Talk:Joe Arpaio

Neutral Point of View, Verifiability and No Original Research

"Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, along with "Verifiability" and "No original research." Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.

This article is edited daily by a few bad apples that wish to use wikipedia as the place to make their political opinions known. This BLP needs to be protected.--OregonWrestling (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget WP:Assume_Good_Faith. Fearofreprisal (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Political Bais in this Article

Wikipedia is not the place for political rants and it's tragic when it happens. The opening paragraph of this article looks like what Rush Limbaugh would write about President Obama. This article opens up with a long list of far left wing organizations that are critical of a far right wing sheriff. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see this page is being used as a political blog and not a neutral wikipedia article regarding controversial Arpaio.

Wikipedia requires integrity otherwise it become useless. If you know you are strongly biased on a subject you should never write on that subject. Unless you really know can put your bias aside. Clearly not the case here.

Clean it up and make it a wikipedia article. Put the critical information in it's own catagory and remove it from the headline paragraph. Just common sense. And I agree after it's fixed this page likely needs to be protected. Arpaio is too much of a political hot button. I don't care to get into edit wars so I'm talking to the owner of this article. I'll fix it only once. After that I'll flag it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikearion (talk • contribs) 04:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The term "left wing" is pretty meaningless. Seems to me that if information on Arpaio's positive election results are in the intro, it makes sense to include balancing information. Generally speaking, I've watched this article for years (I live in Maricopa County, and have followed Arpaio since he was elected), and I've seen critical information stripped out on a regular basis. At this point, Arpaio is the most sued sheriff in the US. He's under investigation by the FBI, DOJ, and a federal grand jury. These are facts. Fearofreprisal (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Give me a f***king break. This article reads like a campaign ad for Sheriff Arpaio. I am adding a bias tag and hoping that someone who is a bit more neutral than I am can make this article balanced and fair. Right now it is a biased disgrace. DaysOfFuturePassed (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This page is supposed to be a biography about a living person. Instead it seems to be a place where individuals with and "ax to grind" can make attacks on a controversal man by posting bias, POV and unverifiable facts. I don't personally have a stake in the argument and my only position in this is that the page needs to remain factual and not slanted to any points of view.--OregonWrestling (talk) 01:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you point out, specifically, areas where you see bias? Can you supply citations to reliable sources that have alternate points of view? Fearofreprisal (talk) 07:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

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? ==''' 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)

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)

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)

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. Panchitaville^talk 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. Panchitaville^talk 01:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes the facts make a person look bad because they are bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.41.241.129 (talk) 02:28, 16 August 2009 (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)

The section entitled "Ray Stern Harrassment" refers to an event where Phoenix New Times reporter Ray Stern heard that MCSO employees were at the City of Phoenix records counter and went there to bother them so he could write a story (at least that's the way it appears). Stern has a vendetta against the Sheriff's Office because they cited him for disorderly conduct in October. The event is described in this leaked memo. There is nothing in the event that specifically involves Sheriff Arpaio, and I believe this section should be removed. --Tarantulas (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The MCSO employees were at searching through Phoenix public records at the request of the MCSO, as Mayor Gordon had made racial profiling claims against the Sheriff's Office. The event most certainly involves Joe Arpaio and his ongoing feud with the city. The fact that deputies attempted to harass a journalist make the event even more notable. Gaueko (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I read the report. The guy wasn't harrassed. He was asked to allow the Deputies space to adequetly and safely conduct business. Since these were documents signed over from the city to MCSO, MCSO legally could not hand them to this reporter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.41.103 (talk) 11:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

What has happened to the nuetral or unbiased rule of wikipedia? This article seems to bounce back and forth between pro and definite anti Joe Arpaio. Truly this should be deleted or the rules enforced. More than half of this article is either an opinion or unverified, which again is not following the rules of a wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.223.131 (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

Actually he stance is once you cross the border illegaly, you have broken law.76.177.41.103 (talk) 11:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

All citations from Phoenix New Times should be removed. The bias of the "newspaper" is very apparent to anyone who researches the issue. The founders of the "newspaper" have been arrested by deputies on several instances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.48.207 (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with citing factual information from a source, even if that source had an agenda. As far as I know, no one is accusing the Phoenix New Times of routinely getting its facts wrong. Yes, it has a point of view, but so do most media. ThePhantomCopyEditor (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it equally likely that they were arrested BECAUSE they told of a viewpoint Joe Arpaio didn't like, rather than them being upstarts who were arrested then began writing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.178.118 (talk) 07:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No, its much more likely, if the harassment of Don Stapley is any guide. PleasantDemise (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

i can't help but notice that in this article the only sections that seem to have adequate sourcing are the criticism sections. the remaining sections have little and sometimes no citations to them, even when the statements made seem outlandish (ie the "coffee mania" attacks... whatever those are). i think whoever feels they are responsible for the sections of ths article that are not in "criticisms" needs to tighten up the sourcing or run the risk of having material deleted. this is, after all, a living biography and policies on sourcing are quite strict. frymaster (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• and furthermore, after reviewing the sources in the non-criticisms sections of this article it appears that a number of them are from arpaio's own re-election website. if the new times is to be considered a biased source then, surely, mr. arpaio's own website should be considered equally biased. frymaster (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, having found this page years ago to be a slight rewrite of the Bio on the Sheriff Department website. That the 'citations' in the non-criticsm section reflects the Sheriff's re-election campaign website does not come as a surprise. While there is some controversy in citing the New Times, they were publishing many valid articles YEARS before the publishers were rounded up in the middle of the night and arrested. I find it distressing that all that valid journalism by many reporters over the course of years, is discounted. I am still of the opinion as stated on this talk page that this Sheriff is corrupt. The New Times has clearly demonstrated time and time again that political enemies of this man are targeted. Catblack (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

Arizona Republic

Some links to the Arizona Republic (www.azcentral.com) are broken, as they have been moved to a paid archive. I have replaced at least two links links that were deleted by CliffC. The new links point to the newspaper archive articles. If you want, you may pay for access to these articles to see that they indeed to include the referenced material, just as they did when they were on the free site. However, I think it is rather unreasonable to delete links to authoritative articles, just because they are now paid. Given the stakes involved with Arpaio, one might see such an action as showing bias. Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff to an edit where I have deleted a working link, paid or otherwise? As far as I can recall, the links I deleted (generally with the edit summary citation link is invalid, asking for another) led to an azcentral.com 404 message "The page you were looking for could not be found. Try one of the areas below, or use our site search". I don't call that a working link. If I use (as an example) the link you provided in your edit to support the "One-term promise" statement, diff here, I'm taken to an azcentral.com page stating "We are sorry. There was an error processing your request. Please try your request again", not to an offer to sell me access to the archived article. I don't call that a working link either. Maybe it works differently if you are already a subscriber, as I assume you are, but such a link has no value to anyone else. --CliffC (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have personal access to these archived articles, why not use the "quote=" parameter of the "cite" template to quote a few sentences in support of the claim the article is making? That would solve the verification problem. --CliffC (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

KJOE

I have reverted the undo from CliffC on KJOE, adding an authoritative link from the FCC, instead of the non-authoritative, but absurdly easy to verify link from WP. Just to be clear: Four letter callsigns starting with K are licensed by the FCC in the United States. The callsign KJOE is licensed to a radio station in MN (see the article for the link.) This puts Arpaio's use of the callsign in conflict with the legal licensee. I do not believe this is considered WP:OR. Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this is still your original research. You need to find a reliable source such as a mainstream newspaper reporting the conflict. That's how Wikipedia works. --CliffC (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added references to reliable sources, and removed my conclusory remark. If you'd like me to add further references, I'm happy to do so. If you still feel this is original research, we can escalate this through the dispute resolution process. Fearofreprisal (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No matter how many reliable sources you turn up to the separate facts involved, your looking up the call letters KJOE at the FCC site and reporting your findings in the article constitute original research. Wikipedia reports only what mainstream reliable sources report, not our own synthesis of separate facts. I've reverted the edit again, and will leave it to you to initiate dispute resolution. One way that might avoid expending a lot of your time and mine might be to ask for a third opinion on this one issue. In view of the pile of one-sided POV that this article is, one issue is not a big deal, just a small part of the whole. --CliffC (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify where you see the synthesis in my last version? Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Following the existing text In February 2007, Arpaio instituted an in-house radio station he calls KJOE., your last version adds The Federal Communications Commission(FCC), which regulates radio in the United States, lists the call letters KJOE as being assigned to an FM radio station in Slayton, Minnesota.. You (not some reliable source) have taken the undisputed fact that an FCC-licensed radio station elsewhere is already assigned call letters KJOE and reported it in a sentence that by its very presence implies that Arpaio's calling his jailhouse station KJOE is in conflict with the FCC assignment and somehow wrong or ill-considered. A reader who does not see your FCC statement as an implied criticism will see it as a non sequitur. Even if you were to find a supporting mention in mainstream media, a reader who shares our new-found knowledge about low-power stations will recognize the statement as irrelevant. --CliffC (talk) 12:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that you can get a more reliable source than the FCC about FCC licenses. I think that Arpaio's station is probably a low power transmitter that doesn't require an FCC license, and the KJOE callsign would be unofficial, if this were the case. Many high schools have unlicensed low power transmitters that can only be heard in the school building and immediate vicinity. The TV station that reported this probably just left these boring details out of their report. Having said that, there is no need to list the licensee of the real KJOE. The FCC doesn't really care what low-power transmitters choose to call themselves. --rogerd (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good information regarding transmitter power and probable FCC disinterest. I think your mention of "The TV station that reported this" may be based on a fallacy – as far as I know, there's never been anything in the article quoting such a report, perhaps I've overlooked it. I'm not questioning the reliability of the FCC site, I'm saying that the "conflict" has not been reported by a reliable source. --CliffC (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What "conflict" are you speaking of? The last version, before you reverted the edit, mentioned no conflict.Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The implied conflict mentioned above, same timestamp as this. --CliffC (talk) 12:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"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)

arpaio and "controversy"

not every incident listed under controversy directly involved arpaio, other than litigation against the department itself. it seems to me that the purpose of placing that many incidents involving the department is from a bias against arpaio. unless they directly involved him, the number of "controversies" concerning the department (but not necessarily him) during his terms could be virtually endless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smashyourface86 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The inmate death lawsuits seem quite relevant, as most relate to jail conditions, a subject which Arpaio is constantly discussing in media interviews. This litigation, and the issue of jail conditions in facilities run by the Sheriff's office, are also well-reported by the media in the valley as relating directly to Sheriff Arpaio. The fact that Arpaio was found personally liable for monetary damages in one of these cases reinforces their relevance to the article, as do the thousands of pending federal lawsuits which specifically list Arpaio as the defendant. Since Arpaio is the chief executive of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, the other issues in the criticism section also appear valid to me. Gaueko (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Smashyourface86. In fact, the entire article seems biased. I checked three citations, none of which suppported the point the writer addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.48.207 (talk • contribs) 2009-08-01 (UTC)

$0.28 Sandwiches

You guys forgot this little jewel. He said that, while doing this,"Why the fucking hell should a damn inmate get a $20.00 dinner when a $0.28 sandwich will suffice." The local media had carried this, other quotes. 65.173.104.138 (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

unsourced material

reviewing WP:SOURCE i was reminded of this quote from mr. wales: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. since this article is about a living person i think we should start culling the unsourced material sooner rather than later. frymaster (talk)

Photograph

Previous comments/questions demonstrated the difficulty of NPOV for this article. The accusation of pictures being removed was made, as of 2009/12/8 there is a photo in the article. PleasantDemise (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ambria Renee Spencer

In the section entitled, "Ambria Renee Spencer," the article mentions that a) she was arrested for DUI and b) that she was 9 months pregnant with a healthy baby girl.

I object to the term "healthy" on two fronts

• She was arrested for DUI - every intoxicating substance is medically ill-advised for pregnant women
• This claim is unverified (and most likely unverifiable.

In particular, having the note about DUI and putting "healthy" in that context makes the line appear self-contradictory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.72.102.163 (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The cited article says that Spencer's doctor had told her the fetus was healthy, which is after all the doctor's job, so I'm not sure why you think this is "unverifiable." I'm also not sure why you think the fact that she was convicted of DUI contradicts this. Drinking while pregnant sometimes adversely affects the baby's health, not always; according to the cited article, this was a case where it didn't. I've put the "healthy" back in, because I think it's important to clarify that this was not an ongoing health problem, but rather a sudden (and not uncommon) medical emergency that was not dealt with properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.225.137 (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Did Joe Arpaio Pull over this drunk future mother? No? Then why is it on his Biography?--OregonWrestling (talk) 15:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It was on his BLP because he is responsible for all actions of the MCSO. The Sheriff's Deputies and Jailers who committed the acts in this matter were acting under orders from Arpaio. But, of course, if you can find a citation so a reliable source to the contrary, it would be a good thing to add to the article. In any event, it's been removed by someone. I'll take a look at an old version, and clean it up, and repost it. It's relevant to Arpaio's anti-abortion policies, which have been in the news. Fearofreprisal (talk) 06:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

News articles after january 2009

Several articles after january 2009 have suggested based on this wikipedia entry that the persons middle name is Mussalini. This fact was verified with a courtdocument that mentions this name. Based on this blogpost, of Phoenix New Times, which are arguably sooner anti than pro-Arpaio, I have removed this information as being contested, and thus violating our WP:BIO. Note however that many articles over the past week have apparently consulted Wikipedia and used this information. As such, those can no longer be used as source for the name either. If people find other articles pre 2009 that have a verifiable different source, the please list them here so we can discuss them. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for a POV check

Article seems grossly out of balance. By a rough estimate, about 65% is devoted to direct criticism of Arpaio in the Arpaio-obsessed local press, 25% to indirect efforts to make him look cruel, clownish or incompetent (Oooh, he makes inmates wear pink underwear! Oooh, some deputies allowed their penises to be touched! Oooh, some deputies harassed a reporter!), 5% to actual biographical material (which for several days reported his middle name as Mussalini (sic) based on a drive-by anonymous edit), and 5% to vote tallies from five successful election campaigns. --CliffC (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What, do you want a page of his so-called 'accomplishments'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.235.31 (talk) 06:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Arpaio is proud of his rough treatment of prisoners and making them wear pink underwear, he promotes it proudly on the website...plus they're facts that both critics and supporters agree upon-how is that not neutral, each side interprets the facts their own way, wikipedia reports what's there...also, most of the negative stuff is under criticism and controversy, which would make sense, because most supporters don't start criticism and controversy and it's long because he's had a lot of both...not including it would be not neutral, the article retains NPOV by presenting it as controversy and citing sources, reporting the criticism as a fact, not necessarily that the critics are right or wrong...it would be wrong not to include these things since they exist, as you yourself acknowledge-the press reports on him a lot... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.133.180 (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I also believe the article is slanted against Arpaio. An uninformed reader would believe that Arpaio is the worst Sheriff in the country. Look at the election results--he must be doing something right....that's what his constituents believe. <span style="font-size: smaller;" Preceding unsigned comment added by lacarids:lacarids/ 01 AUG 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.48.207 (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Just the ones that can't see anything but illegal-immigration policy. (Reference: Resident conversing with other residents, not admitable as evidence, but nonetheless real) PleasantDemise (talk) 08:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The people who elected him initially may very well be under threat by him: besides, if one was to put Adolf Hitler and Richard Nixon on a ballot, Richard Nixon would (most likely) win by a landslide. Does this mean Nixon is a good person for the job, or does it mean he's better for the job? It might just mean he is more likeable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.178.118 (talk) 07:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Alleged harassment of New Times reporter section needs to be reviewed. Citation documents are very "he said/she said". Somewhere in between is probably that the Reporter was bothering the deputies while they were scanning documents and the deputies acted like dicks in response. I know that I would personally be bothered by someone going through a stack of documents while I was scanning them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.203.150.126 (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Lawsuits

As a first-time consumer of the Joe Arpaio page with no predisposition toward his approach to law enforcement, I have to say that the Lawsuits section left me wanting. I encourage those who follow these things to add a few lines to this section citing a statistic regarding the outcomes. At a minimum, this section should be combined with the section entitled Inmate Deaths and Injuries. Ginahoy (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Joe Arpaio is only named in these lawsuits because of his duty position, however because he isn't actually involved with the issues in question...these lawsuits should not be on his BLP. They should be listed solely on the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO).--OregonWrestling (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a citation to a reliable source that Arpaio is not involved with lawsuits where he is named as defendant? Fearofreprisal (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This section refers to the site as it was on August 11, 2009. The section is question does not exist in its current state anymore with this title. The current section titled "Lawsuits Filed by Joe Arpaio and the MCSO" are lawsuits that Arpaio personally announced, as the citations support, and so I strongly support their inclusion. Overdriver (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was planning on expanding the coverage of Arpaio-filed lawsuits. The legal infighting between Arpaio, Andrew Thomas, and the Board of Supervisors has cost the county over $3.2 million in legal fees in the last 18 months. See this. Fearofreprisal (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Inmate deaths and injuries

A time frame is needed for the '...paid more than $43 million in settlement claims' comment, especially when juxtaposed with the comment in the Lawsuits section ("By mid-2007, more than $50 million in claims have been filed..."). Ginahoy (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere is Don Stapley's arrests been mentioned. More than notable considering he's the County Supervisor (or was). [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.0.105 (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, this needs to be inserted, esp. as Arpaio's second arrest of Stapley might demonstrate harassment. (Being a "newbie" here to Wikipedia, I'm not sure how to proceed in a professional manner in this (biased? me? nooo...yes, though I do try to keep to the NPOV, that's why we have peer-review, right? :) that would keep the article neutral but also comprehensive as to multiple events that, taken together, might seem disturbing.) PleasantDemise (talk) 08:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Stapley's arrest is irrelevant to the issue of inmate deaths and injuries. With respect to the time frame on settlement claims, it is the relevant period: the time during which Arpaio has been Sheriff. 07:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearofreprisal (talk • contribs)

I added these deaths back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonbocop (talk • contribs) 03:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"Tent Cities" Common in U.S.

I removed the claim “Many prisons and jails throughout the United States have used, and continue to use, tents to house inmates” because the reference, http://www.nytimes.com/1983/06/25/us/837-antinuclear-protesters-face-weekend-in-4-jail-tents.html, does not support that claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UtahSurfer (talk • contribs) 18:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

One note that those with time might look at is temperature. Half the year is covered (summer) but the winters here in Phoenix do get down to freezing (30's F). Tenants are allowed one blanket in the open tents. Being new I'd probably stick in a simple weather link as a reference while someone with more experience could find an article covering this actual aspect of the camp. PleasantDemise (talk) 08:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

An inmate has to volunteer before he receives a bed in tent city.--OregonWrestling (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a citation to a reliable source for this? Fearofreprisal (talk) 06:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Inmate deaths and injuries

Every prison in the nation has inmate deaths and those inmates die for any number of reasons. My question is why is there such a lengthy and detailed list in this article, but not in any other article on any other county Sheriff. How many inmates have died in LA County under Lee Baca’s tenure or in Cook county under Tom Dart? This entire section seems excessive, and given the fact that it all relies on only one source, not terribly notable.

I am going to remove it unless there are objections. BluefieldWV (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point, no argument here with removing the section. That section is the main (but not the only) reason this article is so grossly out of balance. The article already has a "lawsuits" section that seems sufficient. --CliffC (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I added this section back in a limited capacity. I'm interested in hearing any suggestions as I believe it's relevant enough to be included but might benefit from some review and clean up.Jonbocop (talk) 03:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix New Times

Considering the relationship between Arpaio and the PNT, I think its safe to conclude that they are not a WP:RS when it comes to Arpaio and should not be used as a source for any contentious material if it cannot be independently verified. BluefieldWV (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Having lived in the Phoenix area for close to 20 years, I can tell you that the New Times is a free publication, published once per week, and is not a reliable source of objective journalism regarding the Sheriff. The New Times leans far to the left, is clearly anti-establishment, and has had an ongoing feud with Sheriff Arpaio for years. Just read one of the numerous profanity laced New Times editorials regarding Joe Arpaio and I'm sure you'll come to the same conclusion. The fact is that Sheriff Arpaio has been elected five times simply because he is no-nonsense, not politically correct, and he enforces the law, no matter what the law is, against everyone, regardless of their race. He has even arrested police officers who have broken the law.

I would like to see those articles. Personally I am very much in support of enforcing the national borders, but if one is to put that issue aside it is easy to see that the manner in which Arpaio manages his department (and others) is frightening and anything but "no-nonsense." (Examples include supporting the prosecution of a K9 officer working for a city department but turning a blind eye to his own officers repeatedly being as neglectful, taking away condiments from the lunch line to "save money" (~15K?) but buying two tanks (TANKS??) for parades.) Thus I have trouble accepting your argument. (I also have lived in the Phoenix area for ~20 years) PleasantDemise (talk) 08:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

While you might not like the tone of New Times articles, it is a reliable source. The New Times, and its reporters, regularly win more awards for investigative journalism than any other Arizona media organization. Arpaio has a history of trying to silence the New Times, including preventing reporters from attending press conferences, refusing to provide materials under the Freedom of Information Act, and arresting its publisher and editor, without warrants, on trumped-up charges. (All of these, incidentally, are verifiable from independent sources.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 11:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Tenure in Nevada.

I'm not sure if this was just a typo, but the article says he worked in Las Vegas for six months in 1957, until he was hired by the DEA. The DEA was not created until 1973. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.131.172 (talk) 19:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Joe V Wiki =

So is Wikipedia one more place that Joe has rights but all other rights of free speech and truth are allowed but only secondary to Joe's rights.

Wikipedia is supposed to be a place for facts.

The fact is that this "man" and the "MSCO" has had a long history of wrongful death and abuse suits that have been settled and I want to know why those have been removed. Facts are facts regardless of political and legal shenanigans.

I am flagging edits on this page history for review and will be demanding that edit are track backed to IP and compared to source for those coming from county IP's from Maricopa county.

Please help in restoring some truth to this page.

Slarabee (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Every large department has a number of wrongful death suits brought against it. Arpaio is no exception and should be treated no differently than any other LE officer on Wikipedia. WVBluefield (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the scale and scope of prisoner abuse suits brought against Arpaio belies comparison with any other similar law enforcement organization in the United States. From the page: "From 2004 through November 2007, Arpaio was the target of 2,150 lawsuits in U.S. District Court and hundreds more in Maricopa County courts, with more than $50 million in claims being filed, 50 times as many prison-conditions lawsuits as the New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston jail systems combined." I would say this makes him distinct from other law enforcement officials. Fearofreprisal (talk) 11:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. Joe is the most controversial LE official in the nation by far. The accusations of abuse of power against him are endless and continual. I will be putting together the list again as it was sourced and adding it. If a edit war erupts then we shall let the moderates settle it. This is not Maricopa county this is Wikipedia and information should be shared as long as it is accurate. 68.77.108.119 (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This page is supposed to be a biography about a living person. Instead it seems to be a place where individuals with and "ax to grind" can make attacks on a controversal man by posting bias, POV and unverifiable facts. I don't personally have a stake in the argument and my only position in this is that the page needs to remain factual and not slanted to any points of view.--OregonWrestling (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

OregonWresting, you deleted a section as having a POV, regarding popularity ratings coming out of a poll. It is relevant in the section, as it shows a balance between the prior popularity that is posted there. Are you saying that the ABC affiliate is biased and so that poll is biased? Why do you consider that a POV? There is a quote in the article that includes a response and acknowledgment by Arpaio that his popularity has dropped. Please explain your reasoning. This is the section you deleted "While Maricopa County voters reelected him sheriff in 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008 by double-digit margins, as of the beginning of 2010, Arpaio's approval rating has dropped to 39%." Overdriver (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Corruption Investigation and Conflicts with Local Judiciary

Has anyone thought to update with the events surrounding the contempt citation issued to Dep. Adam Stoddard along with Arpaio and the County Attorney charging the County Board of Supervisors and several judges with conspiracy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.254.71 (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree - it has become a door rattling joke. We need that information added. 72.177.27.204 (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to add this section in a neutral point of view but I do not expect that it will stay for long with all the attacks on this page. It is titled "Lawsuits Filed by Joe Arpaio and the MCSO". It does not cite the Phoenix Times and references Arpaio's own quotes. Feedback and constructive criticism welcome.Overdriver (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Moved section due to bias and style concerns

I moved the section "Organizations Openly Critical of Joe Arpaio" to within the "Controversy and criticism" section for the following reasons:

1. - it breaks the Manual of Style to begin a page with a criticism section.
2. - it skirts the line unduly with WP:BIO to do such a thing to a biographical page.
3. - as it was written it was mostly redundant with the "Controversy and criticism" section.

Additionally, I have renamed it "Critical organizations". There is no need to mention Mr. Arpaio's name in a subsection, and calling organizations "openly" critical is something akin to suggesting that an african-american politician is "openly black." Let's avoid unnecessary WP:WEASEL words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Battle, Fifty Percent (talk • contribs) 16:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the weasel issue here. The renaming is ok, but it's certainly also common for an organization to be privately (not openly) critical of someone. We don't as often hear in the current era that a politician is privately black, but Warren G. Harding was sometimes said to fit that description.[3] 66.127.55.192 (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Many people and organizations are not openly critical of Arpaio, for fear of retribution. (I am one of these people.) If you'd like, I can provide citations to articles that support this. Fearofreprisal (talk) 10:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If you've got solid sources, please do. - Schrandit (talk) 05:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you think a section should be added for this? A number of public figures -- including County Supervisors, the Phoenix Mayor, and the Superior Court Presiding Judge, have recently filed notices of claim (preludes to lawsuits) with the county for damages related to Arpaio's abuse of power. There are a number of lawsuits pending against Arpaio in both state and federal courts related to this. Fearofreprisal (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The SWAT story

Terrible? Yes. Impeachable? Possibly. Were they there about a traffic ticket? Not a chance. It was a horrible thing but it is ridiculous to arrange words to make it seem like they rolled into that house looking to serve a misdemeanor warrant. - Schrandit (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is this info coming from?? I smell OR. Quote the source or find another source to support what you are saying. I have directly quoted the ref for clarity. Outback the koala (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

To start off with, the article isn't that great. It is an opinion piece of this sheriff in an election year. The author very carefully says that he was arrested on a traffic warrant but never says what the warrant to search the house was about. If you read the whole thing it becomes obvious why a judge said "yeah, its a good idea to kick this guy's door down" and it wasn't over a traffic ticket. - Schrandit (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The source article stands on its own. It includes photos that plainly show the burned down house, and the armored personnel carrier, as well as attributed quotations from neighbors. It is an investigative journalism article, not an opinion piece. The Sheriff's office has not disputed the facts as presented in the article.Fearofreprisal (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The source uses crude, less than journalistic phrases and insinuations as well as clearly evading the real reason for the raid. This was a hit piece in an election year. - Schrandit (talk) 05:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Why must we continue to pretend that the SWAT team was there because of the traffic ticket. Take not that the article takes care to avoid saying that they were there to serve an arrest warrant. - Schrandit (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Staged Assassination

How come there isn't a section on Joe Arpaio staging his own assassination? Pheonix New times article JackNapierX (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "staged". We used to have a section cited to that same New Times article that said

Alleged assassination conspiracy

James Saville was arrested in July 1999 for allegedly conspiring to murder Joe Arpaio with a pipe bomb. Saville had just completed an 18-month sentence for arson for attempting to blow up his high school by filling it with gas from 37 opened bunsen burners. While in prison, Saville had drawn crude bomb plans and expressed to a jailhouse snitch the desire to kill the prosecutor and judge in his arson case. He was arrested the day after his release while assembling a bomb in the presence of an undercover sheriff's deputy. A jury decided that undercover officers from the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office had entrapped Saville by turning his assassination plans toward Sheriff Arpaio, and found Saville not guilty.

--CliffC (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It is clear that the "Phoenix New Times" is not a reliable unbiased source for anything related to Sheriff Joe Arpaio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OregonWrestling (talk • contribs) 00:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well... like I've said in other parts of this talk page... It doesn't need to be unbiased. It only needs to be reliable. Fearofreprisal (talk) 06:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix New Times a biased source

I removed a statement in the lead cited to the "Feathered Bastard" anti-Arpaio blog in the Phoenix New Times (title: "Feathered Bastard: Joe Arpaio Watch: U.S. Department of Justice Team in Phoenix, Activists Impatient with Investigators"). Every statement in our article cited solely to the Phoenix New Times should be removed, based on WP:BLP requirements for solid sourcing. Another example of the long-running New Times campaign against Arpaio can be seen here, an article picturing an imaginary Arpaio campaign poster captioned SUPPORT RACISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE and including an imaginary dialog between Arpaio and disgraced former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich in which Arpaio seeks advice on a gubernatorial run. Using biased sources makes us look biased as well. --CliffC (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Irrespective of your statements, the Phoenix New Times meets the criteria at WP:V for reliability. If you have specific concerns, you should post them at WP:RSN, rather than unilaterally removing sections of this article that are properly cited. Fearofreprisal (talk) 08:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Phoenix New Times (PNT) is clearly not an unbiased source document or appropriate reference for this BLP. Their website clearly highlights the fact that they are attempting to have Joe Arpaio removed from office and have had a grudge against him for over 15 years(http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/arpaio. This website is vandalized daily by people that want to use Wikipedia as their platform to present their personal beliefs instead of presenting relevant and factual unbiased information that adds to this BLP.--OregonWrestling (talk) 11:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the Phoenix New Times as a source, you should go to WP:RSN. Until you get it excluded there, it's a reliable source here. Fearofreprisal (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

More on the Phoenix New Times as a "biased source."

WP:V and WP:RS do not require a source to be unbiased: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source..., not whether editors think it is true."

The important question is whether or not the Phoenix New Times is a "reliable source." The Phoenix New Times is a 40 year old newspaper that was founded with the premise of holding public officials accountable. Irrespective of having a contentious relationship with Arpaio, it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. (As can be shown by triangulation with other Phoenix media outlets.) It has a "professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments," which, under WP:RS, places it in the company of not just "reliable sources", but of "best sources."

WP:NPOV requires that "all Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."

If you don't like what a section of the Arpaio article citing the Phoenix New Times has to say, the solution is not to remove that section. (You know who I'm talking to.) The solution is to find an opposing view published by another reliable source. Fearofreprisal (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Alleged Vandalism

If you have a claim that someone has vandalized this page, please make your discussion and or concern noted here on the discussion page so changes can be debated. Read up on the vandalism policy and do not claim vandalism for every change you see or your changes will be reverted.

"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example adding a controversial personal opinion to an article is not vandalism, although reinserting it despite multiple warnings can be disruptive (however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see WP:EW). Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful thought may be needed to decide whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well-intended, or outright vandalism." Overdriver (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the Oregonian does raise a valid point - should information regarding the jail (and I think much of it is poorly sourced to begin with) remain on a BLP? Doesn't it belong on a different article? - Schrandit (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Maricopa County Sheriff's office has it's own page. Anything relating strictly to that branch of County Government should be on the MCSO page and should only be included on the Sheriffs page if it is something that he pesonally was involved with. Clearly the "SWAT" issues were not related to him in any way, and at best could be included in the MCSO page only. The reality is that this page appears to be regularly vandalised by people with a bias against this living person. I apologize for what Overdriver says is my misuse of the term "vandalism" by wikipedia standards, however what I removed was clearly nonsense that had been erroneously added to highlight someones point of view by using unrelated events.--OregonWrestling (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this page is regularly vandalized by people with an agenda. For example, the section heading that was titled "Conflicts with local news media" had been changed to "Attacks by local news media". This is regarding an incident where the publishers of the New Times were arrested at home in the early morning hours on a flawed subpoena that was quashed the next day by the county attorney. Someone without a bias could argue that that it was the paper who was attacked by the sheriff's office, rather than the paper attacking Arpaio, or at the very least, keep the heading neutral.72.201.148.244 (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Phoenix New Times (PNT) is openly "Anti-Arpaio". Which is why they are an unreliable source in regards to this subject. To see the ongoing attacks by that organization, you only need to go to their website (http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/arpaio) to see they clearly have a Bias against the Sheriff and openly and proudly attack him. An unbiased person examining the facts of the event in question would see that the PNT attacked the Sheriff by putting his personal home address in their article.--OregonWrestling (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

An person writing on Wikipedia should present the facts from a neutral point of view and let the reader make their own mind up. Overdriver (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a place for facts, not a place for opinions or individual biases. A Biography of a Living Person (BLP) is a place for fact about that persons life, and is not a place for political rivals to take shots at the Living Person by placing their political biases or unverifiable statements masked as facts.--OregonWrestling (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

OregonWrestling, you have a history of tendentious editing. You've, over a period of time, removed large chunks of factual, verifiable, and appropriately cited content. Yet you only do so when it is negative to Arpaio. You have consistently left uncited material which is positive, or which expresses opinions. I suspect that you are, in reality, an MCSO employee, and possibly in the public relations department. I believe you to be a vandal. Fearofreprisal (talk) 11:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I have not removed one factual unbiased piece of relevant information. I have however edited this BLP to remove any irrelevant or unsubstantiated information. This is a BLP about Joe Arpaio and should only contain information about events that Joe Arpaio had direct relation to. This is not a platform for any individual (on either side) to make thier political argument. This also is not the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office page, so with that in mind there is no justifiable reason for "SWAT Blunders" or "Inmate Deaths" to appear on this page if Joe Arpaio was not directly involved. --OregonWrestling (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You've removed a lot of information. And, to be clear, Information is not, in itself, biased. If you feel that information is presented without NPOV, then certainly that presentation should be edited to make it neutral. With reference to Arpaio not being directly involved -- under the Arizona Constitution, Arpaio is both responsible and accountable for the Maricopa Sheriff's Department. All Deputies, jailers, and other employees of the MCSO derive their authority by delegation from Arpaio. As validation of this, he is personally named in every one of the lawsuits filed against the MCSO. In any event, let's just assume that you're a sincere and unbiased editor, and not actually an employee of the MCSO. Would you like to cover each item you've deleted, one by one, and discuss its relevance? We can certainly do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearofreprisal (talk • contribs) 12:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree, OregonWrestling has removed large amounts of factual, verifiable, and appropriately cited content, and the removals are done in large chunks with no prior discussion. Removals should be posted here on this page and discussed rather than do them in large swaths that leave other editors no choice but to undo to revert the page back. If you have problems with a paragraph, discuss it on this page and then edit items one at a time. You appear to be using this as a political platform and yet you accuse others of doing so.Overdriver (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

SO why not move the info off this BLP, and onto Joe Arpaio controversy? It's practically a mirror of this page in its current state. Outback the Koala (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Intentionally Misleading Edit Summaries to Hide Vandalism

OregonWrestling has started to use misleading edit summaries. In the last one, he said "(corrected wording to increase readability)." Not quite. He had actually undone a dozen or more edits I'd completed in the last few hours. These edits were factual, NPOV, cited, and fully conformed to the requirements of WP:BLP. I believe that OregonWrestling may likely be a sock puppet for the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. Fearofreprisal (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

the correct term might be 'WP:meatpuppet in this case, actually. (although I take no opinion on the matter currently) Outback the koala (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocks

I have blocked both users for a short time for this edit-war, and protected the article for 3 days. I'd suggest that anyone else editing here (and the two users after their blocks expire) use this time to discuss improvements to the article here. I would point out;

• Material in a BLP that is at all contentious should be sourced
• Unsourced material can be removed at any time
• Removing sourced material without a good reason may be perceived as vandalism
• WP:UNDUE suggests that minor incidents in the subject's life may not be suitable for inclusion especially if they are contentious
• Material should be specifically relevant to the subject, not solely to their workplace or employers
• Per MoS, the subject should be referred to by their surname after the lead section

Thanks, Black Kite 13:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for the edit war. I didn't know the rules, nor how to properly handle the situation. I think I do now. Fearofreprisal (talk) 06:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is a disgrace to Wikipedia

This article is a Biography of a Living Person (BLP) and it should be protected to prevent vandalism. The topic is a highly controversial public figure, and as such it is vandalised daily by people with a political agenda. This article goes against everything that wikipedia stands for and if it can't be corrected and protected then it needs to be deleted. Several editors (including myself) have tried to clean up this article, however the wikipedians with sock puppet accounts have won and have turned this into an anti-Arpaio webpage instead of a relevant, unbiased, informative article.--OregonWrestling (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This article embarasses me as a Wikipedian.--OregonWrestling (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This article in its current state does not embarrass me as a Wikpedian- it could be improved, certainly, but there are good things about Mr. Arpaio in there as well as references to critical material. It would be biased if there were no critical information in there.

Take a section at a time and list out the changes you would propose to change and why, and gain consensus on how to improve the article. As you have noted, Mr Arpaio is a controversial figure and so by nature of this being a biographical page, that controversy should be noted on the page so it is presented fairly. Start by picking the section that bothers you the most and propose how you would change it and why, or if there is a new subject that you want to present it here, go that route and provide new referenced material. If there is criticism or praise that can be adequately sourced and presented without a bias, it may belong here.Overdriver (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Oregon, this guy is a highly controversial public figure. It's gonna happen. really most of these sections should be shortened and linked away to a non-blp page. If you suspect sockpuppetry, then report it, dont lament about it here. You will get no sympathy from me for wallowing in selfpity because you feel you were 'ganged up on'(my words not yours) by what you think are sockpuppets. What do you think is so objectionable? Please, take it line by line if you have to. Do you really feel this page is running so afoul of wikipedia norms for blp pages? Be specific in the future. Outback the koala (talk)

Oregon, you engaged in an edit war, then reported me for vandalism and sockpuppetry. I consider all this to be water under the bridge. Let's move forward. Overdriver and Outback have suggested that you go through the article a section at a time, and list out the changes you would propose, along with your reasoning. That seems to be a reasonable course of action. Fearofreprisal (talk) 08:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit protected page

{{editprotected}} Some Section titles contain too many '=' and need to be removed. Thank You. Outback the koala (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it was missing a '=' actually.  Fixed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Problems

Here is a starting list of problems with the article that I see:

• History and Law Enforcement Background: self-published citation source
• Actions as Maricopa County Sheriff: Cite check. No mention that "Arpaio has instituted or strengthened" the programs.
• Changes to Jail operations, Banned pornography: Citation broken. Cite check.
• Tent City: Citations missing.
• Sheriff's Posse: Citations missing.

There are more problems, but this is a start. Fearofreprisal (talk) 11:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

This article in it's current form is an embarrassment. This article is a great example of why academic institutions don't allow Wikipedia to be cited as a reference.

A few changes that would make this article more reliable are:

• This article written less as an informative article and more as an anti-arpaio page. Bias needs to be removed.
• Lawsuits that involve the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office(MCSO) need to be moved to the MCSO page.
• The section "Swat Botch" needs to be removed from this page as it doesn't involve the subject of this BLP.
• Anything citing Phoenix New Times (PNT) needs to either be removed or cited to a respected resource.--OregonWrestling (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that any lawsuits that are initiated with a press conference lead by Mr. Arpaio with quotes from Mr. Arpaio should be part of the page on his biography as he is clearly the driving force behind the lawsuits. It's part of who he is and what he is about, and so they may also belong on the MCSO page, but they need to be part of this page as well.

I think there is a large amount of bias that leads to it being a pro-Arpaio page, this is all not just bashing, and many of the pro Arpaio sections are not even cited. All bias needs to be removed, both pro and con.

The Phoenix New Times is being accused of bias, but there are no questions I have seen about their accuracy. When possible, if it will make everyone more comfortable, I am OK with other sources being used or double citing if need be, but to say that nothing that they have written has any merit is a stretch. I have been doing a lot of reading on Arpaio, and frankly, they are few press articles that seem very friendly, and quite a few editorials (example, New York Times, Arizona Republic, as cited in bio) that are openly hostile. Should we then say that we should not use those papers as sources?Overdriver (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Oregon's comments:

• Bias needs to be removed: pLease identify specific instances where you see bias, and identify reliable sources which provide an alternative view.
• Lawsuits that involve the MCSO need to be moved: Certainly -- if Arpaio is not a named party in the suit. In each of the lawsuits on the Arpaio page, Arpaio is a named party. In a event, please understand that, under the Arizona Constitution, Arpaio is responsible for all acts of the MCSO. He has further made this quite clear in his public statements.
• The section "Swat Botch" needs to be removed from this page as it doesn't involve the subject of this BLP: Can you provide a citation to a reliable source that this raid did not involve Arpaio?
• Anything citing Phoenix New Times (PNT) needs to either be removed or cited to a respected resource: Can you provide a rationale for this?

Fearofreprisal (talk) 06:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, I've listed a few passages/sections with citation problems. Is there anyone out there who is willing to step up and fix these problems? Fearofreprisal (talk) 06:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Page

Moving the following sections to the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office (MCSO) page would help make this page a lot more reliable and informative.

• The section "Improper Clearance of MCSO cases" needs to either be moved to the MCSO page or eliminated.
• The section "Loss of Jail Accredidation" needs to either be moved to the MCSO page or eliminated.
• The section "Inmate deaths and injuries" needs to either be moved to the MCSO page or eliminated.
• The section "Charles Agster" needs to either be moved to the MCSO page or eliminated.
• The section "Scott Norberg" needs to either be moved to the MCSO page or eliminated.
• The section "Richard Post" needs to either be moved to the MCSO page or eliminated. --OregonWrestling (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide the rationale for each of these proposed moves? Fearofreprisal (talk) 05:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, if you could explain your reasons for proposing this, please, it would really be helpful. You're giving no reason for removing them currently (although I do think some of this might need to be moved, this is quite extensive). Outback the koala (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

What belongs in this article

Here's what WP:Wellknown says:

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

Seems pretty clear. But let me give an example. There was a section (which I removed a few days ago) that said:

In April 2010, Sheriff Arpaio implemented a program called "Pedal Vision", in which inmates pedal "inmate-powered cycles to generate electricity for televisions". Arpaio stated that inmates have "a reason to get moving and a way to burn up to 500 calories an hour".[16]

This item was certainly relevant (because Arpaio was quoted in the press release), and it was well-documented, because many news outlets picked up the story. But, was it notable? From WP:notability:

The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere "flash in the pan", nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason.

and

Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, paid material, autobiography, and product placement are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

It would be hard to argue that the press coverage of this topic was anything but a result of promotional activity on the part of Arpaio. Had the company that makes the bicycle generators issued a press release that they were being used at some unnamed jail, would it have been notable? The subject is certainly a "flash in the pan." If, a month from now, Arpaio had the bicycle generators removed from the jail, I doubt any news media organizations would notice.

While some publicity stunts (e.g., pink underwear, if only because of the controversy surrounding the unaccounted-for funds from their sale) seem legitimately notable, others (e.g., the neon "vacancy" sign at tent city) are purely self-promotional, and devoid of substance. I'd welcome some clarification from the cognoscenti on where to draw the line. Fearofreprisal (talk) 08:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

User:OregonWrestling has flagged this article with a WP:NPOVD tag. What he didn't do was initiate the required NPOV Dispute discussion here, on the talk page. So, I'm doing it for him.

The POV dispute tag asks that the person adding it at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what they consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the troubling passages, elements, or phrases specifically enough to encourage constructive discussion that leads to resolution.

OK, Oregon... What specific things in the article are troubling to you, and what specific steps do you propose taking to fix them? Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I have repeatedly and more than adequately stated the POV issues in this article. As a faithful and unbiased Wikipedian I have attempted to correct the problems myself. Unfortunately though there are a few bad apples that are working diligently to make this article into their own personal Anti-Arpaio platform. Sadly, I allowed myself to get caught up in what was rightfully deemed as an "editing war" while trying to make this article respectable. With that in mind I have sadly given up on this article and hopefully other editors will be able to correct the major issues in this article.--OregonWrestling (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing belongs on this BLP that isn't directly related to Joe Arpaio. The only reason anyone would fight so hard to include the lawsuits against MCSO that don't involve Joe Arpaio is because they are trying to push their Point Of View on future readers. Joe Arpaio is a highly controversial individual that people either love or hate, but Wikipedia is NOT the place for individuals to make their political platform. I personally am indifferent on this individual, however I am a supporter of Wikipedia and the way this article is written is an embarassment.--OregonWrestling (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Nothing belongs in this BLP that isn't directly related to Arpaio. Point out the specific things here that you think aren't directly related to Arpaio, and we can discuss them. For example, the lawsuits. They are not against the MCSO. They are all against Arpaio directly. Here is an article (from a reliable source) where Arpaio is named in a suit, and where the US District Court has ruled that he, and not the MCSO, is the appropriate defendant. The order of the court, linked to by the article, states that the MCSO is a non-jural entity (and thus may not be sued), so it is Joe Arpaio, as Sheriff, who is liable for suit. Moving any of the suits from the Arpaio article to the MCSO article would be inappropriate, as it is Arpaio, not the MCSO, that is being sued.(By the way: regards a lawsuit's relevance for inclusion: It's only relevant if a reliable source wrote about it. Arpaio gets sued every day, but most of the suits never get mentioned in the newspaper or on television. It's only when a suit actually becomes a part of the news that it becomes relevant here. Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The entire section entitled "Improper clearance of MCSO cases" should be removed and relocated to the MCSO page. Even by the most relxed standards, that section is purely an MCSO topic and shouldn't be on this page.--OregonWrestling (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The Goldwater Institute report is title “Mission Unaccomplished: The Misplaced Priorities of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office”. There is exactly one person who sets the priorities (and policies regarding case clearance) for the MCSO. That's Joe Arpaio. The section belongs here. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me add, that if you want to add some citations showing a viewpoint that this is *not* an Arpaio issue, that'd be fine. I found a Nightline interview with Arpaio on the subject. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, so OregonWrestling has "given up on this article" and left the debate on NPV to others as of 21:23, 12 April 2010. We have one issue that is being debated, the inclusion of "Improper clearance of MCSO cases". Are the any other issues from anyone that should be addressed as not presenting factually, noteworthy items that belong on a BLP?.Overdriver (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't count on him having "given up on this article." Regards the Improper Clearance section: If someone is truly concerned that it somehow is not relevant to Arpaio, I'm happy to load it up with citations and quotations a variety of reliable sources. I've found literally no reliable sources who claim that it's not an Arpaio issue, and I've found many articles (including a series which won a Pulitzer Prize) from reliable sources that do claim its an Arpaio issue. If I include those, even though WP:NPOV (including all significant views that have been published by reliable sources), the results are going to look like piling on. Fearofreprisal (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

MCSO controversies page

Apparently Outback the koala had some issues with any controversies being presented in this BLP! Based on WP:BOLD, he moved them all to another article. I followed the rules at WP:BRD, and added them back. Here is my rationale: The controversies included in this article are regarding Arpaio, in his official capacity as Maricopa County Sheriff. The buck stops with him on all MCSO controversies. If you move the controversies section to another article, you will have a serious POV problem with both this and the other article. People will call this one a whitewash, and they'll call the other one an attack. Further, as the other article is Maricopa County Sheriff's Office controversy, and not "Arpaio Controversy", it is not accurate. No reliable source has called the MCSO controversial. Many reliable sources have called Arpaio controversial. Fearofreprisal (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Really I have no problem with the info being here, and I'm glad you decided to use WP:BRD (but do keep in mind that it is not policy or guideline or "rules"). However, not all the info is clear-cut only Joe Arpaio focused information. Its really much better to put the information on the MCSO controversies page, because;

• then all the information is in one place, very encyclopedic, especially for info that is not mutually exclusive to either Arpaio or MCSO
• there is more than enough information on both pages for a main page of it's own
• by having the information on the other page, we avoid BLP issues because we only link to that page from here leaving only one or two paragraphs here detailing the major details of these events.

If you have an issue with the name of the other article, please by all means, rename it. If you look at the history, the article's original name was "Joe Arpaio controversy" and I had to change the name to its current incarnation because Oregon was depicting it as an attack page is a user space. Change it back to original name if you wish, it in main space now for all to edit and improve.

Please, I'd like to hear what you think about this and ways to improve that article. Outback the koala (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been mulling over this issue, of how to structure and locate relevant information. As it is, this article only grazes the surface of the actual issues in play. It doesn't even touch on Arpaio's policies regarding legal abortions, punishment of pretrial detainees, jail staffing, health services... or a variety of other important topics. For the most part, the controversy section mentions incidents, without putting them into a larger context. Consider, for example, the issue of illegal immigration. Arpaio has some well-publicized viewpoints on the topic, and he has both fans and critics. A well structured NPOV section would include the perspectives of all of those people.

My sense is that, if we include all the appropriate detail on the controversies in the main Joe Arpaio article, it will become unweildy. At the same time, merely pointing readers to a "controversy" article seems inappropriate, as it makes the main article look like a campaign ad. (Arpaio is considering running for Governor, so this might become an issue.) I'd say that it might be a good thing to provide summaries of controversial issues on the main page, and link to the separate controversies page for more detail. Using my example of illegal immigration again, the main page might focus on Arpaio's views (that he's just enforcing the law), those of his fans (that he's "solving" the illegal immigrant "problem"), and those of his critics (that he's violating the civil rights of people, including US citizens, just because they have brown skin), and provide a summary of relevant news (e.g., that he's facing a class-action suit for racial profiling, and is the subject of FBI, DOJ, and Federal Grand Jury investigations), while the controversies page might provide more detail and more extensive coverage of specific incidents.

As to whether controversies are Joe Arpaio controversies, or MCSO controversies -- I think it's a little slippery. For example, in the issue of the detention officer who was found in contempt of court, and ordered to apologize. That was an MCSO controversy... until Arpaio went public, and said that no one tells his deputies to apologize but him, and that the deputy did nothing wrong. Then, it shifted to being an Arpaio issue. The buck stops with Arpaio. If he condones civil rights abuses by his employees, or by his policies creates an environment where those abuses are likely to occur then the controversy is his. (I'm thinking of an example where an inmate was beaten to death. The MCSO said, initially, that they did nothing wrong. Then a local TV station broadcast the jail video, which showed the entire 15 minute attack. Turns out the officer watching the monitors was on the phone, and wasn't paying attention. It is, to a degree, an MCSO issue, because the jailer failed in his duty. But it was Arpaio who cut back jail staffing to minimal levels, and allowed his employees to lie about MCSO culpability to the media.

My belief is that, since all authority and responsibility for the MCSO is legally vested in Arpaio, and he has repeatedly said that he is the Sheriff, and he makes the decisions, then all MCSO related controversies are Arpaio controversies. The buck stops with Arpaio.

No matter which way this goes, it's going to take a bit of time to restructure the article in a way that is sensible. I'd say leave it as is for a bit (controversies duplicated here, and in the MCSO Controversies article), and next week (when I have some more time), I'll write a controversies summary section to insert into the Joe Arpaio article, replacing the current controversies section. During the interim, I've got no real problem with reverting the MCSO article, to remove the controversies listed there, and point back to the MCSO Controversies article. Fearofreprisal (talk) 05:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Response to first paragraph; if the views are published then add them and cite them.

Paragraph 2; I agree with having summaries of controversial issues on the main Arpaio page, and link to the separate controversies page for more detail. But each section could link to the appropriate section on the other page; that way each section on this page does not simply link to the top of the controversies page.

Paragraph 3; Do not understand what you mean to say. Joe Arpaio controversies or MCSO controversies? Which one are you arguing for. My thinking is that most controversies related to Arpaio are in relation to his job as the sheriff. Therefore it should be on a MCSO. Anythink non-law enforcement related would be in this article then Q.E.D.

Lastly, I will direct the MCSO page controversy section to that page. Outback the koala (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

What I mean by Joe Arpaio controversies is that all the controversies arise out of his policies and actions. Arpaio is an executive officer, much in the same way that a governor, or the President, is an executive officer. He has *absolute* authority and responsibility for the MCSO. So, to be clear: I'm saying that the article must be "Arpaio controversies." Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Opportunity to Balance Page

Here's a golden opportunity to include a very relevant, notable piece of information to the anti-Arpaio rant that this wiki page has become: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/03/21/20100321crimerate0322.html