Template talk:IIUS/Links

Links

Why does the link to the Immigration reduction article keep getting removed? It covers the anti-illegal immigration movement. -Will Beback · † · 20:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

9/11

Ok ip address, i can see your argument for racial profiling - I think that might be slightly NPOV. but 9/11? I'm not sure what your disputing here. That 9/11 made americans think more about terrorism ... or that national security (esp. the terrorist department) doesn't cover illegal immigration. Now first of all - the reason I didn't cite the comments was because you don't cite things in a template. But have a look at ... how about the CENTER FOR IMMIGICRATION STUDIE'S page on immigration and terrorism (you know it only took me two seconds to find that - i think you removed the link because your own knowledge wasn't adequete in this area (I'm not saying your not smart - i assume that you are, it's just (metephorically) Bill Gates probably doesn't know about sports) - which is essentially originial research. I mean honeslty this has been a pretty big deal - and in fact, there's even a section on it at Wikipedia's page, Illegal immigration to the United States page. And the first line in that section mentions 9/11 ... seriously, what's going on here? Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|^{(Can you help me with my signature?)} 02:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

My issue was the lack of a source. You've provided one.

However, the article is discussing how terrorists violate immigration law and that expands beyond 9/11 to terrorism in general. I think, given that, we should change the 9/11 listing to "terrorism". And, incidentally, don't feel bashful in pointing out where other editors appear ignorant. There's no way I can stay on top of every aspect of every issue.-198.97.67.59 12:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply to the guy above - i must have missed the change on my watchlist - but I agree completely - I'm glad the change was made.(see below) I will however check if there is an absolute subsection on illegal immigration - that way the template can be more direct.Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|^{(Can you help me with my signature?)}

Ok no - linking to "terrorism" doesn't work. The word immigration isn't even mentioned. I'll find something betterDaniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|^{(Can you help me with my signature?)}

and by the way - please, please please! remember to put the template on the page you link to (and remove the template from pages you take off)Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|^{(Can you help me with my signature?)}

Ok - I can't find any specific article dealing with terrorism and illegal immigration. There is however, a section about terrorism in the US Illegal immigration page (the first small link in the template - under issues). But I believe that's already a link...Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|^{(Can you help me with my signature?)}

Relevance

As per the last paragraph within the Immigration subsection, this topic does not deserve this degree of prominence as a sidebar graphic and resource table on the REAL ID Act entry. Immigration is but one of many issues with complex nuances and implications emanating from the REAL ID Act of 2005. The immigration debate deserves no more prominence than privacy issues or the value of having more secure driver's licenses and IDs. The sidebar is a great tool to summarize and collect disparate information and data, but it should be discussed whether or not it would be more appropriate to place it within the Immigration subsection. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nick.kowalski (talk • contribs) 13:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC). Nick.kowalski 13:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The idea is this covers all aspects of immigration - and the RealID act would effect II.Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|^{(Can you help me with my signature?)}

Making Sure Template is on the pages it links to

So I just went through all the links, and removed some bad ones, but I could really use help in every so often making sure each link has the template itself on that page. There were quite a few pages that did not this time - and it just gets kind of annoying for me to do it over and over. Appreciate it.danielfolsom© 02:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

MS 13 and Nation of Aztlan

These organizations are connected to illegal immigration. They are listed in the header under "Organizations", not "Political Action Groups". Since they aren't listed under "Political Action Groups", the fact that they aren't political action groups is immmaterial.-75.179.159.240 18:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

How are they connected to the topic of the template? -Will Beback · † · 18:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The topic of the template is "illegal immigration in the United States". Both organizations are associated with it. MS is one of the largest, if not the largest, organization organizing the practice of illegal immigration (coyotes, bounties on border patrol, violent attacks against civilian groups who patrol the border, etc.) and the NoA (with regards to its claim that the border itself is illegitimate and that the southern United States rightfully belongs to the Mexican people) is a large voice box for illegal immigration.-75.179.159.240 20:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

NoA is not especially noted as a "voice box" for illegal immigration. There are a dozen other Hispanic organizations that would make more sense to add than NoA. Do you have a source for the NOA being a principle "voice box"? And what's your source for your assertion about MS 13? -Will Beback · † · 20:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as the MS13 /Mara Salvatrucha stuff go - personally I'm really uncomfortable listing gangs on this template. Can we just put Gangs under the heading Issues?danielfolsom© 05:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

As to NoA - from what I read (haha, meaning just the intro - it's late) - it's not even related to Illegal immigration - it's stated goal was to force the us to give back the countries gained in the war.danielfolsom© 05:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There are fringe and even illegal groups on the "right wing", such as the KKK, who oppose illegal immigration but I don't think those belong in this template either. Let's keep this list of organizations limited to legitimate groups that make immigration their chief concern. -Will Beback · † · 21:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with that - again, I too am uncomfortable listing gangs or groups such as the kkk. Great wording Mr. Bebackdanielfolsom© 02:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

MS 13 definitely has a strong connection with illegal immigration. The kkk may be against illegal immigration, but it doesn't go around killing illegal immigrants for being illegal immigrants (at least I know of no neutral third party source which says they have). There are neutral third party sources (i.e. the Washington Times) which says that MS 13 has essentially declared war against the US Border Patrol and that they have a strong illegal immigration activity.-198.97.67.59 16:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's a consensus to support those additions. If you'd like to hold an RfC perhaps it would change the outcome. -Will Beback · † · 19:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

(PS: It would be easier to communicate if you'd log in and user your user name.) -Will Beback · † · 19:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The Washington Times is hardly a neutral source, but regardless, putting ms thirteen on here would be like putting timothy mcveigh on a tempalte about christianity - everyone would freak. If you consider it absolutely neccessary, again, I'm fine with putting gang violence under the issues - because MS 13, while certainly the most publicized, is hardly a unique gang, so putting gangs under the issues covers all the territory. I really agree with Mr. Beback here, there really seems to be no support besides your own.danielfolsom© 22:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

We're discussing the issue here. That's good. The Washington Times is more neutral than the SPLC - a source which is listed in many of these articles. The Washington Times does not have a history, documented by multiple third parties, of playing the kinds of games the SPLC does. I've scrolled over these various articles about different immigration reduction groups in the template and I see that the fact that many of them have been identified as hate grops by the SPLC appears (and that Mr BeBack is the one who added that accusation). To let that stand but remove the fact that MS 13 is heavily involved in illegal immigraton is pushing a double standard in my opinion. [Gang Violence] does not discuss the close relationship that MS 13 (or any gang for that matter) has with illegal immigration. So, putting Gang Violence in the template doesn't make any sense - the relationship is unclear.-75.179.159.240 00:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

<-- I don't see what the "hate group" designation by the SPLC has to do with this topic. We don't have a "hate group" template that we to which we add links to articles. Furher, adding info to an article is very different from adding a link to a template, where there can be no attribution or NPOVing. All in all, they are not comparable. -Will Beback · † · 01:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I was just making a note about the times, but that's not the point. No one is about to put 300 gangs in here, so really why don't you add the conection of immigrants to gangs and we'll go from there. Again, there seems to be no one supporting the idea except you. I'm going to go ahead and remove the iius template from MS13danielfolsom© 02:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is that linking it to gangs is inappropriate as the ambiguous 'gangs' is not actively involved in attacking border agents and organizing illegal immigration. MS 13 is. I realize that there are three people discussing this issue and only one of them is for putting MS 13 in the template. I'm not going to edit war with you. However, I am going to try to maintain discussion on this issue until I understand why something whose connection is clearly detailed (ie. MS 13) is being replaced with something whose connection isn't clear at all (ie. gangs).-198.97.67.59 11:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Gangs would be the alternative - personally I think we shouldn't put anything - however you yourself could add things to gangs about illegal immigration and then we could add it. Again, Mr Beback and I (beback a bit more fluently) listed reasons why not to add it - since your the only person that supports this - it won't be added to the template.danielfolsom© 11:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, the connection between MS 13 and illegal immigration is already clear - there are four citations in that article which cover the material. You are rejecting all of them and, instead, want me to find new material that is about gangs in general and their connection to illegal immigration because you believe, for reasons you haven't supported at all, that gangs, in general, are a better fit on the subject?? Frankly, I know of no citations which state that gangs, in general, have declared a general bounty on border agents and civilian border patrol or citations which state that gangs, in general, are organizing human traffic (i.e. coyotes) over the border. If you want to expand the link beyond MS 13 to gangs, if you are going to make the assertion that 'gangs' rather than 'MS 13' is the more appropriate link, then it is up to -you- to defend your assertion. Now, as I said, I am not going to edit war with you. So there aren't a lot of options left open to me. Still, I think, at the very least, you owe it to the discussion board to offer a defensible argument for your position.-75.179.159.240 13:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's the RfC I plan to submit. Please add your side to the 'statements' section.-75.179.159.240 14:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've said this a number of times, but again, I think it's best if we include neither - i said if you absolutely insist on putting a gang in, then we should just link to gangs and I suggested you add a section on illegal immigration so we could do that.danielfolsom© 20:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this user, "PH" for lack of a better name, wants to include MS13 because he feels they're involvemed in illegal immigration. Much the same argument could be made for including major employers, such as Tyson Foods, who reportedly have solicited potential employees to enter the country and then hired them illegally. So if we're going to include a "gangs" section then we should also include an "employers" section too. -Will Beback · † · 20:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Whether to include Gangs or MS 13 or Nothing in the IIUS template

Problem

• MS 13 was added to the IIUS template. That addition is disputed by other editors.

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• [MS 13] has four citations in its article which discuss MS 13's relationship to illegal immigration. [Gangs] has none. In fact, while MS 13 has been involved in organized attacks against border patrol agents and civilian border patrol and has organized the smuggling of humans across the border (which is all sourced in MS 13's article), there are no sources for the same about other gangs. I have been told that I need to find such sources so that 'gangs' can be included in the template - shouldn't the person making the assertion that 'gangs' rather than 'MS 13' be in the template be the one to have to defend that position?

Once all the facts are laid out, we are left with the fact that the MS 13 article has sources, such as a national newspaper, which discuss its relationship to IIUS. There are no such sources for the general heading of 'gangs'. Finally, according to the article on Illegal immigration in the United States, criminal organizations and illegal immigration are closely linked. According to a 1997 report by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, "Through other violations of our immigration laws, Mexican drug cartels are able to extend their command and control into the United States. Drug smuggling fosters, subsidizes, and is dependent upon continued illegal immigration and alien smuggling." -75.179.159.240 14:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Many organizations are alleged to hire and promote illegal immigration, including Tyson Foods. If we're going to include gangs then we should also include employers. However I suggest that neither should be included, as illegal immigration are not the primary focuses of either group. We should not include either "gangs", "MS 13", or "employers" or "Tyson". -Will Beback · † · 20:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Ummm... I'm saying we shouldn't include either ... but if you really wanted something about gangs we should include gangs. Again - I think it's best if we include neitherdanielfolsom© 20:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Again, if you insist on adding anything - we can add gangs - I just added a well cited section on gangs and illegal immigration in the United States (and I also really cleaned up the gangs article - wow that was in bad shape). But now I get to tell you off because I have no respect whatsoever for someone like you. I repetedly suggested that you yourself could add something to the gangs article if you felt ms13 should be mentioned - and then you complained that the gangs article didn't have anything about gangs. That's why you would fucking add it! Rather than actually add any benefit to the encyclopedia - you choose to just complain about a link, god forbid you are forced to do any work! NO! It's absolutely insane.danielfolsom© 23:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You're out of line. You are making an assertion and then expecting someone else who disagrees with you to defend your assertion. That's not how Wikipedia works. The person who makes the assertion is the person who has to defend it.-75.179.159.240 01:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Really - what assertion am I making? I said, ms13 is too specific of a gang and if we add that we have to add more ...

“ [We can't] put 300 gangs in here ”

I said that since we can't do just ms13, if you feel really strongly about having something about gangs - perhaps you should add a section about illegal immigration in gangs - and then we can add it to the template.

Then you decided to portray that as me saying we should A) add something - when in fact I said we shouldn't put anything, and B)add gangs without adding anything to the article (proof: see [1] section title). So rather than add something to the gangs article - you deliberately misrepresented one of my comments - as proved by the "Statements by editors previously involved in dispute" second paragraph - where you imply that (again) I said we should add gangs without putting anything in the article.danielfolsom© 02:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You were arguing that we should rather use gangs than MS 13, despite not providing any sources for why we should add gangs instead of MS 13 - given the fact that MS 13's links to illegal immigratin is docuemented -75.179.159.240 02:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

See here's the thing - when I copy and paste exactly what I said - and you try to say I didn't say that - it doesn't work out to well. I argued that you had to add something to the gangs article about illegal immigration (which I have now done) and THEN you could add it. Again, here's the quote.

“ Gangs would be the alternative - personally I think we shouldn't put anything - however you yourself could add things to gangs about illegal immigration and then we could add it. ”

danielfolsom 03:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You are trying to make this personal when the fact is that I gave you an opportunity to explain your position in the RfC before I posted it, you wanted me to defend a position I didn't agree with (that gangs should be used instead of MS 13) and for which there were no sources at the time, and your position, as I understood it, was indefensible. The fact that you have decided to make this personal isn't my fault and I'm not going to get dragged down by it.-198.97.67.56 11:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You're trying to change reality - I said those quotes I listed, I did not support gangs being added - I merely said if you feel strongly about adding something about gangs - i.e like you did about ms13, then perhaps you should add something about illegal immigration to the gangs article and then we can add the gangs article here - since there was no support for putting ms in.danielfolsom 20:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as how I have addeed something to the gangs article about illegal immigration since you obviously wouldn't as proved by the series of quotes above - and seeing as how now the gangs article is linked to, it's fairly obvious that we cannot add ms13 to the template - especially considering it is mentioned in the gangs article, thus this discussion has become pointless due to the change in variables. I see no reason to continue it.danielfolsom 21:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed Gangs from this silly template and the silly template from the gangs article. The connection between gangs (a meta-topic and subject of the article) and the U.S. immigration debate is tenuous at best and certainly not enough to warrant littering the gang article with templates. K1ng l0v3 20:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Why are we adding it back again? I don't see that we ever agreed to include it. -Will Beback · † · 04:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be included - I'm just want to give the ip guy enough time to come and make his points - seeing as I pretty much added all of it because I was sick of the ms13 chat.danielfolsom 04:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If there's no comment in a day or two - i'm all for removing it once and for all.danielfolsom 04:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

K - It's been 24 hours, I'm removing the linkdanielfolsom 17:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)