Talk:Federation for American Immigration Reform

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] People..

Wikipedia talk pages are not soapboxes or places to assert your feelings on an issue (outside of improving the article, etc.) There's forums to do that all over the internet.. Panfakes 13:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


It's becoming increasingly apparent that WIKIPEDIA cannot be trusted as 'encyclopedia', a unbiased reference on anything. The article on FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM" is another example of the shoddy and biased work we see constantly on WIKIPEDIA.

The assumption of the entire article is that anyone who opposes immigration restrictions is racist and wrong. Shades of white well-to-do highly education liberal elitism!!!

I'll be adding MY voice to the growing movement to destroy this dumb website, and remove it from the search engines as an 'encyclopedia',...it's joke. And articles like this prove it!!!

You're funnier than most comedians. Wikipedia does a better job than most encyclopedias at criticizing all organizations. here it merely states the facts. if the stats seem to prove that a person's statement is inocorrect, justice has been done. the truth has been discovered. oh, and there are 2 ways to deal with neutrality of pages: 1, edit it yourself 2, insert a questionable neutrality icon. Whining about how an article doesnt just say that your side of the argument is correct helps no one.

p.s. you must really like restrictions if you think a coalition of people can remove a website from the internet?! Porvida 00:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


You both are MISSING THE POINT on this one; there is nothing racist about opposing ILLEGAL immigration. That is not a matter of opinion, or subjective or whatever, because border security is based entirely on matters of national law (one's personal feelings on race or whatever don't enter the picture in any significant way; only the legality of a particular immigrant or immigrants entrance on domestic soil).

This article could definitely use some serious expansion, as well as balance. I am going to attempt to remedy the situation, and welcome whoever wants to help. TheKaplan 02:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

How is someone that opposes restrictions racist? That doesn't even make sense ... --Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 16:07,February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quoting the website

The text on the FAIR website is not an encyclopedia article, it is, like any such text, a promotional view of themselves. It isn't appropriate for us to just quote their "About Us" as our intorduction. This article is inteded to provide a neutral viewpoint, not simply repeat verbatim what is on the subject's website. We already provide a link there for anyone who wants to see that material. If we want to create a section to quote their "mission statement" that'd be ok, though awe already have one for their "principles". -Will Beback · † · 20:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"The text on the FAIR website is not an encyclopedia article, it is, like any such text, a promotional view of themselves." *sarcasm* No, really?

"It isn't appropriate for us to just quote their "About Us" as our intorduction." Again pointing out the obvious. "This article is inteded to provide a neutral viewpoint" three-for-three on the obvious-ometer. Now here's what's apparently not so obvious.. To create a neutral piece on FAIR (which gives them a fair shot (no pun intended) at representing themselves as well as gives critics a fair shot at presenting their position) we need to include FAIR's statement about themselves (and the mission statement is the best place to get that) as well as statements by critics and other parties. To leave either side out is not neutral (wow, another obvious point). The issue is not whether copying and pasting FAIR's mission statement into the intro of this article is sufficient, but whether leaving it out harms the article by taking away NPOV. Let me be clear on this, noone is arguing that we should just quote their 'about us'.-Psychohistorian 21:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"there is nothing racist about opposing ILLEGAL immigration."-You do realize FAIR is opposed to Most LEGAL immigration as well? So please keep race out of this, or you'll end up kicking yourslef in the but. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrwishbonetoy (talk • contribs) 13:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

A) They don't have a mission statement. That's just a description of themselves. B) We already give their principles, which are equivalent. C) We don't have to quote anyone to have a neutral article. D) Long quotes don't belong in the intro. The intro should establish the notability of the subject and give the key facts. -Will Beback · † · 22:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The key facts include what the organization says about itself. It is assanine to say that we can have a neutral article about a group when we don't include what the group has to say about itself.-Psychohistorian 00:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Please don't call other editors' remarks "asinine". Most (no, almost all) of our articles on groups do not start by quoting their "About Us" pages. (Can you point to any?) We already quote the organization on their principles. We cannot trust the "About Us" part to be neutral, so it should appear later in the article. -Will Beback · † · 03:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Look at the article for the Southern Poverty Law Center. Right at the very top of the article it tells you how they describe themselves (where it says "their stated purpose.."). This is no different. The argument isn't about whether the 'About Us' is neutral. That's a straw man.-Psychohistorian 14:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I have not objection to us paraphrasing the aims of FAIR for the intro. Would you object? -Will Beback · † · 18:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
As a matter of general principle, I don't like paraphrasing other peoples' comments on Wikipedia. "Paraphrasing" means "interpreting it and putting it into our own words" - our interpretation is original research. Paraphrasing gains us nothing except an opportunity to filter someone's words through our own biases.-Psychohistorian 18:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Another example of an organization whose article begins with a quote by it about it is The American Prospect.-Psychohistorian 18:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Writing an encyclopedia is an effort that involves summarizing what other people have written. If readers want to see the exact wording then they can follow the provided links. We should fix the The American Prospect article, which I note has a much shorter quote. -Will Beback · † · 19:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The edit does summarize. It reduces FAIR's statement about itself to one sentence. If readers want accuracy, they need direct quotes. Let's try for accuracy, okay? As for shortening the intro, I'm working on that. Criticism belongs in the criticism section. You don't see criticism in the American Prospect into and that's why its shorter.-Psychohistorian 20:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words

What "weasel words" are in the article? Please point them out without reverting a lot of other material. -Will Beback · † · 20:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Riley

Who is Jason Riley? Why should we care what he has to say? -198.97.67.57 11:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Mr. Riley is a senior editorial page writer at the [Wall Street] Journal."[1] -Will Beback · † · 17:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutraliy

I tried to make this much more neutral, as well as clean up the cites. Ronald King 08:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but let's keep the baby when we throw out the bathwater. I undid a few of your changes, as you may not know all Wikipedia policies or the history of this article or topic. External links are those that aren't used as sources but which will provide the reader with more information or a different POV on the topic. See [WP:EL]]. If sourced material is under an incorrct heading, then the best repair is to move or rename the heading, not to delete the material. The criticisms regarding the funding from the Pioneer Fund have come from various sources, so it shouldn't just be described as the criticism of one magazine article. I suppose we could list all of the groups instances in which that connection has been criticized, but that isn't really necessary. The reference to the Contra Costa Times article by Michele R. Marcucci is momentarily in limbo. The link doesn't have to work for a newspaper reference to be valid. Thanks for cleaning up the references- they're much better. -Will Beback · † · 09:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if your baby may look like bathwater to others. I don't think the goal of an article on a group like FAIR is to include every criticism lodged by every opposing group, no matter how obscure. The accusation that FAIR has founded minority "facades" needs to be from a reliable and credible source, and I don't think the "courtesy link" you supplied is one. Nor can I substantiate your assertion that the "courtesy" article's text is partly the same as in the Contra Cost Times article. I searched for the Contra Costa Times article in their online archive but got no hits. If their archive is temporarily broken, maybe you should remove this particular criticism at least until it comes back. The section on Prop 200 is even more puzzling. You don't describe Prop 200 at all, or FAIR's role in the campaign, including the internecine conflict it had with Protect Arizona Now (PAN). Why is this one effort, out of the hundreds that FAIR has engaged in over 25 years, singled out for mention? It's all very obscure, and the sources don't look very credible either. Wouldn't it be better to err on the side of leaving questionable and extraneous material out, since our goal is to achieve and maintain neutrality?
Ronald King 10:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
That Contra Costa Times article has been refered to by several other writers and bloggers, so there is really no reason to think the article wasn't published by them. I cn't answer for the problems with their archive.
As for the PAN 200 material, I didn't write it and I think it was poorly written. FAIR did receive considerable attention for their involvement in that proposition, so it's appropriate to includ but that material didn't proerly sumamrize the issues and included a long and unhelpul quotation. I'll start from scratch with a fresh version. As for the front groups, it has mutliple sources and concerns FAIR projects. If you doubt that CBA is a FAIR project then just visit their sparse website and look at the bottom.[2] Furthermore, the articles that are cited specifically criticize FAIR over them, so it's directly relevant. I'm going to restore that material and, as I said above, write new material on PAN. Lastly, I see you complaining about non-neutral sources. Obviously fAIR is a non-neutral source about itself, yet we use that. If you look at our core policies, such as WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR, I don't think you'll find any prohibition on using non-neutral sources. What's important is to have a neutral articel, and that means presenting all significant viewpoints in a non-judgmental manner. Although we report on criticism (and praise) we don't endorse any of it. That's NPOV. -Will Beback · † · 05:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

<Alex talking (first time)> When I first started reading through this article I felt it was being presented positively (rather than neutrally). As I look back and try to determine exactly what gave me that sense, it's the positioning of their self-declared purpose (as others have mentioned). I think anybody would object to an encyclopedia article on, say, the democratic party starting with, "The Democratic party is an organization that ultimately seeks to 'Make the world as fair, productive, and good as possible.'"

Secondly, the very first adjectives (which aren't the most important adjectives) are positive characteristics (non-partisan, non-profit, educational). I'm not sure saying "in the United States " is necessary when four words later it says "advocates reforms of U.S. immigration."

Their self-description is a waste of space; if they consider themselves non-partisan I don't need a 32-word quote near the top that does nothing but reiterate that in political-speak. I'd rather get some content in the top (i.e. what distinguishes them from other organizations that believe in changing the way we enforce illegal immigration). What means do they propose?

I would propose a start something like this:

The Federation for American Immigration Reform, abbreviated FAIR, is a non-profit 501(c)(3) U.S. immigration reform organization. The organization is known for its studies on the total economic influence of illegal immigrants and its relatively strong approach opinion (such as support for immigration detention centers) [Correct me if I'm wrong; the possibility that I am wrong is why I'm putting all of these suggestions in talk and not doing any myself].

The organization, with a membership is roughly _______ {Do we care what members+"supporters" is?}, was started on January 2, 1979 by John Tanton. The current president, Dan Stein, is a staunch anti-immigration activist who has written many articles and appeared before congress 50 times {the article was unclear, did he appear before congress 50 times and news programs 50 times, or a total of 50 between them?} as well as on {cable}/{national} television.

[I have removed the central offices remark. I don't see why it matters where they are, if it's truly important then I would want useful information (e.g. address). ] [At this point I think our wikipedia article on Dan Stein needs to be adjusted similarly]

```````````````````````` I have not found a way to integrate the following [see next paragraph], but I find it biased. Firstly, I think the word "Needed" should be in quotes (what is considered a need versus benefit is an opinoin) or it should be replaced with the term "beneficial," (or ideally economically befenifical or a more specific term, if that's what their true aim is). So, either clarify or make it into a quotation.

--FAIR seeks a moratorium on immigration by anyone other than refugees and the spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens, until it can be shown that higher immigration levels are needed.[2]

''''''''''''''''''''''

</Alex talking> AlexRohde 15:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAIR History

Would it be a useful/good idea to include more of the history of FAIR? I only noticed one sentence that describes when they were founded and by whom. I think it might be good to go into greater depth about FAIR's history and why it was started. Any thoughts?Sushilover boy (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Great idea. Go for it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is Missing

FAIR's board, their identities, their political leanings, their views on other cultures as well as their own take on America are all missing in this piece.

Personally, I am totally against the organization and I believe that its association with the Pioneer Fund is proof enough of its racism, but that case can be sustained only by bringing out the facts on them along the lines in the paragraph above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.194.63.129 (talk) 11:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category

Category:Anti-immigration organizations was deleted as incorrect.[3] Doesn't the organization advocate reductions in immigration? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Favoring immigration reduction is not the same as being opposed to immigration. FAIR is not opposed to immigration. Therefore, FAIR is not "anti-immigration". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronald King (talk • contribs) 17:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

  • When a group wants to reduce taxes, we say they're "anti-tax", and so on. It's standard usage. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In fact, that is not standard usage. For example, Wikipedia has not categorized National Taxpayers Union or Americans for Tax Reform as "anti-tax" organizations, even though they both want to reduce taxes. Wikipedia should provide accurate information above all. FAIR is an immigration reform or immigration reduction organization. Ron (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAIR Media Contact Info

moved from User talk:Will Beback.

The paragraph identifying FAIR's media director as the media contact for two organizations that were started by FAIR seems to be unnecessary detail. Currently, it is also incorrect in the case of one of the two organizations cited (CFAW). This level of detail is not necessary to get a better understanding of FAIR. Anyone interested in finding the YDSM media contact can go to its website. However, if your real point is that FAIR still provides material support for YDSM, then I would suggest revising to clarify. Also, the professional history of the media contact (Mehlman) seems really down in the weeds and is available on the FAIR website for anyone so interested. So you could boil this down to: "The media contact for You Don't Speak For Me is Ira Mehlman, who is also FAIR's media director." Ron (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

FAIR is a prt of a group of organizations with overlapping leadership. I'll rework the material to better reflect that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
That would be off-topic of this section, and actually off-topic of the article. All major non-profits have overlapping leaderships. Unless you plan to edit every article in WP to show their overlapping leaderships, then it would appear you are non-neutral with regard to FAIR. I will make the change I suggested above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronald King (talk • contribs) 20:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)