Talk:Great American Boycott/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Non-citizen is the best term

This article is not a how-to guide for writing a legal brief, so we don't have to say alien but use of the term immigrant is too ambiguous because many white ethnics love using that term to refer to their relatives who are citizens who are only the sons and daughters of naturalized citizens. Non-citizen is a correct term that non-lawyers can understand. It carrys no negative or positive connotation. It is unambiguous. Whoever editted the article to say non-citizen has my kudos John wesley 16:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hit by vandalism

Has been reverted back to former version to erase vandalism and over...and over...and over.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bridgemo (talk • contribs) 22:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

the name

i first want to thank the guy who created this article. anyway, i think the name should be changed to "The Great May 1st Boycott" since it better describes what the event is. dposse 00:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Your welcome. But Google gives 118,000 hits for "Great American Boycott", 98,200 for "Day Without an Immigrant", 65,000 for for "Day Without Immigrants", 1,020 for "The Great May 1st Boycott". The name I have heard most often is the one I used for the title. The others redirect here.--Rockero 05:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. I understand. Thanks. dposse 19:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Dposse, the organizers and the news media are calling it "The Great American Boycott", "A Day Without an Immigrant", and "El Gran Paro Americano". Why do you insist on inserting an alternate name (that is currently registering only 75 Google News hits) in the first line? If we were to list all the possible names, the lead would go on forever. I think we ought to list the important names only and have everything else redirect here.--Rockero 06:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

If I understand correctly from this article (http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=050106G) Gran Paro means "general strike", something that is designed to attack the legitimacy of the state and bring down governments. This is *not* what the english title reads like. It would be unfortunate if the distinction would be blurred and hidden.

TMLutas 18:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The distinction the article you reference makes is the one between a "strike" and a "general strike". IMO, that disctinction is now clear.--Rockero 17:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I always appreciate some good self-annoited "Greatness". Remind me next time I do anything to call it Great and make a Wikipedia article about it, and maybe someone will believe me. --Jeff 00:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have heard another name in the grapevine: Nothing Gringo Day.--Doom Child 05:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally prefer: THE GREAT FAILED BOYCOTT, but the title is fine as it is --82.156.49.1 14:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It wasnt as good as expected, but it definitely did not fail, in case you didn't notice the closed shops, fast-food stores, almost empty schools, and extremely long lines in the stores that were open.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.241.101 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

more infomation

Somebody has to add more info. Somebody also has to add info on other groups supporting the cause. Not just the Hispanic groups. I know of many religious groups who are supporting the cause. Including many Black,Asian,African American, and such groups who are protesting.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.64.66 (talk • contribs)

be patient! this story is a current event and the article will take time to write. dposse 01:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed

An IP added in "As a side note, illegal immigrants should take great care when attending the protests as it has been confirmed by numerous sources that federal officials intend to raid the protests and deport several of the protesters out of the country." While there have been rumors about raids recently, they are unsubstantiated and unaffiliated with the protest. ICE officials have NOT confirmed intentions to raid protests. Today's USA Today quotes an ICE official as saying "ICE will continue to operate as it does every day of the year".[1]. Please do NOT add rumors or unconfirmed information to this article.--Rockero 19:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"especially that of illegal immigrants"

For the purposes of an Encyclopedia, shouldn't "illegal immigrant" be something else like "undocumented worker"? dposse 02:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

That has already been discussed on other pages. Technically, they are, by definition, illegal. Any other term has been artificially contructed to shade the illegality of their being in the US and is hence, POV. --WilliamThweatt 02:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

(Please don't delete my comment again. I may have forgot to sign, but if you would have bothered to check the edit history, you would have seen that I am a registered user or "a real wikipedian" as you so elequently put it.)--WilliamThweatt 02:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

"undocumented worker" is a PC and a propaganda term that is factully wrong. Not all 'illegals' work i.e. children, old, the lazy and those with harmful intent. Plus the word 'undocumented' is just not right. Is a person who enters my house without my consent, 'undocumeted' or unlawfully (illegally) trespassing? I feel that we have to report the factual definition, not the least offensive term created by spin doctors. --Doom Child 05:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually the term in LAW is alien not immigrant. The term immigrant legally implies citizenship. John wesley 16:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Immigrant = alien = not a citizen. Only citizenship "implies" citizenship. Drdr1989 00:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but i'd rather this question be answered by a person whos eyes were not clouded by his personal beliefs. dposse 02:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think my eyes are clouded? My answer was based on discussions on other talk pages where it was decided to use the term "illegal", because it is the technically correct term. I made no mention of my personal beliefs. But, on another note, the simple fact that the term "illegal" bothers you and you suggest "undocumented" and that you so are so quick and willing to start throwing around ad hominem attacks, leads me to believe you are the one whose eyes are clouded.--WilliamThweatt 02:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

you are extremely biased against this issue. are you telling me that you did not create the "Will they also boycott this?" discussion topic? We need unbiased people editing this article, not Minutemen wannabes. dposse 03:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, anyone who disagrees with Dposse is biased. I just looked through the edit history here and it appears he deletes people's comments from the talkpage without discussion and also uses the talkpage and edit summary to make personal attacks and then deletes them. Dposse, you need to read about civility and stop pretending to be non-biased. It is you who are exhibiting ownership issues and trying to control this article--RustyShackleford 04:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

As William said, it is, legally, the correct and most accurate descriptive term to use. We don't call crack dealers "undocumented pharmacists" simply because it might offend them.--RustyShackleford 04:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. In the U.S. ANYONE who does not have proper status, whether in the form of physical documentation or not, is in the U.S. illegally. So the terms "illegal immigrant" or "illegal alien" would be better than "undocumented worker". That said, I think that sending these 12 million people to their homeland is morally wrong. People come here not to commit a crime, but to make a better living. My props go out to them. Drdr1989 00:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

i deleted your racist and unneeded comments that you placed on here. Posting stupid crap like:

"I'm just wondering if the illegals will also be boycotting their welfare checks, food stamps, free emergency-room care, free prescription drugs, driving without insurance, and all the other services they (illegally) take advantage of on this day?...."

is not needed on this talk page. That is why i deleted it. I'm not biased, and i am not trying to control this article. We just don't need people like you on this article or this discussion page posting racist shit like that. dposse 04:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, anyone who disagrees with Dposse is biased. I just looked through the edit history here and it appears he deletes people's comments from the talkpage without discussion and also uses the talkpage and edit summary to make personal attacks and then deletes them. Dposse, you need to read about civility and stop pretending to be non-biased. It is you who are exhibiting ownership issues and trying to control this article--RustyShackleford 04:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it looks like you're confusing me with somebody else. Second of all, I didn't see anyting about "race" in the comment you just quoted, so you can't very well call it "racist". Thirdly, the drain on public services caused by illegal immigrants (of all races, from every country) is a relevant economic issue (albeit, it could have been worded differently and maybe is a topic for a different page, but valid nonetheless). Fourthly, your use of language, baseless accusations, agenda pushing, soapboxing and personal attacks will get you nothing but maybe a User RfC.--RustyShackleford 04:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh, i wasn't directing that comment towards you. Second, what agenda am i pushing? The latino one? I'm not on wikipedia to make some political statement. what baseless accusations am i making? None of my accusations are baseless. You're way off base. dposse 04:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh, calling somebody a "racist" when they have made no reference (good or bad) to anybody or any group of any particular race. You don't even know what race or nationality he is. That's a baseless accusation. And it doesn't matter what you call it, latino agenda, socialist agenda, etc. this is not the proper forum to try to justify it or advance it.--RustyShackleford 06:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Are they illegal? Yes, then how is that term racist? It's truthful. Now, saying something like "wetback" would definitely be racist. Not to mention the throwing around of the word "Gringo" by the pro amnesty side.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.17.26.4 (talk • contribs)

Can we say ALIENS? There are legal and illegal ALIENS but immigrants are those who have already been naturalized. John wesley 14:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, NO. "Naturalized" means the person is not longer an immigrant, but a citizen. Drdr1989 00:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that the term illegal immigrant is the generally accepted term. Although I think there is a case for the term undocumented workers, the fact remains that it is not the term in general use among the population and thus its merits as a term are mostly ideological. CNN, the BBC and most of the people I know use illegal immigrant to describe people who come to the united states to stay without going through the legal process. I would also argue that alien, while perhaps technically correct (I don't know), might reasonably be found objectionable. [User:Qwints|Qwints]

If you are empirically correct, then it must be that I've gotten old too fast. I remember the Phil Collins song. Pop culture and usage has past me and The Ukraine by. I am quite sure however, in court and in legal pleadings, i.e. complaints and answers, you still must use the term alien. John wesley 17:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It was a Genesis song. Drdr1989 00:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Terminology

William is correct in that the issue of terminology has been discussed on other talkpages. However, I disagree that the matter is decided or closed for debate. As the article stood when I stepped away from it, our brothers and sisters from across the border were referred to four times: once as "unauthorized", and thrice as "illegal". For all intents and purposes, the meaning of these two expressions is the same. Allowing for some variety when it comes to diction choice is crucial for stylistic purposes. I also sought some variety (and just a little, I might add,) for precisely the reasons mentioned on the other talkpages--many people object to the term "illegal" on many different grounds. There is debate on the matter in academia and the media. Its no secret that the harder line a person/organization takes on the issue, the harsher the language they use to describe the immigrants. IMO, constantly favoring one term (especially to the absolute exclusion of all others) is more likely to present a POV than allowing some variety.

If I can quote from the book I'm currently reading, Joseph Nevins's Operation Gatekeeper (ISBN 0415931053):

Many terms employed historically by thosse opposed to such immigrants --terms such as "wetbacks" and "illegal aliens"-- tend to obfuscate the role that various agents and institutions in the United States have played in encouraging and/or facilitating unauthorized immigration. Furthermore, such terms are often pejorative due to the images of the immigrant they suggest and the ideas of the undesirabl "other" they embody. The frequently used term "illegal", for example, implies that unsanctioned immigrants are criminals. [...] I prefer to use less politically charged terms such as unauthorized and extralegal to decribe unsanctioned immigrants or immigration.

I think that's a pretty good argument in favor of using "unauthorized", and is in fact the reason I used it. Now if we can get into the history of what terms have been used, I think we will be able to see that the use of "illegal immigrant", is just as "POV" (if not moreso) as any other term. According to Nevins, "alien" was preferred from 1924 until the 1950s, when "wetback" became the preferred term, with "illegal" the second most common. By the 1970s, "illegal" had become the dominant term. "Undocumented worker" and "undocumented alien" were officially used in the Carter years, but "this linguistic sensitivity quickly disappeared in official circles." The conclusion is that (again quoting Nevins)

The rise in emphasis on the legality of migrants coincided with a substantial increase in national media coverage of issues relating to unauthorized immigration and boundary control."

That is, the term used varies with the degree of public attention the issue receives. And the more attention the issue recieves, the "harsher" the term used.

I appreciate the desire for consistency. Can you appreciate the desire for a little sensitivity? Nobody likes to be called an "illegal". It just really hurts. It seemed to me that allowing one instance of the synonym "unauthorized" might be a reasonable compromise. William has objected. How do the rest of you feel?--Rockero 07:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Rockero, thanks for the civil discourse. It is refreshing and much appreciated. I was with you until you started quoting Nevin. Equating a racial slur like "wetback" to a technical description like "illegal" is not only unfair but intellectually dishonest and logically flawed. The former is a gross example of intentional degrading language directed at a specific ethnic group/nationality (Mexicans). The term "illegal" is not meant (by most) Americans as an insult and it refers to all who enter or remain in the US illegally, regardless of the method (expired visa, expired green card, illegal border crossing) or the country of origin (for example illegal Russian immigrants crossing the border from Canada or Indians and Pakistanis who came on work or study visas that have long since expired).

Also, the quote: The frequently used term "illegal", for example, implies that unsanctioned immigrants are criminals. I find this sentence to be almost Orwellian. It doesn't just imply it, it says it outright, because they are, by definition, criminals under current US law. Entering the US without proper papers, staying beyond the time alotted by one's visa, etc. are misdemeanors, and thus, crimes; the perpetrator is properly called a criminal. I don't see how one can make a case that this is POV.

As for the term "undocumented", it's not entirely accurate. I would venture to guess that many who are in the US illegally have documents, they're just expired or forged. I would also submit that "unauthorized" is equally inaccurate. "Unauthorized" doesn't convey the gravity or the criminality of the situation. I am "unauthorized" to use the Executive Washroom at my office, but it wouldn't be a crime if I did so. "Unauthorized" doesn't convey the fact that they have willingly, knowingly broken the law.

As for sensitivity, I can understand that somebody might consider being called "illegal" hurtful (even though it is true). But they have to realize, they made the choice to come (and stay) here, knowing that it was illegal to do so. Our use of terms should not be dictated by how it makes somebody feel, but rather the most accurate, concise, descriptive term available.--WilliamThweatt 08:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It's sad to hear that civil discourse is refreshing. It's the only kind I'm willing to engage in. 8). I must disagree, however, with your statement that the equation between "wetback" and "illegal" is "unfair, intellectually dishonest and logically flawed". The debate is over which term to use. In engaging in this debate, we draw upon government sources and common media such as newspapers, books, and periodicals. And in all of these sources, "wetback" was used as both a common and an official term, most notably in the Eisenhower administration's 1954 Operation Wetback. Initially it was not a slur, but became one as it developed a more and more negative connotation.

My point here is that terminology emphasizing "legal" aspect of the immigration issue (as opposed to the economic, political, social, cultural, etc. aspects) serves an agenda-- that of those opposed to "illegal immigration". The label, like any other, expresses an inherent POV.

As for the criminality of illegal immigration, there are a few points I want to make. First, while I don't claim to know all the details of immigration law, there is discussion on other pages about the distinction between criminal and civil offenses (it seems that most immigration laws fall in the realm of civil law). That's why HR 4437 was such a big deal --it would have criminalized the presence of unauthorized immigrants by making it a felony. Secondly, in the United States we have a legal principle known as "innocent until proven guilty". That is, the burden is on criminal prosecutors to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that a criminal is guilty, not on the accused to prove his or her innocence. That's why news stories refer to accused criminals as "accused" and to their crimes as "allegations". So in the context of our legal system, it is unjust to call people who have not been convicted of crimes "criminals". Thirdly, the legality of immigrants is subject to the degree of public attention paid to them, the degree of interior and border enforcement, and prevailing economic conditions. While still technically "illegal", in times of economic plenty unauthorized immigrants are no more "illegal" than citizens. It tends to be in times of economic recession and amid public hysterias (such as WWII-era fears, communist paranoias in the 1950s, and todays "post-9/11" climate) that "illegal immigration" is truly criminalized.

I agree that "undocumented" is not the most accurate term. But I disagree that "unauthorized" is inaccurate. It means "Without authority" or "without the permission of authorities". How is it inaccurate? IMO, you are correct that it does not "convey the gravity" that "illegal" does. But the assertion that "illegal immigration" is a "grave" infraction depends on your POV. For example, if you are an employer who prefers paying lower wages, it is not grave at all. IMO, unauthorized immigration is far less severe than violent crime or even things like defrauding the public through tax evasion.

You are correct in stating that "Our use of terms should not be dictated by how it makes somebody feel", because then many accurate labels would be discarded precisely for that reason. However, I think it is something we should take into consideration. Sometimes, Wikipedia goes against its own guideline of preferring "the most common name" for article titles. Who ever heard of the Tohono O'odham tribe? All the literature refers to them as "Papago". But since the latter name was one applied to them by external agents and offends them, the "politically correct" term is preferred. The same is true of the Roma people (gypsies), and I'm quite certain many other ethnic groups. So there is some precedent for taking peoples' feelings into consideration.

All I'm asking for is a little bit of latitude to accomodate issues of sensitivity and to allow for a little bit of variety for style's sake. I believe I have shown myself more than willing to compromise on this issue, and ask nothing but the same willingness from you.--Rockero 22:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Using the terms "undocumented" or "unauthorized" in place of "illegal" is nothing more than a step on the euphemism treadmill; we will just be back to the same situation a few years later when "undocumented" has the same perceived negative connotations that "illegal" has today. --Bletch 12:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment... you claim that since we consider people innocent until proven guilty and refer to a person charged with murder as an "alleged murderer", then it is inappropriate to use the term illegal immigrant because it implies criminality in the absence of a trial. That would only be relevant if we were to be discussing a specific individual, for example... "John Doe, the alleged illegal alien". We do not use "alleged" when discussing classes of criminals. Thus, just as we can talk about the impact that thieves, kidnappers, jaywalkers, or drunk drivers have on society, so can we talk about the impact of illegal aliens... also criminals. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The Center for Immigration study (www.cis.org) "an independent, non-partisan, non-profit research organization" refers to the immigrants who are not legally supposed to be in this country as illegal immigrants also. If we want to look to another encyclopedia for reference the Encyclopedia Britannica also refers to "them" as illegal immigrants (http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-202050). Dominic 23:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not a registered user, so I don't know if my comment will be erased. Anyway. It is quite interesting all this politically correct language. Specially because it comes from the English speakers world. I mean, in Mexico, the people who go to the US to work are commonly referred as "Los ilegales", that is, "the illegals". It has never been a source of offence or argument. In Mexico things are called by their names. As a matter of fact, knowing of someone who has have the courage to take the step of leaving everything behind and jump to the other side, is usually followed by a respectful silence. I don't understand where the problems come with calling things by their names: whether they be aliens, illegals or white supremacists. I just hope my comment is not erase because I am not a legal wikipediaer Luis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.240.34 (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

CNN reference.

the CNN reference is messed up. dposse 23:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to fix it all day and I can't figure out what's wrong with it. 8(--Rockero 23:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it. Don't know why that was happening, but I just added a hyphen. --G VOLTT 00:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Protection of the page?

Someone who hates IIs might do something today.--Jasonflare 12:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

That's certainly possible, even probable, considering the emotions that many people seem to be experiencing around the issues and events. However, because this is a featured current event on Wikipedia, I would be inclined to not pre-emptively protect the page. There will be many eyes on the page today (and in the days to follow), who will quickly revert any vandalisms. It is preferable, in my opinion, to keep it open so that events and news concerning the protests and strikes can be quickly added. - Aaronwinborn 12:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Arraonwindorn, in fact some of the vandals will cancel each other out. (Vandelism comes from both sides of a hotly debated issue, not just one). Joncnunn 15:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree with both Aaronwinborn and Joncnunn. No need to pre-emptively protect the page. And if it does, for some reason, become necessary, I'd recommend only a partial protection that prevents unregistered or new users from editing. But I don't think even that will be necessary, there are plenty of people on both sides watching this page today.--WilliamThweatt 16:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is getting ridiculous! It's becoming impossible to keep up with all the vandalism, and propoganda from both sides. I think the article needs protection.--WilliamThweatt 01:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

9/11?

I think someone needs to rework the sentences in the opening paragraph relating to 9/11. As they stand now, they seem to be making the implication that prejudice against Mexican immigrants resulted from the 9/11 terrorist attacks and that this is the main reason immigration is an issue at this time. I personally have never heard or read anything giving this view; I'd say what's more accurate is that border concerns from a security standpoint play a secondary role in the debate behind much larger cultural and economic issues that pre-existed and are unrelated to 9/11.

Would anyone mind taking a stab at changing this? (Or else at citing sources if it should be left unchanged). Krong 16:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The issue of Border Security is the preeminent issue to over 80% of Americans according to most polls. The political and economic problems resulting from the at least 12 million illegal immigrants in the US has existed for over 30 years. The only reason it is becoming such a big issue now is because of Security concerns. It's not about being prejudiced against Mexicans, it's the idea that if a peasant farmer from a small Mexican villiage can figure out how to get across the border and afford to do it, it would be no problem for highly trained, well-backed Islamists to enter the same way, carrying who-knows-what as far as weapons (WMD's, suticase nukes, etc). No other country in the world, Mexico included, just allows people to simply walk into their country. And very few, if any, countries allow Foriegn Nationals to demonstrate or dictate their laws. The issue is Border Security and Border Enforcement; a country that doesn't protect its borders isn't a country.--WilliamThweatt 16:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Saw the changes you made, thanks! Krong 17:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It's nice to see terrorism going on at home, now, thanks to illegal immigrants wanting legal rights.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TBrauns (talk • contribs)

I wouldn't go so far as to call it "terrorism", but it is an attempt by Foreign Nationals, (who are for all intents and purposes, citizens of another country) to dictate American laws to their advatage.--WilliamThweatt 18:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

How are illegal immigrants causing fear? I don't see them planting bombs. dposse 18:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason for the connection is that immediately after 9/11 there were many hate mongers attacking all immigrants without distinction. This morphed in a few years to a bunch of vigilantes in the Southwest. John wesley 19:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

That may be true and unfortunate, but it doesn't negate the fact that there is a legitimate issue with Securing the borders and knowing who comes into the US, so that just anybody can't walk across and to prevent those who may seek to do us harm from taking advantage of the presently lax security. It is the primary job of the Federal Governement to protect the borders. It it refuses to do so, then it is the responsibility of the citizens to do so within the framework of the laws. If you wish to call that vigilantism, then so be it.--WilliamThweatt 19:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

As a citizen who attended the protests I have a problem with the claim that the demonstrations represent non-Americans dictating law to Americans. Many people who live in the United States have a problem with the House Bill felonizing illegal immigrants and those who would help them. These demonstrations are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people expressing their opposition to these wrong-headed laws. Both our border security and our immigration processes need to be improved. Why keep hard working people who want to live here out? [User:Qwints|Qwints] 2 May

The demonstrations do infact represent non-Americans dictating law to Americans, most importantly to the legal voter, due to the fact that there are illegal immigrants taking part in the protest. That's a simple matter of fact. Last time I checked aliens only represent 4% of the workbase and the majority of legal citizens want stricter laws regarding the porous border around their country. Why keep illegals in the country if they cause a growing budget deficit every year and lead to loopholes in security? - Brenden

A majority of U.S. citizens are opposed to illegal immigration, here are some stats. A USA Today/Gallup Poll taken April 7-9, 2006 (of 1004 adults) found that 81% think that illegal immigration is out of control in the United States. A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll taken April 4-5, 2006 (900 registered voters) found that 90% think that illegal immigration is a "very serious" or "somewhat serious" problem in the U.S. today. A Time Magazine Poll taken March 29-30, 2006 (of 1004 adults) found that 89% think that illegal immigration is "extremely", "very" or "somewhat" of a problem [2]. Zogby poll: Americans fed up with illegal aliens Majority against Bush plan for workers, 81% think local police should help feds [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44154]. Article from July 4th, 2005 (almost a year ago): Majority wants end to illegal immigration [3]. Oh by the way, I'll mention that the internet is liberal-heavy and virtually 90% of all articles on Wikipedia are liberal-slanted. Including the ones on illegal immigration. Aoeu 03:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

should we merge?

this article is about the Boycott, and this one is about it too. why do we need both, and where can we put the impact of the protests? maybe we should merge the articles? dposse 18:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

For once, you and I are in agreement (kinda scary, huh?). I think this article is important now as a current event, but as time passes, there won't be anything new to add and it can probably be merged into the other one as a subsection. As the impact of the protests become publicized, the info will be added, but it's still too early to judge the impact.--WilliamThweatt 18:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hazzah! We finally can agree on something. Actually, i think that the articles should be merged as quickly as possible. News on the impact of the protests, economical and governmental ect, is coming in extremely fast. Turn on any of the national news stations (CNN, MSNBC, ect) and you will see continuing updating infomation. That goes double for the internet. I think that to have the infomation on wikipedia to be as accurate as possible and updated as fast as possible in the right place, the articles must be merged so then we have one central article.

We just need to figure out how to merge them and what title the new article should have..) dposse 19:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not realize that this stuff has already been posted. Then we should remove material not specific to this days' protest, i.e. stuff on actual logistics should be in. Poltical, social and economics pros and cons then should go to the general immigration - migration page. John wesley 19:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_U.S._immigration_reform_protests

Please go to that article. After you do that, come back to this artcle.

Both articles are based on the same event, the Boycotts by Immigrants across the country. dposse 19:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently this article is about today's events. You can consider this a "subarticle" of 2006_U.S._immigration_reform_protests article that has an identity all its own. Drdr1989 19:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that a merge is required. This protest is a unique event, even though it is part of the 2006 immigration protests. I think the other article does an excellent job of giving an overview of the whole issue and the various events that relate to it, but this article has a specific focus on the boycott of May 1, and I think that's important enough to cover on its own.

I compare this to the Birmingham campaign of the American Civil Rights movement and the Children's Crusade. The Children's Crusade was part of the Birmingham campaign, but it stood on its own as a major event in U.S. political activism history in terms of Wikipedia. -Harmil 20:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

No need to merge --T-rex 20:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Don't merge. These are separate events, with many of the protest leaders (like Cardinal Roger Mahony) opposing the boycott. Perhaps one day, after historic perspective changes on all of this, a merge would be justified but at this point it is not.--Alabamaboy 20:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge. The boycott is just one in a string of protests. There's no good reason for it to have its own page, especially since there will likely be other days like it. 132.216.19.208 20:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this was more than a protest. This was a boycott. As I said, it's a subject stemming from the reforms, but it has an identity all its own - certainly too big to include in the reform article. So merge = no good. Drdr1989 00:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone here seen the "in the news" section of the main page? Even that says that this article is a continuation of the 2006 protests!

"Immigration reform protests in the United States, sparked by proposed legislation H.R. 4437, 'continues with' the Great American Boycott."

dposse 21:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Merge

Jangle 0735, 2 May 2006 (EST) This article was mentioned above have to agree with that suggestion of a merger as both events are merged in history as yesterday's events. Would make sense to wrap the entire news article as a permenant article. As for this discussion on this issue and everyone seems to be throwing yellow flags at anyone who looked at this negatively or had less than favorable comments about it, however I have seen used terms like "Gringo" thrown out as well and actually in a mocking manner. Bottom line is that we have an immigration problem that is spirally out of control and we have more "illegals" entering the US daily, it hurts our supporting programs, now as for people whining about jobs being taken from Americans. The only impact that most jobs would be in the manual labor fields working hard for the money, which as an American I have to say most High School students would be doing and won't because of this generations label as lazy in that area. Now before attacking me I am still in my 20's and I see the differences in the generation gap into the newer up and coming generation, and yes I can see a significant difference in how they work and play. Nothing insulting it's just we as Americans are learning to work less with manual labor and leave more to the machine. So those are the jobs that are generally being taking... no problem there someone is needed to do it. I do not think however that they should be coming across our border the way they are, the Government needs to establish a program to allow them to come in to work and earn there way over time to permanent residence. I am all for bringing anyone that is willing to contribute to America's way of life, however areas that have had large increase in illegal aliens have also experienced an increase in crime and gang violence, we don't need that at all, we have plenty of our own. Being NPOV this article was looking good at the time I saw it without a preference towards anyone POV, I did find the humor in Police saying 500,000 and Univision saying 2 million, how do you get that big of a spread and be taken seriously?

Can't avoid the Mexico aspect

The main reason and main impetus for this movement is Mexican immigrants. It has be be incorporated because it highlights the hypocrisy of the opponents who try to tie immigration and security issues because they focus on Mexicans while Saudis attacked the USA. John wesley 19:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. The focus of the Security Advocates is the Mexican border, not the Mexican people.--WilliamThweatt 20:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

We also need to remember that this is a Encyclopedia, and we need to keep this article NPOV. We need to be even more careful since this is a controversial issue. dposse 19:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

We need a skillful writer because these are obvious facts about this controversy -- the mixing together of two unrelated but controversial (security from islamic extremists and Mexican human migration used in the US economy) issues. John wesley 20:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. But the Islamic Extremist is just one example of the dangers presented by having an pourous, uncontrolled border. Currently, any group wishing to do harm to the US has easy access to the country, not to mention the majority of illicit drugs makes its way into the US across the southern border, etc. The securing of the US-Mexico border is just one plank in the bigger scheme of securing the US which would also include better watch on the northern border as well as tighter security at Sea Port entries.--WilliamThweatt 22:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There's significant speculation that the International ANSWER crowd (literally stalinists) is organizing this in order to provoke a backlash in order to throw the Mexican election to the far left candidate. Motivations are very important and teasing out the facts is going to be crucial to a first rate article. TMLutas 00:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Tense issues related to encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia

Even though this is a page about a current event, we should document the activities as if they were over and done with. This would be accomplished by using the perfect tense of verbs instead of the past progressive tense. For example we should not say "President Bush has suggested that they not protest" but rather "President Bush suggested that they not protest", removing the helping verb 'has' (This is a rough paraphrase).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Samois98 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Bad date

AP English Lang test was today (which I took). Otherwise a lot more people would have joined it. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 22:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"children's crusade"

The childrens crusade has nothing to do with the United States.

No?

Children's Crusade (civil rights)

The Children's Crusade is the name of a march in Birmingham, Alabama, in 1963 which was part of the American Civil Rights movement. Organized by Rev. James Bevel, the march was in protest of the arrest and jailing of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and was primarily composed of hundreds of students from the city on May 2 and again on May 3.

BillyTFried

Really? I thought The Childrens' Crusade was a disasterous attempt on the Middle East around 1212 (as referenced by Slaughterhouse-5 by K Vonnegut) 8D 58.168.79.194 06:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Of Vital Importance: Communist Influence

Of vital importance to this page is to make it known to the American people that this movement was strongly influenced by COMMUNIST groups that flat out HATE AMERICA. It is Wikipedia's mission to be TRUTHFUL. SERIOUSLY, are you Liberals out there BRAIN DEAD? These people want to take over our jobs, our borders, our life, our country and you WELCOME THEM IN? These people are against Capitalsm! Any article that leaves out this information is strongly liberally-biased and I am extremely close to taking some of the liberal posters here to wiki-arbitration if they don't stop adding in their obvious bias. Any version of this article which does not explicitly state that this action was taken by Communist groups, that refers to these people as "illegal aliens" instead of what they really are: "foreign mercenaries", and that does not lay out the reasons why any true-blooded American should fight these invaders tooth and nail is UNACCEPTABLE. To those of you who already know this, check out: http://www.johnandkenshow.com/ Your assistance is needed today in keeping America safe, thanks. -Skanker101 00:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Calm down.

I added a paragraph about the radical and leftist influences.

BillyTFried

Hell no! You have to understand that this is a Encyclopedia, and we have a little something called NPOV, which stands for Neutral Point of View. We cannot have those sort of political opinions on this article. dposse 01:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

True blooded Americans are living in reservations. No wait, even they are immigrants. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 03:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This coming from the person who may have offered the most poignant piece of irony in discussion page, regarding the AP English Language exam reducing numbers by any discernable amount. -Brazell, public machine, not logged in.

Actually, had the Boycott been on a different date, I know many people who would have gone. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 04:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to say that there was some link between communist organizations and the boycott please present some evidence. Just becasue CNN's Dobbs says their is a link is not enough. In fact, his CNN article merely mentioned communists in passing, just to remind his readers that May Day is a worker's holiday in other parts of the world, and hence communist (I guess). He did not state that they had in any way colluded on the May Day events. Post a reference establishing the connection if you are going to make that assertion. Without that it is just POV. BTW, it is my understanding that the communists were just riding piggy-back on the day's events. -Rafanetx 01:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I know that BillyTFried is sensitive to POV issues and stated that there were other pieces of evidence regarding the "affiliation" between communists and the pro-immigrant groups organizing the events when he deleted my edit. But after looking at re-reading the article and some of the refs I only found one other that dealt with this issue directly, the WND article. Leaving WND's verifiability issues aside, the contents of the article provide no evidence that the demonstration in NY was "organized by communists" as the title states. All you take away from the article is that communist and socialist organizations were present at the demonstration and handing out propaganda. That is hardly evidence that they "organized" the event. -Rafanetx 01:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

John and Ken reference

The John and Ken reference has been in the article for the last few days but keeps being removed. I am going to leave it in because it is the most listened to AM radio program in the afternoon on a regionally notable station KFI (AM). Continuing to remove it will result in revertion. Calwatch 01:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we need someone to protect this page from the morons who are screwing with it. dposse 01:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

OMG, you and I agree again, Dposse. I just requested an admin to semi-protect the page by going to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. It should be done pretty quick, then we can get to work erasing all the vandalism and soapboxing.--WilliamThweatt 01:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoa. Do we have a blue moon tonight? dposse 01:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

references.

there are two things i'm confused about with the references.

One, why were the references changed? What was wrong with them? Why did you put a Lou Dobbs reference instead of the generic news reference from CNN? The other CNN reference was much better.

I think someone who is against the illegal immigrants put that there. If that is the case, it needs to be changed back since it is basically vandalism.

Second, why is the code messed up?

dposse 01:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I added the Lou Dobbs info as it expresses the very valid concern about radical involvement in the boycott.

BillyTFried

yeah, but that is not the right thing to do. Putting a Lou Dobbs article is like putting a Bill O'Reilly article. Having this story as a reference is much better because it doesn't add any POV problems. dposse 01:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What you are suggesting is to leave out ANY and ALL references to the Boycotts' ties to Radical groups and that is not appropriate when trying to include all points of view.

BillyTFried

and aren't you suggesting to have nothing but radical views? can't we meet somewhere in the middle? dposse 01:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. I added a SINGLE BLURB to the OPPOSITION SECTION about radical ties.

BillyTFried

Yeah, and i removed it and replaced it with the John and Ken radio show thing.

now before you run off and change it, just hear me out. I removed it because it was not Encyclopedic. It was a point of view and not fact. It was not only your point of view, but Lou Dobbs point of view. I know that you feel strongly about it, and we all do. But we need to keep all point of views out of this article. Ok? dposse 01:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to tolerate all references to the Boycotts ties to radical groups being ommitted. I have altered my original paragraph. Do not delete it again.

BillyTFried

I thought we were supposed to include all main points of view, not none. How is it a neutral point of view to remove coverage of a main aspect of opposition? --68.19.2.18 02:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, perhaps I can be of some assistance here. The NPOV policy prohibits editors from presenting their personal POV and opinions as fact. It does not prohibit noting a relevant comment by a notable personage as long as no editorializing accompanies it and it is properly sourced. As long as Lou Dobbs comments are relevant, his POV is acceptable as long as it is attributed to Lou Dobbs and not presented as fact by the editor. I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be included, I'm just pointing out how the NPOV policy works.--WilliamThweatt 02:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought it said. --68.19.2.18 02:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"and that the date of May 1 was chosen because it's the worldwide day of commemorative demonstrations by various socialist, communist, and anarchic organizations."

Can you show me any proof for that statement? dposse 02:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have to as was pointed out, but it's from the same CNN article.

BillyTFried

Well, do you have any examples of the "various socialist, communist, and anarchic organizations" that Dobbs speaks of, or are you only going to take his word for it? dposse 02:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I made May Day a wiki-link for a reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Day

Due to these left-wing overtones, May Day has long been a focal point for demonstrations by various socialist, communist, and anarchist groups. In some circles, bonfires are lit in commemoration of the Haymarket Riot usually right as the first day of May begins. [1] In the 20th century, May Day received the official endorsement of the Soviet Union; celebrations in communist countries during the Cold War era often consisted of large military parades and shows of common people in support of the government.

Are you done tring to find any way you can to hide the Boycott's ties to radical groups yet or what?

BillyTFried

Well, it's just the fact that the Boycott had nothing to do with radical groups. It was about Immigrants protesting a new law that is in Congress right now. dposse 02:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Being promoted by radical groups is hardly what I'd call having "nothing to do with" them.

BillyTFried

Dposse, are you kidding? Have you seen pictures of these rallies? I saw countless signs passed out by the World Can't Wait, which is a Communist front group. If this whole deal had nothing to do with Communists (or other radicals), they wouldn't have had it on the Communist high holiday, nor would they embrace the radical groups. GreatGatsby 03:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

And so what if they are? Is it your responsibility to spread your red-baiting filth on Wikipedia, or is Wikipedia supposed to be an objective encyclopedia? Kozlovesred 03:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Do seriously believe that including in the article, information on how the Boycott has ties to radical left wing groups is red-baiting filth?. Give me a break.

BillyTFried

You've just provided a straw man. Of course the demonstration has ties to "radical left-wing groups," but anything to the left of George W. Bush nowadays is seen by uncritical yes-men like GreatGatsby as bordering on extremism. Kozlovesred 04:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

First off, being critical of socialism/communism isn't red-baiting (McCarthy was a god-send for you and your ilk, you can use that excuse for the rest of history now). And yeah, I'm an uncritical yes-man, since I never voted for the guy, and am not a neocon and/or Republican at all (and just so you know, communism IS a radical ideology, as it's at an edge of the spectrum). If your absolutely idiotic characterization of me were true, I'd consider Democrats "radicals", wouldn't I? Oh right, logic obviously isn't your strong suit, so you didn't think of that. You political ignoramuses should cease trying to discuss topics you know nothing about. And you might want a doctor to check out that knee-jerking problem you have. GreatGatsby 01:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the choice of May 1st to march - This date is celebrated in Scotland, and other places, as BELTANE - perhaps the march has some demonic influences too? 8D. Sigmund Freud once observed "...sometimes a cigar is just a cigar..." 58.168.79.194 06:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and sometimes 911 is just the name of a car.

BillyTFried 09:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Chaps. The 1st of May was elected because in Mexico, Latin America, and most of Europe (including UK, the US handy help) its used to celebrate, labour, work, and the people who actually make a society alive. The US is one of the few countries in the western world that do not celebrate that day. It is chosen fro this celebration because of the events of the 1st of May affected drastically the way working conditions are seen by modern states. But it does not make this bank holiday a communist date! This discussion, just shows how ignorant the US is of the culture of all those countries it wants to dominate. (Sorry for the propaganda, and hope my message is not deleted, but that discussion really got on me as completely banal and biased, as the choice of date is remotely related to communists links)Luis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.240.34 (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Protection is a great idea.

thank you!!! Seriously, the protection was probably the best thing that you could do. dposse 01:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, COME ON! Of course this is a current event, and that is why it should be protected! All these idiots vandalising the article need to be stopped if we are to do our job. dposse 01:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Current events should not be protected. Let's keep an eye and revert obvious vandalism. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

but that is going to be almost impossible when every left wing/right wing/activist wants in on this article to express their own slanted views. dposse 01:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

At least semi-protect it. The page at 2006 U.S. immigration reform protests has also been semi-protected for the same reason.--WilliamThweatt 01:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

No, let it be for now unless there is a massive flood of vandals. I think there are plenty more people who would remove vandalism on especially this page than vandals. Whatever happened to good faith? --Crucible Guardian 02:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Results

I added a section on the results of the boycott, hopefully more info will be available soon to expand on it.

--Crucible Guardian 02:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody add some info on the economic effects of the boycott if there is any available yet? BillyTFried

I've been looking but all I've seen is anecdotal evidence like resturant owners saying "I had only half of my workers show up today." We could put in stuff on Goya closing its plants along with other major manufacturers. --Crucible Guardian 03:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been looking but it seems like the economic effects haven't been as drastic as many had hoped, hence part of the lack of articles about it. -Brazell, public machine, not logged in.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.186.143 (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

*Sigh*

I guess I should have realized that no, I can't go on strike from Wikipedia, not even for one day. I asked my co-editors of this article to keep an eye on it, and they have been overwhelmed. Now the article is full of half-truths, unsourced statements, and many, many, other problems. I'm going to put an in-use template on to try to fix some of the worst problems--anyone interested in helping me please leave me a message on my talk. Gracias, --Rockero 02:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

thank you, Rockero! dposse 02:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What???

So this means somebody died and made you boss of this article now that we've all been editing adding to and de-vandalizing all day long???

The pic on your user page says a lot about how neutral you on on this topic:

Yes, I would agree, not exactly a neutral picture on your user page to go on with an article covering such an emotionally charged issue.

[[4]]

Yeah really! It's kinda like reading an article about Israel, and then looking at the author and its a guy with the flag of some militant Islamic group drapped from his body!

Dear Lord!

BillyTFried 02:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

BillyTFried

what exactly is your problem? All he is doing is looking over the article and making sure all infomation is correct, and NPOV, ect. That picture means nothing. dposse 03:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Billy has a legitimate point, but, in defense of Rockero, he has been very reasonable in editing this article and does try his best to keep his personal agenda out of the article, although we all approach every topic through the eyes of our own biases.

Ok, well we will certainly have to watch how this little "protester" decides which parts of the article we've all spent hours inputting are "half-truths" and which parts aren't.

BillyTFried

I really think that you should walk away from this article. Your personal opinions are not good for the other editors who are trying to make this article encyclopedic. dposse 03:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What you think I should do = NULL

You're the only one here that's been complained about multiple times.

BillyTFried

Please keep this talkpage in order by using standard format for leaving and signing comments. Billy, you didn't have to look at my userpage to figure out my stance. I explicitly stated that I was boycotting today. Furthermore, my talkpage states that I am a supporter of the rights of illegal immigrants. Do my beliefs impinge on my ability ro neutrally edit this article? That is a question for the community to decide. In case you couldn't tell by looking through the edit history, I have spent quite a bit of time on this article. It looks like you have been editing it quite a bit, too. Please, Billy, review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Civility and be careful not to make any personal attacks. I am willing to discuss all the edits I make/have made. There is still much work to be done, but my feet are swollen, my legs are sore and my voice is hoarse, so I need to soak in the hot tub to recover for a little while before I get back into this.--Rockero 04:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Chicago Numbers

The currently listed figure for Chicago is 300,000. However, this number is based on an unfounded CNN estiment. The police reported "over 400,000" for Chicago, and the organizers 700-800,000. The real number is probably somewhere in the middle.

All crowd estimates are "unfounded". The numbers are totally invented, no matter from which source. GreatGatsby 03:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Not totally...local groups known how many people can fit in a certain area or on a certain street at one time and by factoring in how long it takes for the crowd to filter through that area, and at what pace, they come up with their estiments. Yes, they are by no means accurate, but the number in Chicago at least certainly fell within the range of 400-800,000 as presented by different sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.67.242 (talk) 05:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Haaaaaaaaa

Our little protester friend who decided it was his job to clean up the article removed ALL INFORMATION on the Boycotts ties to RADICAL COMMUNIST AND RACIST GROUPS!!!

Ya can't say I didnt call that one!

BillyTFried 04:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This is going right back in.

Some opposed to the boycott cite as a concern it's promotion by radical groups such as the left-wing protest organization ANSWER, and organizations such as Mexica Movement, and suggest that the date of May 1 was chosen because it's the worldwide day of commemorative demonstrations by various socialist, communist, and anarchic organizations.

Radical is a (fairly) subjective term, and tends to be bandied about as a means to marginalize groups that whoever is using the term opposes. Communism is a lot more objective, but I the article mentions that leftist and socialist groups support the boycott. The part about criticism of the boycott resulting from the support of these groups was not clearly written, and I am skeptical about the veracity of those claims anyways. If some responsible editors can research this and add it in in an appropriate way, before I return, I will not object to it. If not, then I will add it in at that point. Thanks, --Rockero 04:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I've already done the research but somebody deleted it from the other page here's some sources including one from the Washington Post documenting that the rallies have been organized primarily by International ANSWER and Workers World Party.

• http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060410-094710-4817r.htm
• http://www.tacitus.org/story/2006/4/4/20127/00372
• http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2006/04/pro_illegal_ali_1.php

These are just a few, I have many more.--WilliamThweatt 04:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks William. The problem is that, for one, the Washington Times, while considered a "mainstream" source, takes a conservative editorial line, which means they tend to play up these kinds of associations. Secondly, according to the Wikipedia article on ANSWER, the organization offered support etc., but took a backseat in organizing. That article has news sources about this issue. Thirdly, with mass mobilizations like this, many organizations play organizational roles, and, consistent with the bureaucratic process, the individual orgs play up their own roles (everyone wants credit). However, I think it is fairly accurate to say that the Hispanic political organizations were the primary organizers, and they received the support of many other groups. I'll have to look into the role of the WWP, however, to see if it deserves mention. Thanks for the link. 8)--Rockero 05:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have looked at the references provided. They all say essentially the same thing, that WWP was instrumental in founding ANSWER, which endorsed, provided material support for, and mobilized for the GAB. This is something of a far cry from claiming that the WWP were one of the main organizers.--Rockero 05:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Some opposed to... seems to be an example of weasel words. However, there may be a way to include this sentiment, as my ultra-conservative family is an anecdotal example that from my perspective there are people with similar concerns. If someone else hasn't already, I'll take the challenge, read the Washington Times (and other) articles and see if I can write a bit that incorporates those ideas in an NPOV way later this morning. - Aaronwinborn 11:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Who is the March 25 Coalition????

I started a new article about the March 25 Coalition but only added their names.

But the Origin section of this article should really have more info on just who these people are and what their coalition is all about.

BillyTFried 06:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it warrants an article. It's more of an ad hoc coalition that is not likely to last in its present form, if it still even exists. These kinds of coalitions come together to put on events like this and usually dissolve afterwards. And now that I look at it, it looks like an entirely California list.

Which brings me to my next point. As I look at the pictures and local news stories, it appears that local organizations, whoever they may have been, were responsible for organizing local events. On top of this is the moderate/radical split (or the boycott/demonstration-only split), which caused there to be separate events in some cities-- usually one in the morning and one at three --(notably Los Angeles). So I was thinking of restructuring along geographic lines, with each city/region's event describing the events that occurred (boycotts? strikes? demos? all three? some/none of the above?) and who organized them (churches? commies? gov't officials?) etc. It seems that by this system, we can avoid gross overgeneralizations (such as "it was a Communist boycott") and (the movement was split, which, in my opinion, tends to be one the press makes too often). What do you think?--Rockero 06:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well this section is called Origin, not Regional Differences or something like that. The regional idea might be interesting, but I still feel it's very important to have as much information as possible on any group of ten or twelve people who've managed to prompt over a MILLION people all over the country to take off work and march in the streets.

BillyTFried 06:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, I have added the bit about the origin. I agree that we ought to give credit where credit is due.--Rockero 07:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

On the restructing, I propose that we expand the origin section as much as possible, which could include the part about the national organizations (Catholic Church, Big Businesses, Hispanic orgs, etc.) either accepting or rejecting the boycott, (eliminating much of the need for an "Institutional response" section, which probably did not follow the best organization scheme to begin with) and follow it by a regional subsection, with a transition along the lines of, "organization of local events fell to local groups...", and then list the facts (numbers out of school/work, demonstration organizers and locales, by city like the subsection of April 10 on 2006 U.S. immigration reform protests).--Rockero 07:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm getting at. BillyTFried 07:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, then since we're in agreement, we only need to decide who is going to do what. This is still on the main page, so it should be updated and improved ASAP. It's just difficult for two people to edit at the same time what with edit conflicts and whatnot. You seem to be on a role tonight. You want to take a stab at it?--Rockero 07:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope! My goal was to find more specific detail about the actual organizing group, March 25 Coalition which I am still searching for. Any further info that anyone can provide would be helpful. The regional differences thing is your deal. Plus my object that was tending to stay in motion is now tending to stay at rest. :-) BillyTFried 07:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Move

The page was moved (without discussion) with the comment "moved Great American Boycott to 2006 Immigration Policy Boycott in the United States: POV to use organization's term as title". There are two problems with this title. One, there is far too much capitalization, and Two, Wikipedia's policy is to title articles by their most common name.--Rockero 15:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

While I don't agree with the unilateral moving of the page, you are oversimplifying Wikipedia's naming policy. "The most common name" is only one criteria. The name also has to be as descriptive and succinct as possible and the name cannot be inherently POV. With that in mind, I think it is reasonable to open a dialogue on the name of this article.--WilliamThweatt 16:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the way I referenced the policy is oversimplified. I am also in favor of debate over the matter. I often disagree with the "most common name" policy, but I want to see some discussion before major edits like page moves. I am not convinced that the title "Great American Boycott" is any more POV than the name of any other event. Aren't event organizers normally the ones to name events? We don't generally question event names as POV simply because we use the same name the organizers use...--Rockero 17:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The title has two problems: 1) it was un-great event, and to call it Great with an capital "G" diminishes the Great Depression, the Great Lakes and Great Danes. Though we can debate the effects of foreign nationals crossing US borders without permission, calling any demonstration involving less than 0.5% of the nation's population http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/14478229.htm is neither Great nor great. 2) Don't the residents of Brazil, Argentina and Panama disapprove the term "America" when applied to the United States? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas It's easier to bash the obvious, rather than follow a process. From slavery, to Irish immigrants to undocumented workers, cheap labor makes America Great.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertkeller (talk • contribs)

We are not debating whether or not the day's events merit the adjective "Great", but whether or not "Great American Boycott" is the appropriate title for the article. There is precedent for using the name given to events by organizers. See Million Mom March and Million Man March, for two examples.--Rockero 17:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. I keep forgetting that Wikipedia distinguishes between validity and truth, what you can verify versus what's accurate, what authority says versus what's real. My mistake.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertkeller (talk • contribs) 18:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Impact of Boycott?

So now the Results section has been removed from this article, but I think there should certainly be a section that discuss the Impact of the boycott or lack thereof. The point of the Boycotts was not that we would all see millions of illegals aliens on TV waving flags of South American country's and Communist parties, along with the US flag, but to see the IMPACT of the loss of their contribution to the American Economy. I am admittedly economics-impaired, but I would think somebody could contribute some financial info regarding the Impact on the American Economy, which was the very reason for the boycott. BillyTFried 18:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Billy, this is the second time you have requested numerical economic information. From what I have read, economists say that the long-term effect of a single-day boycott are negligible, and it is still too soon to have any concrete info on the short-term effects. Conversely, there is lots of anecdotal data, some of which is included in the local section. Since you requested so politely, I'll see what I can find, but be advised that you too can do Google News searches, and use what you find to improve the article.--Rockero 18:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm basically just trying to find out if the Great American Boycott succeeded in meeting it's goal.

Immigrant boycott's economic impact

Apr. 28 - Pro-immigration activists say a national boycott and marches planned for May 1 will shake the ground under Congress as it debates reform.

Organizers have timed the action for May Day, a date when workers around the world often march for improved conditions, and have strong support from big labor and the Roman Catholic church.

They vow that America's major cities will grind to a halt and its economy will stagger as Latinos walk off their jobs and skip school.

Ruben Ramirez reports.

© Reuters 2006. All rights reserved.

If America's major cities DID NOT grind to a halt and its economy DID NOT stagger, wouldn't it be appropriate to note that the boycott was overall, a failure?

BillyTFried 19:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not our job to assess whether or not the Boycott was a success or a failure. We just report the assessments of others. Currently the article reads, "While the economic effects are not yet clear, some initial reports have indicated that, while the Boycott failed to halt "business as usual", commerce slowed significantly in certain areas." This sentence seems to address your concern.--Rockero 19:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

No. That was only a small part of the boycott. They were protesting the bill that would make them into felons. Also, businesses did close, but not at the magnitude that some first thought. dposse 19:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That remains to be seen. The bill is still in the Senate.--Rockero 09:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

"You Don't Speak For Us"

Shouldn't the paragraph about the "You Don't Speak For Us" group be moved lower into the Opposition section? Also, i think that most of the stuff in the "Initial response" section is too negative and seems to be only focusing on those who disagreed with the protest. dposse 18:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, dposse, but as you can tell, I restructured last night. The idea was for the new organization sceme to reflect two things: One, the "moderate/radical split", and two, the regional nature of the planning and execution of local events. That's why the "You Don't Speak for Us" coalition was mentioned in "inital response" - it demonstrated an example of the split. I reserved the "opposition" section for counterprotestors and the like.--Rockero 19:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but i still think that the "Initial response" is way too negative. dposse 19:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's easy to criticize (and fun too!). Here's my suggestion: look into some other national groups that were receptive to the boycott right off (I believe the UAW endorsed it, for example), and add them in. I've been editing this article a lot, but that in no way means that I'm the only one who can or should.--Rockero 19:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really criticizing, i'm just trying to point out that the "Initial response" is focusing too much on the people who disagreed with the protest. that's all. Where do you think i should look for such infomation? dposse 22:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Do a Google news search for Boycott UAW. Or search the web for the sites of major labor organizations to see if they endorsed it (maybe AFL-CIO or some of their affiliates. Check SEIU.) I'm going for labor because the religious groups are pretty well-covered. Jesse Jackson's support can go in this section and could probably use some expansion. But now that I consider it, I think a small rewrite of the first two subsections may be warranted to address both yours and Billy's concerns.--Rockero 22:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

i found some infomation on Jessie Jackson.

http://www.rainbowpush.org/FMPro?-db=RPOfrontpage06.fp5&-format=rainbowpush/frontpage06/results.htm&-lay=front&constant=1&-find

dposse 22:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• sigh* well, i added the AFL-CIO response. If anyone feels the need to expand it, i won't complain. dposse 22:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Current Event Tag

Unless anyone has any objects, I am going to remove the current event tag as this is now an event that has come and gone. -- God of War

This article is still on the Wikipedia homepage under In The News.

BillyTFried 19:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and new developments about impacts etc. are still coming out. And Billy, would you mind signing your name directly after your comments, please?--Rockero 19:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's linked from the main page it isn't supposed to be protected. It's a policy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.221.139.214 (talk • contribs)

It is only semi-protected, and the protection doesn't even seem to be working (IPs are editing).--Rockero 19:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed your tag as it is untrue. Rockero, you can't just add a semi tag to protect a page. You have to be an admin or ask an admin too do it for you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.221.139.214 (talk • contribs)

I think I used the wrong tag last time. The vandalism seems to have abated somewhat, anyways.--Rockero 19:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Why have my links in See Also and External Links been continually removed?

They are both completely relevant tho this article.

See also

• MEChA

Many of the groups taking part in and promoting the boycott were affiliated with MEChA

External links

• Mexico's Immigration Policy: Illegal Aliens are Felons

The "Nothing Gringo Boycott" in Mexico was basically a protest of the US making illegal aliens felons which Mexico already does.

BillyTFried 19:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't doubt that MEChA did participate in the rallies. But if they did, it seems the best place to mention their participation would be in the regional section. And a source would be really handy there, too. Your External Link, however, has nothing to do with the "Great American Boycott". It looks like you're are trying to point out a hypocrisy, and your point is taken, but the article is not the place to make that point. External links should ONLY be directly about the subject of the article, not some foreign country's laws or anything else that is not germane. And Billy, PLEASE use preview feature. I am having to scroll through several changes just to see one new edit. Thanks, --Rockero 19:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

A link to MEChA belongs somewhere in this article. I will see ti it that one exists regardless of what section it is in. And pointing out that Mexicans were boycotting a law in the US they already have in Mexico is also totally valid. It is not my iron, but the protesters. Another irony that is theirs and theirs alone is that many of the businesses they boycotted were in fact fully Mexican owned. Stop omitting valid information. BillyTFried

If a link to Mecha will not be left in the See Also section then I will incorporate this quote into the article elsehwre, most likely under Origin.

The boycott coalition, which also includes Hermandad Mexicana, CHIRLA, Amigos de [Friends of] Orange, and MECHA, among others, broadcast the boycott during the nation wide demonstrations that took place on April 10.

http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=5640841981493b34b3d0933ac577adf5

BillyTFried 20:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Those all sound like LA orgs, and so should probably go under the Los Angeles section of local events. The information about Hispanic businesses suffering also belongs, but again, I think it should be in the regional section, unless there is an overall claim by someone in the news media that the effect on Hispanic business was nationwide.--Rockero 20:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The MEChA reference belongs in the Origin section because it is providing the Origin of the March 25 Coalition who are the founders of the whole boycott.

The Hispanic businesses thing I mentioned was about the No Gringo Day in Mexico, not the Boycott in the US. It's been stated by many media outlets that a lot of the businesses targeted were fully Mexican owned businesses mistaken for American ones, such as Sears. But I'm not sure that's really pertinent to this article. At least not as pertinent as the fact that they were protesting the US enacting the same type of law making illegals felons that Mexico already has. BillyTFried 21:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Billy, in your own article on the March 25 Coalition, MEChA is not mentioned as one of the members. So how do you figure that it begins in the origin section? As for the "Nothing Gringo Boycott" affecting American business outlets owned by Mexicans, I suppose that information is relevant, but the articles I read said that the effect was difficult to gauge since May Day is a holiday in Mexico anyways. And as far as Mexican protests against US laws, it is important to note that "Nothing Gringo" day was not endorsed by any government agency or official. There is often quite a gap between the people want and what the government does. The irony your are so keen on is noted multiple times on the talkpage, and does not belong in the main article space. Unless of course there is a reference for someone making the same claim you are, which there may well be. Good luck fishing it out!--Rockero 22:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The lack of detail in the Wikipedia stub I created only last night on the March 25 Coalition does not mean in anyway that this almost completed article should suffer from the same lack of info on the founders of the Boycott as well. BillyTFried 22:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Spanish language version of this article

... there isn't one. Seems like the Spanish language Wikipedia would benefit from the addition of a translation of this article and also that the English version of this article could benefit from research done in a Spanish version.

I don't speak Spanish, would anyone who does be able and willing to start on translating this? (Man, seems like all I do around here is give other people chores ;-) ) Krong 19:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Regional Demonstrations

You guys are missing more places!! How about Boston??? THere were demonstations there.

why don't you help us out? dposse 22:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop trying to minimize MEChA's involvement in organizing the Boycott.

The article I referenced basically says the March 25 Coalition was co-founded by groups including MEChA, not that they simply endorsed the boycott later on.

From the article:

The boycott coalition, which also includes Hermandad Mexicana, CHIRLA, Amigos de [Friends of] Orange, and MECHA, among others, broadcast the boycott during the nation wide demonstrations that took place on April 10.

What you guys have changed it to:

The boycott was endorsed by Los Angeles-based organizations such as Hermandad Mexicana, an affiliate of the Mexican American Political Association, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights-Los Angeles (CHIRLA), Amigos de Orange, and local chapters of MEChA.

BillyTFried 23:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, so you found a source that credits MEChA as one of the primary organizers. However, in my research, the vast majority of articles have not credited any MEChA chapter, either locally or nationally, as being a primary organizer. This being the case, I believe that MEChA bears mention, but not credit as a primnary organizer. Another problem with overstating the role of MEChA has to do with their organizational structure. According our own article on the group, MEChA "exists as over 400 loosely affiliated chapters". That is, there is not really an overarching national MEChA group that dictates what local chapters do. So if LA chapters endorsed and helped organize the LA events, I wouldn't be surprised. Looks like a chapter in Utah played a major role in organizing events there. But to credit them as national organizers is not only incorrect, but pretty much impossible.

Also, we cannot quote directly from articles without crediting the quote as such. Rewording is an important part of not violating copyright laws, and it was also edited for clarity.--Rockero 23:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious, why are you so determined to have MEChA in this article? dposse 00:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If Mecha supported/sponsored this event, they should get credit for it. That is pure, simple logic. Martial Law 00:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC) :)

I am determined to see to it that this Boycott's affiliation with the racist group MEChA stays in the article for the same reason I would make sure that Louis Farrakhan's anti-semitism and anti-white racism would be included in an article about the Million Man march. If there was an enormous Anti-Illegal-Immigration boycott and the KKK was involved, would you allow a couple hicks to come on here and constantly delete any references to the Klan or continually try to minimize it's involvement??? I think a more appropriate question is, why are you so determined to hide MEChA's involvement? BillyTFried 00:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Billy, did you even read my response? First of all, MEChA is not a hate group. Secondly, just because one source (not a mainstream news source, BTW) claims that MEChA was part of the original coalition (which begs the question, which chapter?) does not mean that we should believe it over all the other news stories on this topic. I am not opposed to keeping a reference to MEChA. But as always, the more specifics we have, the better. In the absence of specifics, a reference to Los Angeles-area MEChA's support for the Boycott can be made, but should not be emphasized the way Billy wants it to be.--Rockero 01:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Riiiiiiiiiight! MEChA isn't racist or anything!

"For the Race, everything, for those outside of the Race, nothing!"

MEChA has is a movement aimed at uniting the Southwestern portion of the United States (including Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California) with Mexico, preferably through political means, but through force if necessary.

BillyTFried 02:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

California Newspaper Reports a RIOT

A California newspaper has reported a riot that had taken place during the recent demonstrations. The link is Riot Reported During May 1, 2006 Demonstrations Where can this be placed ? Martial Law 00:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC) :)

that wasn't in any news story i've heard of. why wasn't it on CNN, MSNBC, or any of the other news channels?dposse 00:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sign on San Diego is a website reporting local news. And if you read the article, the extent of the violence was a some bottle-throwing. Hardly a riot. No reason not to mention the scuffle in the San Diego section, however.--Rockero 01:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

NBC good enough for ya?

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/9145429/detail.html?rss=dgo&psp=news

BillyTFried 01:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Still nowhere near a riot. Go ahead and include it, but don't characterize it as a riot.--Rockero 01:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

So regardless of what police officials say, it's only a riot if Rockero say so???

Law officers from around the county raced into Vista last night to help quell what sheriff's officials called a riot, with crowds throwing rocks and bottles at deputies.

BillyTFried 02:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No injuries + no arrests = No riot.--Rockero 02:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Commissioner Rockero!

"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Riots occur when crowds or even small groups of people have gathered and are committing or seem about to commit crimes or acts of violence usually in reaction to a perceived grievance or out of dissent, but sometimes for no immediately apparent reason."

"From Vista Sheriff's office: a riot, with crowds throwing rocks and bottles at deputies."

MEChA isn't a racist group and throwing bottles and rocks at cops isn't rioting?

Dude you're seriously losing more and more credibility by the minute!

It's bad enough that you're pretending to present a non biased view of a Boycott, that YOU TOOK PART IN!

It's kinda like reading an article about Israel, and then looking at the author and its a guy with the flag of some militant Islamic group drapped from his body!

BillyTFried 02:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Billy, please stop making accusations against me. I have been working on this article for at least three days. I have been upfront about my beliefs, and have shown willingness to discuss, debate, and compromise. I have not made any personal attacks, I have shown good faith, and IMO I have been more than accomodating to new editors and have not questioned the agendas of editors who seek inclusion of certain data. This despite numerous incidences of vandalism and POV edits. And through it all, you are the only one to accuse me of POV edits. If someone else wants to keep an eye on this beast, I'll gladly hand the reins over to them, because frankly, it is beginning to frustrate me.

My hesitancy to label the melee a "riot" is rooted in primarily in a wariness of the media's tendency to sensationalize events. There is an old newsroom saying that "if it bleeds, it leads", because the news business knows that violence sells. Secondly, most of the news articles are not descibing the conflict as a riot. [5], [6], [7], etc. Only Sign-on San Diego and conservative sites are calling it a "riot". That said, I think a reasonable compromise would be adding something like "The demonstrations were overwhelmingly peaceful, although a Vista, California rally took a violent turn at day's end when crowds began throwing rocks and bottles at sheriff's deputies. The sheriff's department and at least one news site referred to the conflict as a "riot".--Rockero 03:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd add, that I think overemphasizing the scuffle is a mistake, because for the most part, the protests were peaceful. Vista is the only incidence of violence I have heard about, and the cops killed somebody there last year, so it's not exactly as if this is coming out of a vacuum.--Rockero 09:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone will send Glenn Spencer a copy of the news article, just as someone had sent a copy to Michael Savage. Someone has to keep a eye on these personnel. Martial Law 04:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC) ':)

What are you referring to ML? It's not clear from your statement...--Rockero 09:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone will E-mail Glenn Spencer, Michael Savage copies of the newspaper articles, then these two will then state:"Here is MORE PROOF that the illegal aliens are really a invading ARMY out to kill YOU idiots !!", or worse on their websites, as they present these articles AS proof of their racially motivated statements. I've been watching these two personnel.

Glenn Spencer places articles taken from various media sources depicting illegal aliens, their sympathisers committing crimes, places these on his site, often with a offensive pix of a bull taking a shit, the bull has a red circle with a line going through the bull, meaning No bullshit on the left of the posted article. A example is this: Source of article, such as a newspaper in italics above the article, the article title in a blue, red, other color you click on, a brief summnation of the article, at the left, a commentary pix. A example: L.A. Times, colored link you click on: "Illegal Alien Kills Police Officer During Robbery", a brief summnation of the article, pix left of article: Bull taking a shit with the bull crossed out, then in italics, "Bush's Good Hearted Folks". Other depictions incl. a drivers license with Osama bin Laden's pix on it, a nuke going off, armed troops, a pix taken from www.daylaborers.org, depicting Mexicans engaged in obscene acts, such as grabbing their crotch and flipping YOU the bird, with this quote:"You want this in your neighborhood?",and/ or "Pest Nest". The Daylaborers site is a law enforcement website. Other pix examples incl. a guy's tattoed arm holding a .45 or a 9m handgun, used to represent the MS-13 criminal gang, other gang activity by illegal aliens. As for Michael Savage, go to www.michaelsavage.com Warning: Grisly material depicted, such as the recent beheading of Americans, other nationals by Islamic Terrorists. Glenn spencer's website is www.americanpatrol.com, and it has what is discribed on the site. I do not know how to upload a example, decent or otherwise, from either site for encyclopedic value, nor do I know if the material is copyrighted. Please don't harm the messenger. Martial Law 20:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC) :)

San Leandro

A recently-added sentence reads, "Meanwhile, school officials in San Leandro said that heightened tensions over the immigration issue may have contributed to a series of brawls between Black and Latino teens, which resulted in over a dozen students being taken into custody." However, according to the article it comes from, the fights occurred on Wednesday, April 26, a full four days before the Boycott. Hence, the fights and tensions do not pertain to the Boycott directly, and ought to be removed.--Rockero 01:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine

BillyTFried 01:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Peaceful Protests of Mar 25

I do not have a dog in this fight over the immigration issue, but what I did think was remarkable about the Mar 25 protest, and also the May 1 one, was the peaceful nature of the protests. I believe it is worthy of mention in the long term historical analysis of this controversial, emotional issue. mitchsensei 10:13pm (EST) 2 May 2006

I edited my entry to clearly state March 25, since some have noted limited disturbances related to the May 1 gatherings, for some reason, unstated in the discussion, Rockero deleted it. mitchsensei 10:34pm (EST) 3 May 2006

Sorry, Mitch. I took it out because it was about March 25, and this article is about May 1. I tried to take your concern about the peaceful nature of the protests, as well as ML's concerns about isolated incidents of violence, into account when I modified the lead to read something like "The protests were overwhelmingly peaceful. However...". Again, I apologize for not explaining my reasoning sooner.--Rockero 19:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Rockero. While the overall article is about the May 1 event, my contribution was clearly in the section discussing the origins and the Mar 25 event. In a world awash in violence, it is worthy to note mass movements that are relatively free of this influence. It has historical significance, and deserves to be noted. I also confess to not reading the entire article over every time I come back to check on it. Although, I did not see that the information moved, only that it was deleted. mitchsensei 03:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

ACLU

The ACLU did not endorse the Boycott, and should therefore not be listed in the "Initial response" section.--Rockero 02:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Then should the Initial Response Section be called AKA Those who Endorsed Boycott?? BillyTFried 16:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I want the "Initial response" section to be the reactions of major individuals and groups either for or against. Since the ACLU neither explicitly endorsed nor disavowed the Boycott, I don't think it belongs. I am against renaming the section.--Rockero 19:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right, Rockero. That was my mistake. However, i think the ACLU should stay in the article since they did give legal and civil rights advice to those who were protesting. dposse 23:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Translation

An editor keeps introducing the text "(which literally translates as "The Great American Unemployment")" after "El Gran Paro Americano". As an inaccurate translation, it creates an inaccurate impression of both the events of the day and the Spanish-language name for it. It is also unnecessary, since the event already has a name by which it is known in English. If there is some compelling reason to keep this "translation" in, I'd like to hear it.--Rockero 03:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Xenophobia and Racism

I see that the Great American Boycott (or Unemployment) has brought out the racist hounds. Should we say more on that aspect of the boycott? 204.52.215.107 04:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to some content of the article or the frequent episodes of vandalism? BillyTFried 05:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Why white t-shirts?

Thanks for the informative article, first of all. I understand it has been alot of work shuffling many adamant POVs around. I for one am terribly confused as to where I stand on this subject... being the average middle-class white guy. On one end I would be a racist or nativist for supporting the strengthening of borders which keep out immigrants, when my family immigrated sometime or another. And on the other hand I am un-american and supporting foreign influence in America... and the fact that I don't speak Spanish doesn't help anything.

I came here looking for and not finding an answer as to why white was chosen as the color to wear? If someone can enlighten the article on the subject? Thanks and cheers, Jakswa 04:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Go to Glenn Spencer's website RIGHT NOW. He claims that this is the uniform of a invading army. Martial Law 04:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC) :)

He calls this "The White Shirt Insurgency". It's on www.americanpatrol.com RIGHT NOW. Again, please don't harm the messenger. Martial Law 05:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC) :)

Thanks, I went there 'RIGHT NOW' (?) but a claim isn't a very deciding answer. Especially coming from a news website entitled American Patrol Report, which seems obviously biased.

Check out this link:Friends of the Border Patrol Is it biased as well ? Martial Law 05:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC) :)

I'm quite sure they were told to wear white to signify PEACE. BillyTFried 05:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

During the prepping up for the March 25th March in Los angeles, Radio DJs encouraged to wear white as a symbol of peace. [8] --24.30.116.111 06:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, Thanks BillyTFried and 24.30.116.111. Maybe this can be included in the article? Would it fit? The mention of wearing white does seem to stand by itself. @Martial Law, yes, bias, or at least they seem so on this subject. Friends of the Border Patrol? C'mon. Anyone who's friends with the border patrol would already have immigrants pegged as an 'invading army.' Would those peaceful protesters wear white to signify themselves as an invading army? I don't think so. And only the people wearing them can say why they wear those shirts, two blatantly anti-immigrant websites seem only to create false perceptions.

I believe I wrote the original White Shirt content but someone had shortened it. I'll update it now. BillyTFried 07:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)