 22:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. So you think everything is OK now. (no news is good news). The POV tags can be removed, if everyone is OK with that. Thanks. Wallie 18:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I now have removed them. Thanks. Wallie 06:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV/NPOV Tags 

message: The two are definitely connected. 
Options:
* 1) The US immigration debate article should be merged into this one. 
* 2) This article should have a short precis about the debate, and the rest of the debate text could be merged into the "Debate" article. Naturally, bits outside the current debate should remain here.  
The second option is probably trickier, as which bits of text should go into which article? The subjects are intertwined. Both options have their merits. Note, however, this article is the parent and the "Debate" article the child, just as this article is the child of "Illegal immigration.".  
Wallie 19:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I approve a move in the direction you indicate. The long section on the bill there, should have its own article or be placed in an article on that bill maybe.  Just one thought if they are merged. Depends what others think. --Northmeister 19:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the second option better. The debate encompasses legal and illegal immigration, so merging is not a good option.--Rockero 19:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging with the US Immigration Debate 

message: Illegal immigrant is the preferred language per the AP Stylebook and should be used consistently throughout the article. Any attempt to change the language, whether to illegal alien or undocumented alien/undocumented worker, is POV, and will be reverted. Calwatch 04:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The language matters are not clear, and we don't need to be dogmatice about it. This isn't the AP, and their stylebook does not apply here. -Will Beback 07:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will Beback, I agree.  I changed the opening paragraph to make a little more sense (calling an 'undocumented worker' an 'illegal immigrant' defeats the purpose of defining 'undocumented worker').  Would it be better to use different terms throughout the article so that revert wars do not ensue on such a sensitive topic? Kimathi 00:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we need to stick to one term. I propose illegal immigrant, since it's the title of the article. The point of that paragraph is that politicans talk about "undocumented workers" but they do not say that they want to deport the children and parents of their undocumented workers, nor of their brethren that don't work. Calwatch 01:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, why one term?  I thought the point of that paragraph was to explain that there are differences in labels - not to push an agenda.  I've read the entire article again and the number of times the term, illegal, is used becomes quite annoying.  'Illegal immigration' is the title of the article and represents an action - not a person.  I plan to contribute to this article by making it more readable without bias.  Hopefully, we will continue in discussion.  Kimathi 02:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I've made a few changes to the language, corrected some grammar, and cleared up a few paragraphs.  Please discuss here before reverting.  There is a great deal of redundancy between the sections labeled 'Illegal immigration debate' and the sections 'Documentation', 'Legal issues', and 'Criminal activity'.  I think we should work to avoid that. Kimathi 03:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The person is here illegally, however, and their very presence in the country is an illegal act. I will concede "undocumented worker" when dealing specifically with the issue of those who are not authorized to work in the United States. However, "undocumented" implies that someone forgot their papers and not that they are in this country illegally. I would be fine with "unauthorized immigrant" which appears to be the legal term used by the BCIS:  but I concur with the AP Stylebook's explanation of why undocumented is unacceptable. Calwatch 04:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Language

message: I'm currently searching for some major crossing points on the U.S.-Mexico border. A) Does anybody have this info? B) Should we add it to the article?
: B)  I don't really understand what such an addition would contribute to the article.  Additionally, the article already has numerous points about immigration along the US-Mexico border.  Kimathi 21:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have U.S.-Mexico border. That would be the appropriate place for listing licit and illicit crossing points. -Will Beback 22:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Crossing Points

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

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

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

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

message: The quote at the beginning is incredibly biased and I removed it because it does not provide any new information and comes from a biased website. 
I pasted the deleted quote below. 
"We are letting in criminals, subversives, the insane, the diseased and the poverty stricken, uneducated and helpless of the world and all of these mentioned categories become a burden to America's middle class. We are experiencing an invasion, a "reconquista," if you will, designed and orchestrated by the Mexican government. America's immigration laws were set in place to protect the American public. The American public is being victimized by our own government through its pandering to the cheap labor, ethnic identity groups and victimology groups in our society." US Border Patrol Supervisor David J. Stoddard 
:Please sign your comments with 4~s.  Thank you for protecting the integrity of the article.  That contributor has had multiple biased, unsourced, and editorialized postings on this article - including the lastest where s/he gives an opposition point only to counter it within the same poorly written sentence.  Your efforts are appreciated.  Keep up the good work.  Kimathi 01:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Quote at the beginning. 

message: But if you look at the statistics provided, about half the visa overstayers and about half the illegal immigrants in this country originate from Mexico, so that seems reasonable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.97.67.57 (talk • contribs) 
Actually you are correct, the article should spend more time on Mexican illegal immigration what with about 1,500,000 illegal immigrants per year -100,000 from Canada and perhaps -400,000 more from the rest ot the world this would seem to indicate that 2/3 [67%] of the illegal immigration [1,000,000/year] is occurring from Mexico.
D'lin 21:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: half the article focuses on the Mexican border

message: I attempted to delete a link that appeared to be an advertisement for an "anti-illegal" (sic) website.  My edit was reverted.  In response, I added a link to offer a balance of opinions.  I propose that either both should stay as phrased or both should be removed.  Please discuss before taking action.  Thanks!  Kimathi 23:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've remoevd both advocacy websites, pro and con. Let's stick to news sources. -Will Beback 20:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute 

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

message: It is hypocritical to argue that links to advocacy groups should be removed and that we should stick only to news articles then TWICE reinsert the link to an advocacy group just because it supports your political agenda.
Also, the Arizona Star link is just a link to some deaths.  It doesn't really make the point that it is used for.  The only point it makes is that peope have died in the desert.71.74.209.82 21:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Arizona Daily Star is not an advocacy website, it's a newspaper. However there is no rule against using advocacy websites as for references if they meet relaible sources. There is a difference between using a website as a source for a specific facutal assertion, and simply adding it as an external link. The advocacy sites were removed from this page because a) they are included in several other pages already, and b) there was a dispute over which ones to include here. -Will Beback 21:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevant guidelines are WP:RS and WP:EL. Note that there are many articles on this topic, and some already have full lists of advocacy websites. -Will Beback 21:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: Advocacy sites are permissible if they qualify under WP:RS. My comment about removing advocacy sites only concerned the list of external links. Also, who is Sher Zieve and why are we quoting her? -Will Beback 22:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sher Ziev's byline states, "Sher Zieve is an author, political commentator, and staff writer for The New Media Alliance (www.thenma.org). Zieve's op-ed columns are widely carried by multiple internet journals and sites, and she also writes hard news. Her columns have also appeared in The Oregon Herald, Dallas Times, Boston Star, Massachusetts Sun, Sacramento Sun, in international news publications, and on multiple university websites. Ms. Zieve is currently working on her first political book: 'The Liberal's Guide To Conservatives.'"  
As for the advocacy links, Wiki policies make no difference between external and internal links.  It makes sense, though, to put a higher standard to internal links.71.74.209.82 22:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An author with no book and no Wikipedia article doesn't appear sufficiently notable to include. Where does it say in WP:RS that advocacy sites are forbidden? As I recall, they are only banned if they express extremist views. A catalog of dead illegal immigrants isn't an extremist view. -Will Beback 22:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You want to put advocacy groups -in- the article now?  I wish you'd make up your mind.  Fine.  Put all of the advocacy gruops back in which have been taken out in the past week.  You don't want to be biased do you?  
Assuming, of course, that there isn't some other reason to leave them out - such as derechos (which is taking data from the Arizona Star and claiming it is saying something which the data doesn't actually support.
As for Sher Ziev, I think a reporter whose work has appeared in the Oregon Herald, Dallas Times, Boston Star, Massuchusetts Sun, Sacramento Sun, international news, etc. can hardly be called a minor reporter.  What's your standard for a non-minor reporter?  Maybe we need to delete other cites (how many news articles in the article were written by people who don't meet your definition of a non-minor reporter, I wonder?) in addition to links to advocacy groups.71.74.209.82 23:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't play dumb. There is a difference between links that are used to support a reference, and links which are appended at the end. The standard for notability around here is having an article.  -Will Beback 23:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As for Sher Ziev, I think a reporter whose work has appeared in the Oregon Herald, Dallas Times, Boston Star, Massuchusetts Sun, Sacramento Sun, international news, etc. can hardly be called a minor reporter.
For what its worth: 
The Oregon Herald:
She has had 5 columns printed in The Oregon Herald this year. “The Oregon Herald is a non-profit online news site that provides local, state, national and international news in a headline list format. Updated bi-weekly.”
“Many of our reporters are college journalism students, both graduate and undergraduate from universities around the globe. As you might see, we offer an alternative to the standard news website.”
Based on this page, these 5 columns appear to have been self-submitted; without any expectation of financial compensation.
Dallas Times 
Dallas Times Herald (aka: Dallas Times) ceased publication on 9 Dec 1991. (This is the only Dallas Times that I could find per Google)
Boston Star, Massuchusetts Sun, Sacramento Sun 
The Boston Star, [Massachusetts Sun Massuchusetts Sun], and the Sacramento Sun are news feeds/News portals run by NewsIsFree “NewsIsFree is an online news reader, RSS Directory and news search engine.” 
Brimba 05:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone wants to take the time to find proper sources for the same statements and provide them in a way which makes an effort towards NPOV, I'll have no objection.  Laziness in not doing that, however, isn't going to fly as an excuse71.74.209.82 19:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: An administrator suggested that we leave links to advocacy groups out of the article.  Then he chose to try to push for that in a very biased way (working to leave some pro-illegal links in while removing pro-border security links).  Now, another pro-illegal link has been put back in.  At this point we need to reexamine how we are going to treat the issue of links to advocacy groups.  Until we do so, to maintain a balanced perspective, I'm going to put the NumbersUSA link back in the external links section for as long as there is a pro-illegal link in the external links section.198.97.67.57 11:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have an article about NumbersUSA so it's better to provide an internal link to that article rather than an external link. In general, we want provide information on our pages rather than sending readers out to other sites. -Will Beback 17:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki policy (under WP:RS) states, "Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source—that would be a self-reference".  In other words, we do -not- want to provide information on our pages rather than sending readers out to other sites.  Doing both seems reasonable (as Wikipedia makes a good tertiary, summary source), but using Wikipedia as a primary source is against policy.  We should include primary sources wherever possible.198.97.67.59 18:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not citing NumbersUSA as a source. We already have an external link to NumbersUSA in the article about that topic. Incidentally, secondary sources are preferable to primary sources. -Will Beback 18:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "We already have an external link to NumbersUSA in the article about that topic."  I did a search for NumbersUSA in the article and couldn't find it. "secondary sources are preferable to primary sources" where is that stated in Wiki policies?71.74.209.82 20:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's at the bottom, under "External links". For the second item, see WP:RS. -Will Beback 20:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Explain what it means to provide information, but not be a source of information.71.74.209.82 22:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: bringing NumbersUSA back

message: "There have been occasional incidents where immigration status has been an issue in politics."  Is not a legal issue.71.74.209.82 19:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest you stop  editwarring for every single edit made. I would also suggest you take a break from editing, before you find yourself forced to take such a break. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 19:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you spend more time learnig Wiki policy and abiding by it and less time talking about others.71.74.209.82 19:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal Issues

message: I deleted the information under this heading as it is repeated word by word under the heading "Illegal Immigration Economics". Also, the sub topic "immigartion with and without quotas" was moved to "legal Issues".
Morlesg 00:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NSF on Immigration Economics 

message: I cleaned up the definition of "overstay" to make it more generic as tourist visa overstay are only one part of the definition. The new definition includes all visa oevrstays.
Morlesg 00:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visa overstay 

message: There are multiple instances where an editor has utilized the word, "here", when talking about where  immigrants have gone.  Currently to my understanding, the wording states the immigrants are on wikipedia.  I think they may be referring to the United States, but this article is full of unintelligent, poor writing.  If someone would clean this up, maybe the article could be taken seriously.  Kimathi 14:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have very poor reading comprehension skills if you think "here" refers to Wikipedia in the article.  "Here" refers to "the United States".  Feel free to edit to clear your confusion.71.74.209.82 14:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If "here" is to be assumed as the United States, then its usage would be POV.  Someone living outside of the United States would not understand the current assumption.  Kimathi 21:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  illegal immigration on wikipedia 

message: Regarding some comments in this page:  There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia. 
Some suggestions:
* Discuss the article, not the subject;
* Discuss the edit, not the editor;
* Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
* If you feel attacked, do not attack back. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 15:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:NPA|No personal attacks]]

message: I have attempted to cleanup obvious POV statements bt summarizing and attributing to sources. There is still much work to be done for this article to be considered compliant with Wikipedia content policies. 
# Statements that are not supported by reliable sources need to be removed; 
# Material that is supported by statements for advocates, both pro and con, need to be attributed to these and not asserted as fact; 
# Unreliable sources such as blogs or personal pages should n0t be used.
This article needs to read as a neutral resource and not as a pamphlet.
≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 03:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: I'm putting my effort behind my mouth! Changed external links section and created (suggested) some categories (did not erase any of the current links). Now (hopefully) we can all add links without the fear of getting them erased by the next contributor. Be bold! you said? Morlesg 17:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great, however pay attention to the policies regarding what is and what is not a good source.  Adding poor sources can still result in having them deleted.  Actually, any source can be deleted (this is an open community project after all), but poor sources will be deleted faster.  So, aim for the best sources available and work towards creating a good article worthy of being in an encyclopedia.198.97.67.58 18:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the external links have no description and so appear just a numbers. That isn't helpful at all. Regarding organized oppositon to illegal immigration in the U.S., we have a whole article on the topic, immigration reduction, which contains a comprehensive list of links to such groups. We don't need to duplicate that info here. -Will Beback 19:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My view is that all of the material in the immigration reduction article should be cleaned up and merged with this article.71.74.209.82 19:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are different topics, though there is some overlap. That article concerns the political movement, and is not limited to illegal immigration. The overarching topic is Immigration to the United States (which also contains a lengthy set of links). -Will Beback 20:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links