Talk:Joe Arpaio
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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!
"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)
Contents |
[edit] is this true?
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)
- Amnesty International report: "Ill-treatment of inmates in Maricopa County jails
- Intellectual Conservative on Joe Arpaio
- Urban Legend on the Joe Arpaio email
- Truth or Fiction article on Joe Arpaio in Arizona-Truth!
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)
[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)
[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)
-
-
[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)