Talk:Joe Arpaio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Arizona, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Arizona.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Start-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]


Contents

[edit] Page protection

moved from the village pump

I want to ask if we should protect the Joe Arpaio page. We keep getting some non-wikipedian to revert to information he added indicating that Arpaio is guilty or involved in many law violations. Not coincidental;ly, Arpaio is seeking re-election as sheriff...a political rival, perhaps?

"Antonio America's silliest guy Martin"

Antonio, I don't think it is a good idea to protect the Arpaio page and leave it where it is presenting basically one side of the story.. There is probably quite a bit of truth in the info your "non-wikipedian" is posting, but it sure needs a hell of a lot of non-POVing. Also, the whole article needs a really good edit. It's badly written. And hey, how do you decide who is or isn't a "non-wikipedian"? Cheers....Moriori 03:13, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
Ditto. We need a third party involved. NPOV does not mean presenting just one viewpoint – this is to both you and the anon. The extra details the anon has provided should be NPOVed, not outright removed. As Jimbo has put it, a revert is a slap in the face. Better to adapt the material given, unless it's patent nonsense. Johnleemk | Talk 11:26, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The anon said with his last revertion that he will make another Joe Arpaio page here, this one saying "the truth" to pharaphrase him. We should protect the page until election day, September 7, that way, in the extreme case that the anon is his political rival, maybe he wont be able to use wikipedia as a tool to gain votes. I trust wikipedians will be on the watch out for this new "Bad" Joe Arpaio page. Keep (y)our eyes open!

"Antonio Super Insane Martin"

"User:Catblack Well, as someone who has edited the page, which, in all honesty, I found originally to be a slight re-write of the Sherrif's Bio on the Sherrif Dept's website. I believe this page needs to NOT be protected. I have personal experience of a friend using my address for a joke bid against the sherrif. (Free to file, he'd still need to gather signatures for the ballot.) A week later one of the sherrif's croneys came around asking questions and being quite personable, while claiming to be just a 'friend' of my friend. There is no other way my friend would have been linked to my address, other than on that form. This experience, to me, is in keeping with the behavior of establishing a jacket on political opponents as documented by the Phoenix New Times. With this in mind, don't be surprised at anonymous edits to this page. There is reason to fear a corrupt sherrif.--Catblack 02:47, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[[Bold text== is this true? ==YES SHERIFF JOE ARPAIO IS A RACIST BASTARD AND A FUCKING ASSHOLE OR SHOULD I SAY BITCH]] I've been told by a resident of Joe's county that this summer in Joe's county if you did not clean your pool (your own pool) and allowed it to grow algae after multiple warnings Joe put you in jail for 30 days and gave a $1000 fine.

  • It's a possibility...really nothing to do with Joe though. The problem is West Nile virus. The arizona version of the mosquito that carries it has a egg to adult phase of 3 days. They were trying to cut down on that. So, it was a public health thing. I doubt anyone got jail time. Fines were likely though. Wikibofh 22:08, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] If...

If you were a criminal, stay out of Joe's jurisdiction.Martial Law 08:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I was in his area, getting a $60,000 RV fixed when some idiot decided that he wanted to go to Joe's Tent City. I have a small "Camp/Portable,Batt. powered color TV".Martial Law 08:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Articles

I removed these articles from the external links section. These are not really 'external links' as much as they may be 'references'. I've included the list here as it might help editors in cleaning up the article and citing various references here and there. Dr. Cash 22:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I put the Amnesty International link in the context of the article itself, under the controversies section.
JesseG 04:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Cash, I agree that if someone wants to put up an external link, it should either be properly referenced or perhaps included in the controversies section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beliaprhun (talk • contribs) 22:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed slight viewpoint shift

I'm looking at the article a bit and it strikes me as being somewhat anti-Arpaio. I'm hesitant to just jump into it and try to neutralize what I see as slightly to moderately NPOV, but I think the article could definitely use some rewriting to make it a little more NPOV perhaps? Thoughts? Please let me know if I'm reading it too sensitively; he is a controversial figure and I could be projecting some of my opinions onto the article. Panchitavilletalk 07:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I've started trying to make this a little more NPOV. While I was doing it, I also need to do some research into statements that need citations. Again, please edit anything that skews too far in one direction or the other. Panchitavilletalk 01:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


I made the most recent changes about the Harper's article. A veteran is someone who served in the U.S. military, whether in combat or not. The previous phrasing made it sound like he claimed to be a Korean War combat veteran, which is erroneous. In addition to being awkwardly phrased, it was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of the term "veteran." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.162.175 (talk) 03:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Illegal Aliens

After the 2006 boycott and related matters, Joe Arpaio had stated that he will go after illegal aliens. He has said this on FOX News, Rush Limbaugh's radio show, other media. 19:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Update: He is being "protested" by a unknown organization because he is going after illegals and says he will not back down at all. Martial Law 00:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
He is only "going after" (aka: deporting) illegals who break laws first, not just random ones that he encounters.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.216.27 (talk • contribs)
Related to his policy on illegal aliens, he currently is stumping for Mitt Romney in Iowa because of his agreement with Romney's policies on illegal immigration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.65.81 (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvios

Someone has tagged this article as a copyvio in that "most of the text is from http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20030725-2230-phoenixheat.html". However, I can see only one paragraph they have in common. However, a couple of the other paragraphs seem to have been copy-and-pasted from other sources (even though it is hard to tell who copied who -- Wikipedia might have been the original source). In either case, I'm going to create a copy of this article on the subpage and clean up the stuff that seems to be a copyvio. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 15:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup complete -- ShinmaWa(talk) 16:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Botched SWAT job

I'm not from Phoenix so I don't know the reputation of the Phoenix New Times, but there was an interesting article that I was sent a link to: http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2004-08-05/news/dog-day-afternoon/ Seems under the direction of Arpaio, they seriously botched up a SWAT job, burning down a house and killing a dog. I'm not going to put it on the article page without some more corroboration, but anybody who's closer to this story feel free to run with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.11.11 (talk) 04:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, Linked to from Digg. Diggers please note the article date: 2004-08-05 thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and the page is semiprotected until the recent article-inspired furor dies down. It'll be locked for three days, so you have an opportunity to make your account now, read WP:BLP and WP:RS, and when the protection expires automatically, you can make constructive additions instead of those which will end up being reverted as vandalism. We appreciate your interest in Wikipedia. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
That's just one more Michael Vick crime – contributing to the popularity of three-year-old news. CliffC 12:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Many of the points in the Controversy section are sourced from the Phoenix New Times and arpaio.com. These are both highly biased and cannot be considered reliable sources. Arpaio.com doesn't even bother to masquerade as a newspaper like the Phoenix New Times does. However, I left the info there since it isn't necessarily derogatory toward Arpaio personally. If anyone thinks it should be removed, please do so. --L. Pistachio 19:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • What makes the Pheonix New Times unreliable? They're affiliated with the Village Voice, and have apparently won awards for reporting in the past. [1] While they seem to have strong opinions no one disputes their facts. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • You really think a publication that refers to the subject of this article as "Joke Arpaio" is a good source to use for a living person biography? Their "articles" would barely be fit for publication as editorials in a high school newspaper. It is not a legitimate newspaper. --L. Pistachio 00:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
      • And the New York Post puts pictures of world leaders on their cover edited to look like weasels. It doesn't mean they can't be used as a source for facts. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment The New York Post is (also?) a tabloid, I think what he's trying to say is that sources shouldn't be made from sensationalistic news papers, as in most cases they prioritize sales numbers (thus often exaggerating facts) over having correct facts. Please read WP:BLP#Sources. Grinder0-0 12:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
          • I've sourced from New Times but cross checked it with other news outlets like CNN. I respectfully disagree with Lord Pistachio. The New Times is legit. Weekly/free mags often have some of the best reporting on local issues. Also, while they certainly have an editorial bias against Arpaio, it is a criticism section. If you wanted to include criticism of a movie you would source reviewers who did not like the film. If anyone finds elements of the criticism section to be written poorly or POV go ahead and edit them, but please don't delete sourced info.Vegasjon 00:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
            • Comment I am not affiliated with new times but I do live in phoenix and read it from time to time. It is a free weekly publication of around 40 pages. Mostly it reports about events going on in Phoenix. Phoenix times has been known as an opponent of two highly debated issues in Phoenix: Joe Arpaio and Photo Radars. From what I gather New Times is a proponent of the freedoms of citizens as opposed to big government. It has been widely known for many years that Arpaio and New Times are at odds with each other. They seem to have taken the position as the Joe Arpaio Whistle Blower. A few years back they attempted to get information on some of Joes "Side Investments" as good information to know before an election. Joes staff successfully blocked the information from being released from public records long enough to get re-elected. Recently, Joe had the owners of New Times arrested for printing a secret subpoena from Joe requesting all the IP information for website visitors and all browsing history and all referring urls. After going public with the information the issue received a great deal of attention from newspapers and Joe received a great deal of criticism for the event. In addition, special prosecutors were illegally trying to get in contact with Judges about the case behind the backs of the defense attorneys. As a result of the reporting, the charges have been dropped and the special attorney was fired. While New Times is not Wall Street Journal (which is often bias) they are definitely not a gossip magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.224.231.77 (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] arpaio.com

An anonymous edit removed arpaio.com from the "External links". I was gonna revert it, since there was no comment, but I am far from sure that it should be here. It is definitely an agenda driven source, but it does document the opposition to Arpaio's conduct. Even if it is pure political rhetoric, I think that it is as much of the Joe Arpaio story as the Swift Boat website was part of the John Kerry story. Does anyone know of a WP policy under which a source like this can be referenced or mentioned? –BozoTheScary (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Free labor"

I assume that where this phrase is used in the article it means "unpaid labor". If that understanding is correct, "free labor" seems a particularly unfortunate choice of terms, since it is usually an antonym for "slave labor", not a synonym. - Jmabel | Talk 21:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)