Open main menu

Language consistencyEdit

Wikipedia uses the term illegal and not undocumented ( The reasons for this are long and have been debated over many years. The consensus is settled though on illegal - many push the idea it is offensive but that is not an accepted neutral point of view. The consensus is absolutely clear - illegal immigrant and illegal alien are acceptable terms. So I chaged one line in this article, referencing the OP-ED Amanda Erickson that incorrectly uses the "undocumented immigrant" - it was reverted. I corrected this mistake again thinking I had forgotten to click to save changes and someone else reverted it within minutes. Very strange behaviour. Obviously this is vandalism and I ask someone higher up who doesn't have a political axe to grind to set this right.

This has been discuseed over and over again and at great length. Please refer to this:

Those wishing to re-fight this battle really need to do so there. Illegal immigrant and illegal alien are the correct terms and used on wikipedia (as well as by the US government on this very issue one might add). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:2385:9400:884:460E:F5C4:DAC7 (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


"[...] the Trump position is that simply being an illegal alien is unlawful and serious [...]"

Isn't that the very definition of an illegal alien? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Does that mean that an individual fleeing for their life to the US doesn't have the legal right of due process or political asylum? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederickmsp (talkcontribs) 07:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
They do and when they do they are no longer considered illegal and that is exactly the difference.

What is the correct name of this office?Edit

@Zigzig20s: There seems to be two names:

  • 1) Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement
  • 2) Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement office

The Department of Homeland Security memo uses the name "Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement office" - see page 4 [1]

The VOICE acronym only works for the name "Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement office". WSDavitt (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I did this in good faith because it would be the standard use, e.g. Office of Management and Budget, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Office of Naval Intelligence, Office of Strategic Services, etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: Agreed. I like the change you made but I think we should monitor this over then next few months to ensure that this is in fact the official name. WSDavitt (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest" (PDF). Department of Homeland Security. February 20, 2017. p. 4. Retrieved 1 March 2017.

Removed Reductio ad Hitlerum from textEdit

I removed, twice, an assertion by IP that "Donald Trump is going to publish a list of crimes committed by immigrants. Hitler did the same" sourced to this [1] article about a tweet by a non-notable person. Note that this Reductio ad Hitlerum is premised on comparing an ethnically-neutral government office addressing illegal immigrants with a Nazi newspaper article about a specific ethnic group of German citizens.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

-An ad hominem attack to a journalist for the independent does not make him less credible and his critisicm deserving silence. The similarities of this proposed policy is stark.
-F.M. Smith
I agree. Just because a certain criticism may seem ridiculous, that doesn't warrant removing it for that reason alone. You can still disagree with it and add a statement with sources to say why it's ridiculous within the article under the "Criticism" section. Also, it's not just unreliable sources that are making that claim. One of the linked sources is the Indy100, which is part of the The Independent, which is a reputable source. Kamalthebest (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to have to agree with Zigzig20s on this one. Comparing this policy to the actions of an anti-Semitic magazine is neither useful nor valuable on this page. "Credible" or not, Wikipedia can do better than what is essentially calling the Trump administration names, especially when the comparison seems to lean on the side of false analogy. Kilometers to Verona (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm finding these Trump-is-like-Hitler arguments in many Trump-related articles. They aren't persuasive to me and I expect that these types of criticisms will stop in the coming months. However, removing them from Wikipedia could be perceived as being biased and there are many Wikipedia editors who want them included in the articles. I don't think it's worth the effort to try to remove them. WSDavitt (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
User:WSDavitt whether or not material is perceived as biased, we do not keep material on Wikipedia unless it is supported by WP:RS that establish its notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree 100% with WSDavitt. It's not a convincing argument to say that this office is akin to Nazism but removing it simply because it's an ineffective argument is not right. Instead, add a statement rebuking that claim in the article itself to keep the conversation going (with sources, of course). Kamalthebest (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I reverted the material (3 or 4 times before Kamalthebest finally came here to talk about it. I did so it is sourced to the non-notable Christopher Hooton. NOT sourced to The Independent as implied, but to a non-notable website Indy1000 To an entertainment website called TheWrap. And to an activist blog: These are not WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Note that I have inquired about TheWrap at WP:RS/N.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I have again removed that material form the article on the grounds that it lacks sources that support notability. It can be restored when consensus is reached on this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Would you agree that The Independent has sufficient notability? The Indy100 is a sister site. There are likely other credible reporters who have noted the similarities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, I was not aware that Indy100 is affiliated with The Independent. Do we know anything about the nature of its editorial practices? i.e. - do the writers post-at-will or is the material edited.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
In a word, no. Editors may want to glance at the article [2]. Not only do it and the previous, very brief, article it links back appear to be a sort of publish-at-will clickbait, Indy100 sources the Der Stürmer assertion to the non-notable journalist Christopher Hooton's twitter account, where we learn that Hooton [3] writes for The Independent. So, no, a web-publication publishing a few words promoting a tweet by an employee does not establish that the employee's tweet in notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I have removed that content. It is not RS in my opinion, it is clichéd and imbecilic in character. It quotes another blog as its source. Moreover, it appears to be off-topic even in its Reductio ad Hitlerum comparison since there is no content in this article saying that the subject covered by this article, the Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement, actually will be "publishing lists of crimes committed by immigrants". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@E.M.Gregory: I applaud the effort to only use credible sources. However, there are a lot of Wikipedia editors who want criticize President Trump. Have a look at the Executive Order 13769 and Protests against Donald Trump articles. There is a real possibility of an (unproductive) edit war by deleting criticism. WSDavitt (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Even so, we do not keep un-notable, un-reliably sourced material on Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Explain, please, how The Independent sister site, The Rolling Stones, and Democracy Now! are unreliable and un-notableF.M. Smith (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
RS does not work like that. Sources are generally not the overall media outlet, but the particular article being cited and the particular author who wrote it. We do not generally ban sources, neither would we use an article about about keeping rabbits for content on Nuclear power. The sources you are citing, those specific articles, are not RS for this sort of subject. The indy100 one doesn't even have a named author and appears to be just clickbait.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Out of these Rolling Stone is probably reliable, The Independent sister site is borderline and DM! is probably not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be better to add proper content rather than Reductio ad Hitlerum silliness or trash opinions like Rolling Stone, starting with some serious RS-derived content on what this body will really do and what the background to its creation is. There was an earlier deleted bit of criticism content that went "Trump position is that simply being an illegal alien is unlawful and serious". For most of the world a comment like that would be greeted with a duh! Doesn't "illegal alien" imply in its very title the presence of illegality, something that is unlawful. Please stop being so America-centric. The article needs to explain, or be linked to content explaining, what the legal status of "undocumented" or "illegal" "alien" is in America - what the letter of the law says, and if that law is currently enforced or not. For example, some sources alleged this body is intended to eventually weaken the influences of locally-enforced "sanctuary" laws designed to circumvent national laws on immigration. That "sanctuary" thing too needs explanation, there doesn't seem to be any article on it. Correction, there is: Sanctuary city. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Tiptoe, your whole comment above is just WP:SOAPBOXing and original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Have you even bothered to look at what sources are producing on this subject? Or are you just a huge fan of Reductio ad Hitlerum comparisons? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Have you? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@Tiptoethrutheminefield: I agree with your comment. The Reductio ad Hitlerum content is not persuasive to me. Unfortunately, there are many Wikipedia editors who want to criticize President Trump. For example, currently there are five references in the article about the similarity between the VOICE office and the Nazi smear tactic against Jews! ... in fact, most of this article is now about criticisms of the VOICE office. It's the same with other articles such as the Executive Order 13769 article. WSDavitt (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Maybe just let the imbeciles turn the article into garbage, the stink from it will then force it to be rewritten (it's almost there already). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Have you even bothered to read WP:NPA? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I've moved this section to the Executive Order 13768 article as this is not a VOICE office issue. See section 9 of the Executive Order WSDavitt (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I understand this logic, but surely in the background section, some discussion of Executive Order 13768 and a brief account of its criticisms should be introduced? These seems like a pretty big thing to leave from the article in its entirety, especially without any explanation within the article text. HelgaStick (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC) Actually, most WP:RS mention the VOICE office, not Section 9(b) of this executive order. The article should reflect that. HelgaStick (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
What Helga said. The objection to this text appears to be original research along the lines of "I read the order myself and I disagree how reliable sources describe it". Well, too bad, we go with what reliable sources say.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Everyone please remember that the burden of proof is on the editors who make the edits. Do not edit the page regarding this issue until consensus has been reached. TheBD2000 (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a split consensus. You do not have authority to demand what is allowed to be edit or added. This attempt of censorship is causing Wikipedia:Disruptive editingFrederickmsp (talk) 06:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


Is this article accurate? The article talks about the publication of list of immigrant crimes by the VOICE office. Is there any reference for this? It looks like the Washington Post and other news organizations are merely speculating about this. The actual text of the Executive Order doesn't say anything about publishing lists of crimes. WSDavitt (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It is fake news. I tried to delete it earlier [4], but it just got reinstated and my edit explanation "appears to have no relation to the article subject" was of course ignored by those with pov editing aims. The "publishing lists of crimes committed by immigrants" claim made by the dubious indyt100 "source" to justify its Reductio ad Hitlerum has nothing to do with the Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement, the subject of this article. The Executive Order that does mention the compiling of a list is this one [5]. Section 9b: "the Secretary shall utilize the Declined Detainer Outcome Report or its equivalent and, on a weekly basis, make public a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor any detainers with respect to such aliens." According to that Executive Order's text, it is not the "Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement" (mentioned in its section 13) to be set up by "the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement" that is going to be compiling that list, it is the "Secretary of Homeland Security" that will be compiling the list. So the Hitler comparison, in addition to (I think) being ludicrous, is a comparison actually being made against a different thing, a thing that is not the subject of this article! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! But the lists are being compiled with respect to the sanctuary cities. So it isn't fake news as 9(b) of the Executive Order. Comments? WSDavitt (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
The fake news is the accusation that the Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement will be compiling allegedly Hitler-like lists of aliens who have committed crimes and have not been deported. This article is not about "Executive Order: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States" it is about a particular body whose creation was announced in that executive order. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
So the error in the article is that the VOICE office will not be involved in the 9(b) list of crimes by immigrants. Therefore the content related to the list should be moved to another article. WSDavitt (talk) 03:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes I agree, and (setting aside objections to the making of any Reductio ad Hitlerum) all the Nazi's practice comparisons need to be gone because the comparisons are being made against something (making lists of crimes by immigrants) that the subject of this article will not be doing. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I've moved this section to the Executive Order 13768 article as this is not a VOICE office issue. See section 9 of the Executive Order WSDavitt (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek: The section criticizing section 9(b) and the lists of criminal activity by immigrants has been been moved to the Executive Order 13768 article. It was in the wrong article. Why did you reinsert it? I didn't delete the content, I merely moved it to the correct article. Please undo your changes. Thanks!WSDavitt (talk) 06:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm having trouble understanding what you're talking about. The WP source discusses this office, not EO 13768. The Indy100 source also references this office, not EO 13768. So I'm not sure why you're removing this info.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek: Thanks for the note. Have a look at the wikipedia article Executive Order 13768. I added some content there recently. The relevant sections are 9(a) and 9(b) and 13. 9(a) deals with stopping federal funding to sanctuary cities. 9(b) deals with creating list of crimes committed by immigrants (I think this is what you have been more focused on). Section 13 deals with the VOICE office which deals with victims rights. There was a lot of debate about the criminal lists portion of the VOICE article this afternoon - that content has been moved to Executive Order 13768 as it is not part of the VOICE office.
The Washington Post article deals with both but its not clear. If you read it carefully, the article doesn't say the VOICE office will be creating the list of criminals, it will be the Secretary for Homeland Security. I hope that helps clarify. WSDavitt (talk) 06:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
From the source: "Trump celebrated the creation of the Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement office, or VOICE. It will, among other things, put out a regular report on the illicit doings of the undocumented". Likewise the other sources reference VOICE, not EO 13768. In fact, "executive order" or "13768" does not even appear in these sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
VM - we do not use inaccurate sources to insert inaccurate claims. It is clear from the Executive Order that the assembling of lists of undocumented aliens who have committed crimes (i.e., "the illicit doings of the undocumented") is not going to be done by the Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement, the subject of this article. You are essentially claiming that this Executive Order is inaccurately or deceptively worded regarding the Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement. That is an extraordinary claim to make, so it will require an extraordinary amount of sourcing for such a claim to remain in the article. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - you have been around long enough to know that. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
What the hell are "inaccurate sources"? Sources you happen not to agree with? Sorry, that's not how Wikipedia policy works. Please stop it with the disruptive edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek: Volunteer Marek I see what you are saying. I suspect the Washington Post article is incorrect regarding who will publish the list of criminals ... the VOICE office or the Department of Homeland security. I suspect it will be not be the VOICE office as this office is a victim's rights office.
The Executive Order is crystal clear on it - it is the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security that will be publishing the lists. To have content that denies that, that claims something different, that claims the Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement will be publishing the lists, requires extraordinary supporting evidence. Lightweight opinion pieces full of clichéd Hitler comparisons are not extraordinary supporting evidence. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
If it's so "crystal clear" then you should have no trouble finding a reliable secondary source to back it up. Otherwise you're just doing original research and you can crystal clear it till cows do somersaults while wearing funny hats with little silver bells on them that jingle out katyusha and it doesn't matter.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Tiptoethrutheminefield: I think Tiptoethrutheminefield got it right and the criminal lists will not be published by the the VOICE office. The Washington Post article says: "Trump celebrated the creation of the Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement office, or VOICE. It will, among other things, put out a regular report on the illicit doings of the undocumented." As I noted above, the list of criminals will be made is under 9(b) of the Executive Order whereas the VOICE office was created under section 13. It is unclear if the quarterly VOICE office report will be the same report as the section 9(b) report. The Washington Post article is not clear on this point.
FYI: I was the editor who originally added the Washington Post article so this isn't an argument about deleting someone else's content. Let's leave Wikipedia article as is and update it when the VOICE office website has been created and we can see if it publishes the list of criminals. WSDavitt (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Maybe start a RfC about whether fake or mistaken or obsolete opinion pieces should be used to support the retention of obviously inaccurate content? I question VMs motives: no good editor would knowingly advocate the insertion of obviously incorrect information even if it did advance their personal pov. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm guessing bringing up WP:AGF is sort of pointless here? Anyway have fun questioning whatever you want. I'm questioning why you are following my edits again and making personal attacks after having been blocked twice for it already.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Tiptoethrutheminefield: Another reason why your analysis is correct is that the Executive Order requires the Secretary to publish list of criminals weekly whereas, according to CNN, the VOICE office report will issue reports once each a quarter. These can't be the same reports. WSDavitt (talk) 04:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Guys, please cut it out with the original research. If a reliable source is incorrect then find another secondary reliable source which points it out. Not this "I read the order myself and I think reliable sources got it wrong" stuff.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I bet when it agrees with your pov you agree with the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence precept. But here, you ignore it completely. Opinion pieces full of absurdist Hitler comparisons are not the extraordinary evidence needed to upturn the text of the Executive Order and, in effect, claim that its text is inaccurate and the body (VOICE) the Executive Order established will be doing something different from what that Executive Order has stated it will do. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Who are you betting against? I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth or speculate about something that hasn't happened.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
And the WaPo article is in the "Analysis" section.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight of the "criticism" sectionEdit

The "criticism" section appears to be longer than the "Creation" and "Purpose and background" paragraphs. That looks like undue weight to me. We need to either trim the criticism section or expand the paragraphs about the office, which is what this article is about. This isn't Criticism of the Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement!Zigzig20s (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

VOICE has garnered more criticism than praise in the press, and so whilst issues of undue weight are certainly present, I don't think that having a longer criticism section per se is a bad thing. We obviously need to stop unduly repeating ourselves though. HelgaStick (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you that there should be a section about the criticisms it has garnered from the left. However, surely the most important part of this article should be what this office is about, what it does, why it was created, what problems it aims to solve, etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Helga is correct. The criticism section reflects the coverage in sources. If you think the other parts of the article are too short, then expand those.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, plaster it on as thick as possible. VM doesn't recognize over-egging so the pudding is never too inedible for VM's palette. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Can you please adopt a more civil attitude, Tiptoethrutheminefield? WP:AGF and WP:NPA apply here. Saying that all criticism is politically-biased attacks from the left is all well and good, but Wikipedia needs to reflect what is stated in reliable sources and it is not our place to put right what we perceive to be great wrongs. HelgaStick (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
EDIT: Apologies Tiptoethrutheminefield, I mistook Zigzig20s's comment to be your own. HelgaStick (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
No, you had it right, the first time. Tiptoe's the one that has a propensity for making personal attacks, which is why he's already got blocked twice for following me around and insulting me. Zigzig - I disagree with them often but at least they are capable of having a civil discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Nowhere have I said that "all criticism is politically-biased attacks from the left"! We have lightweight opinion pieces that are either innocently mistaken or consciously deceptive being used as a justification for the insertion of ridiculous Hitler comparisons - as if there were not enough Trump = Hitler stuff on Wikipedia already. The only reason that the sources making the incorrect claims that the Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement will publish lists of convicted aliens are important to VM is that these are the same sources making the Reductio ad Hitlerum stuff he wants in the article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Tiptoethrutheminefield I understand that you're upset. But with all due respect, just because you disagree with the comparison does not justify deleting notable and reliable sources of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederickmsp (talkcontribs) 23:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
@Tiptoethrutheminefield: Apologies, I incorrectly thought that Zigzig20s's comment ("there should be a section about the criticisms it has garnered from the left...") was you. Honest mistake. My point about civility still stands, though. HelgaStick (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Bill de Blasio is a Democrat, Democracy Now! is left-wing, The Washington Post endorsed Hillary Clinton for President, as did Jeffrey Sachs. The reactions are biased. That's not the problem though; the issue is undue weight. We need to expand the "Purpose and Background" section to remedy that. I added an "expand section" tag a few days ago but it was removed...Zigzig20s (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Who endorsed who is entirely beside the point. There's nothing about that in our policy WP:RS. It has *nothing* to do with reliability. You cannot exclude reliable sources just because you disagree with them. I've said this before, but if you're unwilling to follow Wikipedia policy on reliable sources then Wikipedia might not be for you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
There are sources cited as well such as Fox News that is right-wing leaning. That does not make a difference to me. This is now going to turn into an argument of what is notable/reliable sources. Which will be unproductive. Albeit, I see your point that there is information lacking in other sections, but the point is there is more information currently available from sources pertaining to criticism. Frederickmsp (talk) 06:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Such an argument is unnecessary. We have a board for that. WP:RSN. And I can tell you right now that if Zigzig or anyone else tries to go there and argue with a straight face that Washington Post is unreliable, it's not going to work.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
As I said before, "I agree with you that there should be a section about the criticisms it has garnered from the left.". But undue weight.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, see, the first problem is that you are making painstaking efforts to label anything you don't like and pigeon hole it as "the left". The criticisms comes from... well, any decent person, left or right, should be critical.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
No. I gave specific examples of why I said "the left" to illuminate User:Tiptoethrutheminefield, but the point of this topic is the undue weight. Let's address this.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok. Well, most sources that cover this office raise these criticisms, so it'd be undue to exclude it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Which is why I agree it should be included, but not with undue weight! Not longer than the other sections. In other words, I think we should trim the criticisms or expand the other sections significantly.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Go ahead and expand other sections significantly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Another sourceEdit

[6].Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Sources that don't mention VOICE directlyEdit

Why is this being removed? Or this? Is it because VOICE is not mentioned directly? Alright then, here: "Numerous studies show that immigrants, including illegal immigrants, are less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens.".

BTW, econfact is most certainly a high quality source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I think if the lead notes that critics of VOICE say that crime rates not being higher is evidence that the office is unnecessary it should be paired with immigration hawks' argument that crime by legal/illegal immigrants is evidence of policy failure, as quoted in several RSs, although there definitely has been more negative than positive coverage of VOICE. NPalgan2 (talk) 09:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but if you include responses from white nationalists then we need to clearly state that they are white nationalists.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Maria Espinoza is the daughter of a Mexican immigrant, and it is not WP to quote SPLC criticism of someone whenever they are mentioned in another article. NPalgan2 (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
That's really beside the point. And actually if we include a statement from an organization which most readers will be unfamiliar with it is actually WP to provide the necessary background info. And SPLC is reliable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
The Remembrance Project is described as an 'anti-illegal immigration organization'; NBC didn't "clearly state that they are white nationalists". SPLC criticism may be notable but a passing reference in a different article should just say what R2ndSs call them in their own voice. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
What does NBC have to do with it? And again, most readers will not be familiar with the organization. Encyclopedic writing requires that we provide them with the appropriate context.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
"Maria Espinoza, national director of the Remembrance Project, which advocates for victims of crimes committed by unauthorized immigrants," "Founded in 2009 by Maria Espinoza, the Remembrance Project unites and advocates for the families of people killed by undocumented immigrants, which the group calls “stolen-lives families.”" "Anti-illegal-immigration group the Remembrance Project" NBC article says "Trump's idea for such an office came from Maria Espinoza, director of the Remembrance Project. Espinoza, who said she is not a victim of a crime by an immigrant, has been trying with her husband since 2012 to get offices and services dedicated to such crime victims." Houston Chronicle quotes both NumbersUSA praise and SPLC criticism. Current wording 'anti-illegal immigration organization' gives appropriate context following descriptions in RSs. NPalgan2 (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree, but in regards to this source being removed, it is highly concerning. This data is critical to this article in that it is research from academics and reflects upon this public policy of VOICE focusing on undocumented immigrants criminal activity and the victims of that. Frederickmsp (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I had to remove econfact source once again as it is original research to use a source that is not "directly related to the topic of the article". The topic of this article is VOICE. For example, even though the article mentions Nazis and victims, we should not be adding random stuff that is related to Nazis and victims, but not related to VOICE. Similarly, if we include a specific statement from Ms. X, all material ever published about Ms. X is not relevant. But if we find that Mr. Y has directly commented Ms. X's statement, we could possibly cite Mr. Y. Politrukki (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
If econfact was the only source I'd agree. But here we also have the Toronto Star which says the same thing. So as a back up, more scholarly, source, I think it's okay to include econfact.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC about leadEdit

Near unanimous consensus to oppose the proposed addition to the lead.Winged Blades Godric 17:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
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.

Should the lead of Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement quote critics calling it Nazi-like? Should defenders be quoted as well as critics?
Relisted by Winged Blades Godric 06:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC) at 06:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC) to gain more participation and a consensus.
This RfC was initiated by NPalgan2 (talk) at 20:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Lead should quote such critics as that is what a number of reliable sources have claimed. I have no problem with quoting defenders as well, provided no undue weight or synthesis issues take place. HelgaStick (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I came here pursuant to an edit warring report, expecting to have to block a Trump supporter who was trying to remove criticism. Upon review however, I discovered that the Nazi comparison was categorically not reliably sourced and in my opinion was rightly removed per BLP. It was sourced to an opinion piece that does not even unambiguously claim that "critics are drawing comparisons to Nazism." The parallel is explored by the author but even she stops short of making the comparison herself. She states that VOICE is a "far cry" from the Nazis, and she quotes an academic who disagrees with drawing a "straight parallel". She finishes by saying "The point is not that VOICE equals the Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda..." So: the claim is that "[Critics have] ... criticized the proposal as being similar [to what the Nazis did]." That claim is not backed by the source and given the BLP issues present, inserting an editorialized claim then repeatedly reverting its removal was at best lazy, and at worst malicious POV-pushing. That being said, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability. Is the claim actually verifiable? It appears so: [7][8]. Based on the availability of other sources, I actually think the claim should be expanded on in a more reasonable way and will be attempting a reword that is in line with policy. The content should be included, but as is the assertion is dangerously dubious and should not be maintained in the article. Swarm 22:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
It's sourced to the Washington Post. If you wanna question the reliability of Washington Post, WP:RSN is over that way ----->>>>> 22:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Swarm has some excellent points – and I seem to have addressed some of them in the article before I read this discussion.
I'm sure you know this, but the word "source" in "reliable sources" means three things: the piece of work, creator, and publisher. In this case the publisher is alright. The piece is obviously an opinion piece (you can call it editorial commentary or news analysis if you like), so it cannot be used for stating facts and must be attributed to the writer per WP:NEWSORG. Who is Amanda Erickson, the writer (creator), and what is their expertise? If they aren't an expert in their field and the piece is not noteworthy, arguments for including the piece are pretty weak. Politrukki (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC) P.S. RSN is a two-way street. I snuck into this little office straight from the street when the secretary wasn't looking. Politrukki (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah, looks like @HelgaStick: has beaten me to it. Good work, it looks a lot better now and this is something we can actually expand on. Swarm 22:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, can we break this into two RfCs? This "bundling" might prejudice commentators in a particular way. I want wireless but I don't want cable please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No. This strikes me as pretty blatantly non-neutral, for two reasons. First, it isn't balanced against opposing viewpoints, a requirement of our neutrality policy. Second, it places undue emphasis on this particular anti-OVICE viewpoint, which just so happens to be the most sensationalist. Generally this sort of opinion content should be kept to a bare minimum, since it's relatively less important than the non-opinion content. If we're going to keep it, then it needs to describe the full panoply of notable reactions extremely concisely, and not focus on the most sensationalist criticism made by a couple of detractors. As I doubt this is possible, my vote is to remove. (I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No. The sources make an incorrect claim as to what the Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement will be doing and it is from that error that the sources derive the Nazi-era analogy. The sources in question claim that the Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement will publish lists of convicted aliens, but it is actually a completely different body that will be doing it. The Executive Order is clear on it - it is the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security that will be compiling and publishing these lists - so these analogies are not appropriate for the lede. It is not possible to have an opposing "not Nazi-like" viewpoint for balance because that viewpoint would also have to be based on a source making the same error, that the Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement will be making these lists. Also, I personally think these sort of Nazi-Germany comparisons distort and trivialize the historical reality of the 1930s and should not be in a serious encyclopedia. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Hell No - Do we really need to have an RfC on this? The WaPo story: Of course, a regular government report is a far cry from the Nazis' aggressive, constant drumbeat against the Jews. The Toronto Star piece: Trump is very much unlike Hitler. Did anyone bother to check the damned sources before reverting? I checked the weather. It's raining trouts. TimothyJosephWood 11:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Double Hell Yes - this is based on reliable sources. Timothy's comparison above consists of strawmen. The text to be included is as follows: "Critics of the proposal have said that the creation of the office may be intended to skew public perception about crimes committed by undocumented migrants and akin to lists of "Jewish" crimes publicized in Nazi Germany.". Nowhere in that text is Trump mentioned. Or Hitler for that matter. The "Of course, a regular government report..." quotation is being taken out of context - it is a QUALIFICATION.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Of course we all know that verifiability isn't Wikipedia's only policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No Let's not play "how close can we come to saying 'Hitler' without doing it" here. This is WP:UNDUE. Yes, WaPo is a reliable source, no, a few articles comparing a Trump program to those of our dear friends the National Socialists does not mean we need to have it in the lead. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Do not Include It would compromise the neutrality of the lead. TheDracologist (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The lede is lacking but as Erickson says "The point is not that VOICE equals the Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. But when leaders use the levers of government to drum up fear of one group of people, we should all be worried." Gouncbeatduke (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No since the lead is meant for summarizing the most essential points of the article. Is this specific Nazi comparison one of the most essential points? I'd say no. That the office is controversial, on the other hand, is one of the most essential points and should be mentioned in the lead, along with the lines of criticism that are most central (duplication and the fact immigrants don't appear to commit less/more crimes). WP:LEAD also provides the lead "includes mention of significant criticism or controversies", wherefore the controversial nature of the office should be convered for this reason as well. A further point is that the title of this article, or at least the lead, should be edited to clearly convey this office is a United States thing. Even further, the criticisms should only be "balanced" with supporting arguments in the lead if these supporting arguments are independently among the most essential points of the article. They shouldn't be included just "to provide balance", since that's not how WP:NPOV works. --Dailycare (talk) 08:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No -- not this specific comparison. However, the lead should include a couple of sentences summarising the "Reactions" section -- there's nothing in the lead on that at the moment. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No - I don't care that the media are reporting what everyone has said about this office, or publishing opinion pieces, because controversy sells news and they are desperate to feed the 24-hr news cycle. Let's get a grip - yes, it appears that this office is a catalyst to many in the struggle over meaning and regulation of immigration, but let's treat the article in a standard way as related to governmental reorganizations and establishing new offices. Just describe how it was established and what it is supposed to do. Leave the history and varying opinions to the body. Every reorganization and establishing of offices, agencies and cabinet-level departments relate to politics at the time of their founding; that's nothing new, but they don't all have three dates and all this verbiage given in the Lead to the articles. Let's back it down as part of what new administrations do - in the Lead. Then have more discussion in the body.Parkwells (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2017 (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.

Democracy NowEdit

In regard to this source, remember that reliability depends on context. I wouldn't use them for factual claims, but here this is just a transcript of an interview with two expert scholars, both of whom are notable and reliable. As long we can verify that they indeed said what DN! says they said, the source is fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, but then shouldn't the Washington Examiner quote which you removed be considered notable and reliable for their perspective on the Nazi comparison? NPalgan2 (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
No, because whoever T. Becket Adams is, he's not notable - the WE is just a random opinion piece. Sachs is notable and Kelly Lytle Hernández and Andrea Pitzer are both scholars with relevant expertise.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, but Democracy Now! (Except for Cubans) is a fringe source. If no better source is available, it doesn't belong, and shouldn't be used when we're deciding what's due weight and what goes in the lead. And Sachs may be notable, but Kelly Lytle Hernández and Andrea Pitzer aren't well known and if they can't get anyone except DN! to quote their opinion about OVICE then they shouldn't be here. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I checked the source, Sachs is in the interview quoted but does not compare OVICE to Nazis, so I have removed it. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Volunteer Marek Neither of them have wiki articles about them and little sign that they are notable enough to get one. To call Andrea Pitzer a 'scholar with relevant expertise' is a real stretch, and Hernandez may be an associate professor at UCLA but she's not that notable and no RS has quoted her about VOICE. NPalgan2 (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

New sectionEdit

Volunteer Marek added the wording in italics to this sentence: "The idea for VOICE came from Maria Espinoza, director of the Remembrance Project, an anti-illegal immigration organization with ties to white nationalist groups" citing the POV New Yorker and the advocacy organization ADL because it is 'pertinent information'. In contrast, here's how other sources including more objective ones cite the group, including the NBC article Espinoza is being quoted from:

"Maria Espinoza, national director of the Remembrance Project, which advocates for victims of crimes committed by unauthorized immigrants," "Founded in 2009 by Maria Espinoza, the Remembrance Project unites and advocates for the families of people killed by undocumented immigrants, which the group calls “stolen-lives families.”" "Anti-illegal-immigration group the Remembrance Project" NBC article says "Trump's idea for such an office came from Maria Espinoza, director of the Remembrance Project. Espinoza, who said she is not a victim of a crime by an immigrant, has been trying with her husband since 2012 to get offices and services dedicated to such crime victims." Chicago Tribune "Before he took the stage, he was introduced by a series of speakers, including some parents whose children were killed by people living in the country illegally. They belong to a group called The Remembrance Project and shared stories of loss with the thousands-strong crowd." Houston Chronicle quotes both NumbersUSA praise and SPLC criticism.

Gimme a break. A source can't be "POV". A source is either reliable or not. It is either notable or not. The New Yorker is both. So is ADL. Just because you can find some other source which doesn't make this explicit does not not invalidate the sources that do.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Previous wording 'anti-illegal immigration organization' gives appropriate context following descriptions in RSs, which do not justify adding the criticism that Marek would prefer the media to have featured more prominently. NPalgan2 (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

It is actually worse than that, NPalgan2. Not only is the "with ties to" blatant weasel-wording, the "The idea for VOICE came from Maria Espinoza" content is not even supported by the only cited source - the New Yorker. It just says her organization has been "championing" the same ideas. The second "source", the ADL one, can say nothing on this since it is from 2014 and is only there to support the off-topic attack. The Remembrance Project connection to the creation of the Office should be detailed since there does seem to be a connection, but it should be in the purpose and background section. Any reactions in a reaction section should be restricted to just what persons or bodies have said about the Office. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Please actually bother to read the sources. The source for the "the idea for VOICE..." is from abcnews source. The fact that this group has ties to white nationalists is from New Yorker and ADL.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I was expanding on what I wrote but then you were posting so there was an edit conflict (two actually). I'm not claiming there are no sources saying it was her idea (the Vicenews source also says it was hers), but that the one next to the claim that it was her idea does not actually say that it was - they merely champion the same ideas.

Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC) ───────────────────────── According to lead of the Anti-Defamation_League: 'The Anti-Defamation League has drawn both criticism and controversy over its priorities. Noam Chomsky accuses them of "having lost entirely its focus on civil rights issues in order to become solely an advocate for Israeli policy". Journalist Mark Arax has criticized the organization's failure to recognize the Armenian Genocide.[5] The Washington Post has noted that the ADL has repeatedly accused Israeli policy critic Norman Finkelstein of being a "Holocaust denier" and that "these charges have proved baseless."[6]" We use them in so far as RSs that try to be objective, like NBC, do so. And I can;t find anyone else quoting ADL. Why not follow the wording of the other sources above rather than pick one part of the New Yorker article that *has* to be in this one. NPalgan2 (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The ADL is a reliable and notable organization, often quoted by scholarly sources. Since it's involved in a controversial field, sure it's got some critics, particularly among the fringe left and the fringe right. Hence Chomsky. I have no idea who Arax is or why I should care. And if you "can't find anyone else quoting ADL" you're not looking.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Sure, the ADL is often quoted in the news (I notice that you ignored WashPo calling their Finkelstein criticism "baseless"), but Time and NBC didn't quote their criticism, even if an unrelated New Yorker article about sanctuary cities did. NPalgan2 (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

HelgaStick You removed very similar text from the Mark Krikorian mention on the grounds that it belonged in the CIS wiki article. What do you think about the Remembrance Project text here? "The idea for VOICE came from Maria Espinoza, director of the Remembrance Project, an anti-illegal immigration organization with ties to white nationalist groups,[9][10]". Sources are New Yorker article about sanctuary cities and the ADL from 2014. NPalgan2 (talk) 05:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd probably say that the information should belong in the Remembrance Project article (which looks like it could do with a rewrite anyway). HelgaStick (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


Weikart is another fringe author and if we include him we need to explain to the reader who he is. A creationists with some crazy ideas. His books also are very popular with the neo-Nazi stormfront crowd (though I guess you can't hold him responsible for that). So once again, just like with Espinoza, you're trying to add fringe extremist views to the article but at the same time are trying really hard to hide the fact that these are fringe extremist views.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about Weikart's work except that he was the only guy the WashPo reporter interviewed for her Nazi comparison piece. If her judgement about sources is to be considered unreliable, maybe we shouldn't cite her WashPo piece? NPalgan2 (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I imagine it is there because he is an historian on modern Germany and so can be considered an authority on any reality behind the alleged comparison. His religious views have nothing to do with his opinion on the validity or value of the analogy. Some Christians, Jews, Muslins, etc., do indeed have the crazy views that the adherents of these religions are obliged to have to be genuine believers, but we do not exclude their opinions on non-religious subjects if they are experts on those subjects. You would need to demonstrate that he holds fringe or extremist views regarding the history of Nazi Germany. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
He does indeed hold fringe views on the history of Nazi Germany. Look at his wiki article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I think if we give adequate context as to who Weikart is, then his opinion should be kept in the article. But is inappropriate to leave out any reference whatsoever to his views. HelgaStick (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
The only content should be what the source says: the opinion and who is giving it and who asked for it. Anything else would be OR synthesis for effect. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it was a spectacularly odd choice for the WashPo journalist to interview; it's a weird article altogether. Googling I found this: As for wording how about "CSU Stanislaus historian Richard Weikart, a fellow at the creationist Discovery Institute", which is enough to alert the reader that the guy holds some odd views? NPalgan2 (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Probably because all these Hitler comparisons are so ludicrous that no mainstream historian thinks it worth their time or reputation commenting on them (in the same way that scientists generally do not comment on extreme fringe theories or bizarre beliefs). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
It is a bit ironic that any non-historian journalist hack can make these Hitler comparisons, but we are now ultra-picky about which historians can be used to object to these comparisons. We need to be just as picky about those making the initial comparisons. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Mark Krikorian and CISEdit

Marek wants the CIS quote worded this way: "Mark Krikorian, director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which according to the SPLC "is known to regularly circulate the writings of white nationalists and even some holocaust deniers"[14]..." which is sourced to an SPLC article unrelated to VOICE on the grounds that he thinks it's 'pertinent'. However Krikorian's quote is in Time and the Toronto Star and they do not mention SPLC criticism, and Krikorian is quoted by many RSs who don;'t bring up SPLC criticism. VM may prefer that Time and the Star brought up SPLC criticism, but they didn't. He may wish that RSs in general mention SPLC's criticism more prominently when they discuss CIS but we should follow the sources and remove the WP:UNDUE clause. Thoughts? NPalgan2 (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


User:Timothyjosephwood Re: [9] Please explain how "BLP" relates to this edit. No person or persons are named in that text. Furthermore this text is well sourced. There's no BLP violation. In fact, when you use an edit summary like "BLP or DS pick one" what you are pretty much saying "yeah, I just said BLP to have an excuse to revert you but I can come up with other excuses if you want".

And while the article falls within the scope of post-1932 ArbCom remedies, there is no restriction on it with regard to challenged content or 1RR (else, you'd be in violation of it). I also don't appreciate being threatened over good faithed edits. *Especially* since you have failed to discuss the issue on the talk page (your !vote aside). So if you're gonna go running to WP:AE you might want to recall that getting sanctioned is more likely for the editor who just reverts rather than discusses.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

If you need explanation as to why this has BLP implications, then you are probably beyond my help. I have no desire to run to AE, and really no desire to figure out exactly how to do so. But what I do know is that I do not intend to allow comparing the actions of a living person to those of a Nazi, on a highly charged and highly visible article, especially based on speculation in opinion pieces which themselves feel the need to hedge their bets to a point that makes their own comparisons meaningless, and those whose opinions are expressed on a subject which for all intents and purposes doesn't even exist yet.
I'm also not going to play this game where someone searches candidate I don't like and term that is bad until they find a source that they can stick in an article. I will happily revert this on BLP grounds, and I will happily report myself to BLPN for doing so if you would prefer. TimothyJosephWood 01:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
For that matter, done. TimothyJosephWood 01:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
"I will happily report myself to BLPN for doing so if you would prefer" - that's only meaningful if you will also self-revert and restore the text when the BLPN board says "not a BLP vio". Otherwise it's just WP:FORUMSHOPPING.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay. Its WP:UNDUE or WP:COATRACK at best. Not outright BLP connection, but any 12 year old would make the Trump/Adolf connection. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I agree that too much stress made on the Nazi comparison is undue, but recording people's criticism of a government policy as evil, fascist, bigoted, Orwellian or LITERALLY HITLER is emphatically not a BLP issue. 1177BC (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. This is not a BLP issue, however much one disagrees with the comparison.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it wasn't BLP, though I think it is borderline to have it in the lead. The real question here is not if we can't have it in the article, but whether it is UNDUE to have it in the lead, and whether it should be in the lead while the RfC above is ongoing. To that I say an emphatic no, while this isn't under DS currently, we should still be careful to opperate under the principles of the arb ruling, and generally once something has been challenged, it should have consensus for inclusion before it is restored just as a principle of trying to avoid edit warring in contentious areas. Restoring when the RfC is leaning heavily no is not a good idea. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  1. Requesting that uninvolved editors review my interpretation of policy, especially on a page that has fewer than 30 watchers, isn't forum shopping. Where I'm from we call that accountability.
  2. The relevant BLP issue is not whether I will self-revert, and I emphatically won't, but whether I'm justified in ignoring 3RR.
  3. any 12 year old would make the Trump/Adolf connection Yeah. Basically.
  4. If you would like to include this content, you should probably try to get a consensus for it, which you evidently don't have anything near, and to do that I recommend that you find some kind of sourcing that rises above speculative self-contradictory fluff, which you evidently currently do not have either. TimothyJosephWood 13:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy to respect consensus so if the RfC says "not in the lede" then not in the lede. But the "it's a BLP issue" thing is clearly BS and it's not very wise to "ignore 3RR" unless the BLP issue is obvious. But hey, it's your account.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, but I think I'll be ok. TimothyJosephWood 16:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


Volunteer Marek Here's an idea, before you knee jerk revert, read why the person actually made the edit, and try to fix the problem. TimothyJosephWood 18:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the unsolicited advice but I fail to see its relevance.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Then you didn't take the time to read why the content was changed, which is exactly my point. TimothyJosephWood 18:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I did, don't assume what I have or have not done. So:
Re [10]. The edit summary states "That's not what these sources say.". The text is being changed from "There is no empirical evidence that undocumented immigrants commit more crimes than the native born" to "the vast majority of unauthorized immigrants are not classified as criminals"
In fact, the sources say the former not the latter.
First, the wording "are not classified as criminals" is POV and mischaracterizes the sources. It tries very hard to insinuate that unauthorized immigrants *could be* criminals but just are not classified as such. This is of course completely wrong.
Second, the first source is essentially a primary source (though possibly acceptable) and it does not mention the subject of this article. And it is not really relevant to the question of whether or not unauthorized immigrants commit more crimes than natives.
The other source [11] states "vast majority of unauthorized immigrants do not fit Trump’s description of aggravated felons". That doesn't say crap about any "classification", rather it says straight up that they're not "aggravated felons".
Third, we actually did have a source in the article which does directly speak to the issue, econfact, but that was removed because it doesn't mention VOICE specifically or something. Well, golly gee, neither of these two sources mention it either.
So I'm restoring previous, accurate and relevant wording, and re-adding the econfact source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Unlawful presence in the United States absent additional factors is a civil violation, not a criminal offense. I'll let go on a scavenger hunt to find which source that came from. It's not hard. I gave you the page number. TimothyJosephWood 18:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
What does this have to do with anything? Please articulate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Take a moment. Think about it. Re-read your comment that you spent so much time on that you couldn't format your references correctly. TimothyJosephWood 19:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, not gonna play some stupid "can you guess what I'm thinking" game with you. Either explain or stop wasting people's time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
And I don't see any problems with my formatting. Also, at least I know that when "the computer" puts little wavy red lines underneath the word "reference" that means it's misspelled.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Here's my advice, get a nice cup of tea, pull up the Congressional Research Service report, and read it. It's a good read. And when you're done, fix your bare URLs. TimothyJosephWood 19:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Again, what does that have to do with anything? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
So I'll take that to mean that you also didn't actually read the WaPo source, or you would probably realize that the CRS report is the basis for their story. TimothyJosephWood 19:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
You can "take" whatever you want. But unless you actually explain what you are going on about you're not really "discussing" the article - just using a Wikipedia page for some kind of posturing and wasting people's time. So what if CRS is the basis of (one of) WaPo source(s)? What does that have to do with anything? What does the "classification" of unauthorized immigrants have to do with this article at all? What does it have to do with the relative levels of criminal activity between immigrants and natives? You are having some conversation to be sure, but it seems like it's going on in your head because at least half of it is missing from this talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── All of these are great questions, ones you wouldn't need to ask if you read the source. Other editors aren't here to hold your hand and condense actual sources into Fox News soundbites for you. Just like if someone makes an edit, and says "it's not in the source", you should probably click on the source before you click revert. TimothyJosephWood 20:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I've read the sources. Still don't understand what you're going on about. Perhaps you might consider the notion that either a) the sources don't say what you think they say or b) your reading of the sources is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand? I'm not asking you to "condense" anything. That would be hard, since in order to "condense" you'd first have to "articulate". But since you haven't done the latter, but rather engaged in these idiotic "I'm right, and if you could read my mind, you'd understand but you're too stupid to know how to read other people's minds so nyah nyah nyah" games, it's impossible for you to engage in any condescenti... sorry, condensation.
To be explicit. For some reason you got the notion that the relevant info is about the "classification" of immigrants. And sure, the sources talk about that. But who cares? This article, and the relevant text, is not seeking to address how immigrants are classified with regard to their criminal status. It's about, wait for it, wait for it, wait for it... whether unauthorized immigrants commit more or less crimes (particularly violent crimes) than natives! Whoa! So whatever you think you're saying, although not really saying it because you're just too smart and superior to actually say it (alternative hypothesis: at some point you realized you were going on about something completely irrelevant and not wanting to admit such a silly error, started obfuscating by demanding that I read your superior mind in order to cover up your own failure of comprehension), it's, oh wait, I'll do the wait for it thing again, wait for it, wait for it, wait for it... irrelevant! Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Have you considered that classifying immigrants into groups, like criminals and non-criminals, is actually the way you determine things like rates of criminality among the immigrant population? TimothyJosephWood 21:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Have you considered that that's not what the discussion and the topic of the article is about? One - something like the sixth - more time, this article is not about how unauthorized immigrants are classified. Whether their status is a civil or criminal matter. This article, and this office, and this discussion, is about crimes, serious crimes, and the rates at which they are committed by immigrants. So please, try and stay on topic. It shouldn't be that hard.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
In what way is the topic about the rates at which crimes are committed by immigrants? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

WaPo removedEdit

Why was this removed? The edit summary says: "remove, WaPo, which doesn't actually have anything to do with comparisons of crime rates". The source says " Studies have shown that immigrants, including the estimated 11 million living here illegally, have lower crime rates than the native-born population."

I dunno, if the text references two groups and uses the word "than" I would guess that it is making a "comparison", but that's just me. Also, when the source says "have lower crime rates" I would guess that actually does have something to do with "crime rates". But I'm crazy that way. Did somebody... not read the source?

Interestingly, after removing this source, which *explicitly* compares crime rates, AND references illegal immigration, TjW reworded the sentence to something else with an edit summary "change to what the actual source says". I guess that's technically true. After you remove the source which said something, the text will no longer say what the removed source says. But that kind of behavior is disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)about crimes, serious crimes ... Whether their status is a civil or criminal matter. Civil matters are not crimes, therefore, whether it is a civil or a criminal issue is actually fairly important. Civil issues are "breaking the law" but they are not classified as "crimes" by those who study this issue.
To recap, one set of sources examined criminal aliens alone including a thorough examination of the classification, this is the CRS cited by WaPo. This is what I changed the text to conform to. This is what used the term "classification" when describing how the issue was studied. The other (which was not in the article when I made my initial edit, nor when you initially reverted) compared both crime among immigrants (all immigrants), and crime among the native born.
And by the way, you misquoted your source even when you attempted to reinsert the content and include the correct citation. I have fixed it for you. TimothyJosephWood 21:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I understand the difference between civil and criminal issues. But again, this is irrelevant. This office is NOT being proposed because Trump doesn't like the way that unauthorized immigrants are classified. It is being proposed because Trump and the anti-immigration activists assert, contrary to evidence, that unauthorized immigrants commit lots of serious crimes. That is what is important here. They don't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, slow down and pay attention to what you're doing. The WaPo source doesn't compare immigrants and non immigrants. It's still in the article, although not in a bare url. The Econofact story is the one that compares immigrants and non-immigrants. This is exactly what I'm talking about: outright sloppiness because you are too quick to revert, and not quick enough to check what it is you are reverting. TimothyJosephWood 21:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
"The WaPo source doesn't compare immigrants and non immigrants." - Ahem. Quote: " Studies have shown that immigrants, including the estimated 11 million living here illegally, have lower crime rates than the native-born population." [12] Weren't you just claiming that I didn't read some source or other? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
And let me point out that this was right in my very first comment above. So you might want to let it go with lecturing others about "slowing down" and "sloppiness". Let it go.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  1. You are absolutely correct, I was a fool to think that you were following WP:LEAD and actually citing the piece that's cited in the body. Although in my defense, it would have been more apparent if you had provided more for a citation than a bare url linking to a dozen different pieces.
  2. Your revert was the very definition of sloppy, and I'm not entirely sure you understand that there is more to this article than the lead, since you also reverted fairly uncontroversial content, such as my fixing your own bare url, and dividing the see also section into columns.
  3. I'm also not entirely sure you understand that you are reverting myself as well as NPalgan2 since you seem to have just copy/pasted a previous version you happened to like.
  4. Combining Studies have shown that immigrants, including the estimated 11 million living here illegally, have lower crime rates than the native-born population with There is no empirical evidence that immigration increases crime in the United States to get There is no empirical evidence that undocumented immigrants commit crimes at a rate higher than the native born is basically the definition of synthesis. TimothyJosephWood 23:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Look, I'm glad you're finally admitting that you've made a mistake (after being all snarky, condescending and self-righteous towards others, despite your error) but you're still not making sense. As to your points:
  1. Yeah, well you can blame that on people who keep moving and removing reliable sources according to WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. People named "NPalgan2" (like he just did moments ago). Still, I gave that quote and source in the first comment of this section so you should've been aware what it is we're talking about.
  2. Nothing sloppy about it. Not sure what "sloppy" means here. I guess "sloppy" would be something like "repeatedly telling another editor to read a source while not bothering to read the source yourself then pointlessly arguing about some other source on talk for awhile". Yeah, that'd be it.
  3. You need to pay less attention to what you think I "understand" and more to what is actually being discussed.
  4. This is the part where you're not making sense. Source says "Studies have shown that immigrants, including the estimated 11 million living here illegally, have lower crime rates than the native-born population". In the article that is rendered as "There is no empirical evidence that undocumented immigrants commit crimes at a rate higher than the native born". There is no synthesis here. It's straight from the source. Are you sure you've actually read WP:SYNTH? Because you are establishing a track record of telling others to read things you haven't looked at yourself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
It does look like SYNTH: altering the claim that studies have shown that immigrants (not specifically undocumented immigrants) "have lower crime rates that the native-born" into "There is no empirical evidence that undocumented immigrants commit crimes at a rate higher than the native born". But either version seems off topic. The Executive Order 13768 says it is to address concerns that undocumented immigrants who commit crimes and are convicted are not being deported (such as due to city-specific "sanctuary" laws). And the specific body that is the subject of this article is for victims who have been affected by crimes committed by undocumented immigrants. Neither the Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement or the Executive Order makes any claims about what percentage of undocumented immigrants commit crimes, or what proportion they are when set against all crimes or against crimes committed by other segments of US society. So why should this material be here? The only data claimed in the Executive Order is "Tens of thousands of removable aliens have been released into communities across the country, solely because their home countries refuse to accept their repatriation". If there are sources disputing that, then that would be on-topic material. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh for fuck's sake, it says "including the estimated 11 million living here illegally" right there and I've already had to quote it TWICE. Seriously, please actually read what the sources say, read what other people write.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
And one more time - it's not "SYNTH" since several sources explicitly state this when discussing the topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Agreed that the article has ended up in a weird shape. Don't know when/by whom this was introduced but: "However, the proposal has gained popularity among a number of anti-immigration activists." sourced to the congressional review service from 2012 and the WashPo's live coverage of Trump's speech which obviously does not have reactions seems odd. Do we even need pro/con reactions in the lead at all? NPalgan2 (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
If we cite the CRS report that WashPo mentions I think the context for CIS's views cited by Drum is useful. I'm going to be bold and revert the changes and then remove reactions from the lead. NPalgan2 (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, please don't do that. You just removed reliably sourced material which summarized the article and your edits are POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
You are being belligerent at this point, and I think you need to take a break. TimothyJosephWood 02:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Please cut it out with the passive aggressive bullshit. You acted like a total parsnip by telling me to "read the source" even as you failed not only to read the source yourself, but also failed to actually read my comment. Then you tried to play some stupid "I'm not going to explain anything to you, you have to guess what I'm thinking because I'm so goddamn smart" game. It took lots of pulling teeth just to get you to admit that you were wrong and that the source did indeed say explicitly what you were claiming it didn't. Hell, I had to quote it to you TWICE before you found the time to realize that you were blowing air. So how about *you* take a break and reflect on how putting so much effort into being a condescending snarky turnip actually detracts from your ability to edit the Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I'd like to think I've got enough good sense to tell the difference between an editor who is actively working to improve an article, and one who is bargaining for how much POV they can negotiate. I'll admit that "literally Hitler" is a pretty good opening bid, but an editor who is committed to improving the article doesn't mass revert a dozen edits from multiple users, they don't hastily stick in bare urls to unclear sources, and they don't care entirely and unjustifiably more about what's in the lead than they do what's in the actual article. You however do. That type of editing deserves no respect, and I give it all the respect it deserves. It's not my intention at all to be passive aggressive in this regard; it is my intention to be openly hostile toward it, because it is outright intellectual laziness, and is entirely unwelcome regardless of whether it comes from the right or the left. But I am more than happy to treat you more seriously if at any point your behavior, that is your actual content contributions outside the talk page, make it clear that you are here to do serious work, and not just to engage in political brinkmanship. TimothyJosephWood 16:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


This. This is just goofy. The argument is not about the number of crimes committed but about the rates at which they are committed. This is elementary. There's 11 million undocumented migrants. So there's about 305 million people in US who are NOT undocumented migrants. OF COURSE undocumented migrants commit fewer crimes simply because there's fewer of them. That's just trivial and completely non-controversial. The important thing is that immigrants also commit crimes at a LOWER RATE than natives. That's what the damn sources says too. So this appears to be a purely gratuitous revert.

This. Removal of well sourced and relevant text for no apparent purpose except to...

This edit removes references. Yes, references are not needed in the lede so on it's own this edit is fine (combined with [13]). But then a brand newly created account pops up just to add a fact tag to it [14]. NPalgan2, can you remove the tag please? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek Both done. BTW, "Iforgotmyaccount" is not me. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

"Empirical Evidence" ChallengedEdit

"There is no empirical evidence that undocumented immigrants commit crimes at a higher rate than the native born."

According to the Texas Department of Public Safety, "Of the convictions associated with criminal alien arrests, over 170,000 or 66% are associated with aliens who were identified by DHS status as being in the US illegally at the time of their last arrest." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itshipsternoah (talkcontribs) 16:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

What does that have to do with undocumented immigrant vs the native born crime rate? Nowhere in the article does it say that "undocumented immigrants commit no crimes". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The implication is that there is no evidence that undocumented immigrants commit more crime than natives, which is false. There is plenty of evidence. - ItsHipsterNoah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itshipsternoah (talkcontribs) 16:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Go ahead and find a reliable source for it, and add it to the article. So far you've added some primary data to the talk page and the data doesn't have anything to do with the undocumented immigrant vs the native born crime rates. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why that is relevant to the actual organization either. Why not just remove that clause? This article is supposed to be about VOICE, not the debate over whether or not illegal immigrants commit crime than legals. Ending the first section with "The VOICE office will issue quarterly reports regarding the impact of criminal aliens present in the United States." would seem a lot more credible and unbiased. - ItsHipsterNoah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itshipsternoah (talkcontribs) 17:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

unexplained removalsEdit

I wonder Snooganssnoogans what "unexplained removal" means in this circumstance when it would not come to bear a minute+/- later, also from you, here? I'm not looking at the substance of your earlier edit. It's my well-crafted I think and now removed edit -- the latter one I've linked to -- that I'm wondering about. Can you explain your unexplained removal of my external link not to mention of the wp:bare urls-upgrade that was part of my same edit? (Don't worry. Another editor already thoughtfully remedied the collateral damage (one would think it was) on the cite upgrade.) A little too hasty on all fronts, here, maybe? Swliv (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC) I favor restoring the removed edit. Swliv (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Active arbitration remediesEdit

Please read the talk header carefully, including the dropdown. These are the same sanctions that are on Executive Order 13768. Doug Weller talk 10:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Tone down languageEdit

I replaced numerous "argued", "stated", with "said" or "wrote". There is no need to overstate the emphasis on people writing about their views. It also seems like overkill to have so many references to how the office came about: Trump spoke about it, he issued an executive order about it, the Dept. of Homeland Security issued regulations about it. This is unusual for most federal offices below the department level.Parkwells (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Bias of LeadEdit

If we're going to say in the Lead: "The proposal has gained popularity among a number of anti-immigration activists." (Take out the "however"), then it seems to me that we should include a major criticism - that the new office duplicates the mission and work of an existing office in the Dept. of Justice. This is, after all, the administration that said it was going to cut down on government waste.Parkwells (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC: LeadEdit

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is no clear consensus, but it is leaning towards keep. Given that the text was present before this RFC started, it will stay there for the time being. The major issue by those opposed seems to be one of weight and neutrality, and I concur that it could probably be rewritten slightly so that it's not just a random fact thrown into the lead. Whether this will require another RFC or just some quick discussion remains to be seen. Primefac (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Should the lead section state There is no empirical evidence that undocumented immigrants commit crimes at a higher rate than the native born. However, the proposal has gained popularity among a number of anti-immigration activists.

There seems to be multiple editors complaining about the final paragraph in the lead section that says: There is no empirical evidence that undocumented immigrants commit crimes at a higher rate than the native born. However, the proposal has gained popularity among a number of anti-immigration activists. There is also a POV tag on the top of the page. So the question for editors is: Should the lead section acknowledge the crime rate of illegal immigrants or not? THE DIAZ talkcontribs 22:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


  • Exclude from lead. While it is a relevant and verifiable fact that the available evidence does not support the idea that undocumented immigrants commit a disproportionate share of crime, it is not something that belongs in the lead section, at least as currently written. In theory, it could be embedded into a summary of criticisms of the program, but then in order to maintain neutrality it would have to be balanced by a summary of supporting statements for the program. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No. This is an article about the office, not crime rates. We should keep the article on topic here.THE DIAZ talkcontribs 16:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral I checked the pages for ONDCP DEA and DHS - while there is a lot of criticism of these agencies, the lede sections are limited to a brief statement about their stated missions and budgets. It's clear from the structure of the article that there has been an unusual amount of criticism to this office, right from the start, and it does seem unbalanced to not reflect the current content of the article in the lede. Seraphim System (talk) 02:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Include - info provides context, is mentioned by sources in context and is pertinent.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Include Scholarly research on the subject supports this sentence, also there are secondary sources that report on it in context. Lead is a summary and that sentence is the most robust and concise way of summarizing the criticism section. Darwinian Ape talk 16:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Include - noted in virtually every reliable source that discusses the subject in detail, and necessary for context. Also should not be buried in a "criticism" section - while it is a focus of criticism, it is an accepted fact relevant to an understanding of the subject independent of "praise vs. criticism." Neutralitytalk 16:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussionEdit

  • First thing first - word the RfC in a neutral manner.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek: What's non-neutral about the wording? THE DIAZ talkcontribs 21:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
You're poisoning the well with the "lots of editors are complaining" stuff.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
And it should be "the relative crime rates among illegal immigrants" Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
And these two sentences form a non-sequitur. What "proposal"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek: Feel free to change it. THE DIAZ talkcontribs 10:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aliens/illegal immigrantsEdit

"aliens" was replaced with "illegal immigrants" [15]. I reverted that edit [16]. The word "alien" means neither "illegal" nor "immigrant" so they're not synonyms in the slightest. I checked the source and it uses the term "undocumented immigrant" once in reference to the name of a memorandum but it uses the terms "alien" and "removable alien" throughout.

Then my revert was reverted [17] with the explanation that "aliens is an unacceptable term". Unacceptable for what reason, I do not know. (@Snooganssnoogans:)

While I'm sure the majority of the targets of VOICE's propaganda probably are indeed undocumented immigrants, the source says "aliens" so that's probably the word we should be using unless we find a new source, right?

--ChiveFungi (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Return to "Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement" page.