Talk:Immigration reduction in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


This article has been written with a strong POV. Assumptions are presented as facts, and facts have been misrepresented. Rather than simply reverting any attempt at balance, the author(s) should discuss is unacceptable about the edits. Willmcw 03:24, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite. What exactly was misrepresented in the original article? OTOH, adding a statement like this: "What separates it from those in the mainstream that desire immigration reform..." *is* a POV, implying that immigration reductionism is out of the mainstream. Kaibabsquirrel 04:08, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The point of that edit is that not all those who are in favor of immigration reform, or even wish for lower immigration levels are immigration reductionists. Immigration reductionists are a subset of immigration reformers. Judging by the lackluster uspport that Tancredo receives, it is fair to say that he and his followers are not in the middle of the aminstream. Nonetheless, I'll remove the word. Willmcw
I would argue that wishing for lower immigration levels is the very definition of an immigration reductionist. Also, that's hardly the only contentious word. "Drastically" lower numbers? Kaibabsquirrel 04:46, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'll dig up the quote. It goes something like this "No accomplishment is worth anything if the problem of mass immigration is not solved." That is the definitive statement of immigration reductionism. I'll fix drastically. Since I believe folks like Beck say that current immigration is 2 million, legal and illegal, and he wants to reduce it to 100,000, then that is 5%. Tancredo's plan, which by some math people claim would allow 300,000 in annually, is 15%. We can use those numbers in place of the NPOV word. Willmcw 05:01, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"Lower numbers" will suffice. For example: [1] That's 60% of current legal levels. Northwest Environment Watch (book: Misplaced Blame: The Real Roots of Population Growth) promotes "perhaps reducing immigration rates by half, perhaps more." As for Tancredo's bill, Carrying Capacity Network says it would allow 300,000 and in fact they are asking for an amendment to set it at 100,000. If Tancredo's bill would only allow 30,000 why wound CCN want to revise it upward? Also, what's your point of mentioning that Stormfront endorses Tancredo's bill? That's a guilt by association tactic that has no place here. Stormfront is a neo-nazi group, not an immigration reductionist group. Kaibabsquirrel 05:36, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The link you provide goes to a failed candidate for Congress, Gene Sharer, who seems to endorse Sen McCain's plan and makes only vague suggestions for immigration reform. Is McCain an immigration reductionist too? And the book that you mention is published by an organization, Northwest Environment Watch, that you don't list as being immigration reductionist. So the 60% level is being suggested by folks that are not considered reductionists. Does anyone who advocates for any immigration reduction count? If so, why not Stormfront? I listed them as supporters of Tancredo's bill because I got its name the same way I got the others: I googled "Tancredo HR 946" and listed every group that supported it on their websites. Stormfront's support for HR 946 is a fact, and just as relevant as the Carrying Capacity Network's support. Properly drafting a description of HR 946 would probably be better handled on the Tom Tancredo page. Willmcw 20:36, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gene Scharer's platform clearly calls for cutting legal immigration numbers to pre-1989 levels. NEW's book clearly identifies too-high legal immigration numbers as one of five sources of population growth in the northwestern U.S., and calls for cutting legal immigration by "perhaps half...perhaps more", while also expressing support for the rights of recent immigrants. Did you even read them? Kaibabsquirrel 03:22, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That's nice for Gene, but he has nothing to do with the immigration reductionist movement. Neither does NEW. It looks like we need to better define and describe this movement, including who the major players are. There certainly aren't any significant IR organizations that are calling for total immigration over 400,000 per year that I know of. Also - If you can provide some support for criticisms by IR people of Vdare and those other groups then we can change that comment under criticism. Lots of folks link to Vdare and quote articles from it, so it's hard to make a case for it being a pariah. Willmcw 06:00, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I moved the factoid about increased immigration levels to Immigration to the United States. It was an aside. A stand-alone paragraph recapping modern US immigration trends might be worthwhile. Also, I read the book (pamphlet) from NEW and cannot find the reference to cutting immigration to a particular level. If anyone can find it then we can post the information. Further, I cannot find anything to support this assertion: A few groups, including American Border Patrol, American Resistance Foundation, Civil Homeland Defense Corps, and VDARE, are criticized by both critics of immigration reduction and by some within the movement, for their lines of argument and overall tone. Not all who support reduced immigration numbers wish to be associated with some of the more extreme groups. Can you provide a citation showing criticism of those groups by immigration reductionists? I can't find any. Willmcw 05:29, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


The new history section will need a lot of work, I'm sure. It still needs a paragraph about how the border enforcement advocates fit in. How about something on the movement's influence on federal legislation or policy making? In any case, it's a start. Help filling in the blanks and correcting the errors is appreciated. -Willmcw 08:29, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


I reverted the new intro because it did not seem to be an accurate depiction of the immigration movement, placing too much emphasis on illegal immigration and on the political right wing. If the editor who re-wrote it would like to discuss the matter here, I'm sure we can address his issues and make sure that they are properly reflected in the text. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:44, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

This is twice today Ive been reverted wholesale, with a rather weak reason (punctuation, belongs elsewhere, etc). Granted, the material could be better dealt with further down - but the tendency for attached people for reversion is still unseemly. It is interesting, (and perhaps telling) that a paragraph which accurately describes the "reductionist movement" as being too much focused on illegal immigrants, is itself criticised as being "too much focused on illegal immigration and right-wing..." The very claim that this is an actual "movement" itself bears suspicion, but to further claim that its distinct enough in encyclopedic respects from "immigration reform" is furthermore suspect beyond what I can treat here. Thus the term seems to be a neologism, coined to reflect an agenda which supports some percieved compromise between immigration elimination (and immigrant elimination) and immigration reform which (itself a subjective neologism) is purported to be inclusive enough that it might include some imaginary other extremes of increased immigration, immigration advocacy, or expanded immigration. -==SV 22:54, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would not say that my objections were related to punctuation. Now that you've brought your concerns here, I'll admit that I do not understand them entirely. Please forgive a dumb editor, but let me see if I can explicate this. Regarding illegal immigration, there are two identifiable strains within the so-called immigration reduction movement. One group focuses on illegal immigration, particularly border crossings from Mexico, and pays little attention to legal immigration. The other group pays lip acknowledges the need to cut illegal immigration, but focuses more on reducing legal immigration. Regarding the political associations, there is a spectrum of people involved in the issue. Most are poltical conservatives, and some are perhaps even extremists. But there is also a substantial cohort from supposedly liberal political spheres, for example, the environmental activists in the immigration reduction movement. "Immigration reform" is a generic term for any overhaul of the immigration system, and does not indicate what immigration level numbers would result from reform. "Immigration elimination" is a goal that some support, but the bulk of immigration reductionists claim to support immigration at some level (though most call for very large reductions). So, to return to the intro, what exactly was in the previous version (now re-instated) that was incorrect? -Willmcw 23:25, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
My apologies if I seemed abrupt. "Immigration reduction" appears to be a political neologism crafted by right-wing conservatives - perhaps accurate enough in limited context - but not enough to justify a separate article from the more common term of "immigration reform," the article for which doesnt yet exist. Why? This material could fit better as a subsection of that article, as a level within a political spectrum of which there are both logical and reasonable extremes. In any case - I'm not ready to give this proper enough attention now, but for now, I will insist on adding a prominently referencing political neologism, making a similar category, as a way to categorically define this term - along with all the other ones that keep cropping up - in their most general categorical sense. Agreeable? -==SV 02:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) PS - Google [2]

[3] seems to confirm my initial suspicions, and FPM seems to confirm this : "There are encouraging signs, in the conservative press at least, that immigration reduction is catching on. Now one of the things that is going to have to be decided is what quantitative immigration rate the immigration-reduction movement should aim at."[4]

You seem to be asserting that this is a non-existent movement. I'd certainly object to moving this article to Immigration reform, as there is no such distinct movement. If you'd like to write an article there and link here then that's cool. Please also note that there a number of other articles covering immigration. A general discussion of reform of immigration to the United States could be in that article.
I don't think it's necessary to insist on anything, everybody here is reasonable. As for being a neologism, I'm sure it is. If you feel it's important to say so, go ahead and add a line about it being a new term. As you can see from the history section, the movement itself can be traced back at least a couple of decades. I suppose that most political movements that have come up in the last few decades have associated neologisms. With all due respect, I've done quite a bit of research on this movement, as has the other primary editor, Kaibabsquirrel. The two of us have very different perspectives on the movement (which may be one reason this article is so good). Cheers, -Willmcw 02:42, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Respectully, youre using a neologism to refer to a movement, which itself does not exist, were it not for the neologism. On Wikipedia we (by necessity) have tended to be cautious enough to be skeptical of political hackery by one side or another — seeking to clothe their particular wolves in sheepskins, and reclassify general concepts under less neutral terminologies. Im sure you understand. Either this fits into its general term, or it has some legitimacy as a movement distinct from related movements. I see little evidence to suggest that there is enough difference between anti- and reduced- immigration agendas to respect its stylized claims of its distinction. -==SV 02:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Er, now I'm really confused. I thought you previously wanted to merge this to "immigration reform", now it sounds like you want to merge it to "anti-immigration". If you read over the history, you'll see a number of organizations working for a common goal. I'd call that a movement. "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are neologisms too, but they are legitimate movements nonetheless. I am not comfortable with your analogy of a sheep in wolf's clothing, which implies some sort of subterfuge. Please assume good faith. It's deserved. -Willmcw 05:16, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Its important to consider encyclopedic language and categorization when dealing with things, relative to other forms. This is to reduce unncessary divergence, and pandering to particular view. Its fair to say that within immigration, there is immigration policy, and within that there is immigration reform, under which there is a spectrum of some variants, some of which like to think of themselves "movements." But there is no reform article, yet. You see my point. ""Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are neologisms too, but they are legitimate movements nonetheless." Fair point, but these mutually exclusive names for sides in a balanced political debate. They are also both enourmously destructive and misleading misnomers, but I wont go into that now. Assume good faith This works in all directions, does it not? I am not comfortable with your analogy of a sheep in wolf's clothing, which implies some sort of subterfuge. My sincere apologies for any discomfort, but it was not what I wrote. -==SV 19:53, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) PS:

Ah, if only the world arranged itself in such a neat package. Unfortunately, there is no generic Immigration Reform movement. And there is barely a pro-immigration movement, essentially a lobby to support the H1-b visa. You haven't given your criterion for "movementhood", so I don't know why you think this particular set of political organizations don't count. I don't think that "immigration reduction" is a misnomer, though I personally think that "immigration reductionism" is more accurate, because of the reductionist tendency of adherents to trace all modern ills to immigration. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:35, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Immigration reductionism is indeed a distinct political movement - a constellation of groups largely (but not entirely) grouped around John Tanton's FAIR. That is recognized by both its supporters and by its critics (such as Considering that it draws from across the political spectrum, one could hardly claim that the term was invented by "right-wing conservatives". Also, I would argue that the term "political neologism" itself is a neologism, and the Wikipedia article on it constitutes original research. A Yahoo search on "political neologism" (with the quotes) turned up only 20 hits, with several of the hits either on or mirrored from Wikipedia. Kaibabsquirrel 23:36, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree somewhat with the "original research" comment by the way, but that's the nature of Wikipedia regardless of policies which attempt to institute structure (which in many ways, like this example is simply a mechanism for instituting cultural imperialism -- i.e a distinctly one-sided view). This is a very old debate that goes back to maybe even Ward Cunningham's critique of the Wiki-encyclopedia idea "in the end it will still be a wiki:" An "encyclopedia" by traditional defintion, to some degree is a cultural institution, not representative of extracultural views, but representative of the view from one culture towards others. But thats off topic.
According to the, "the organized anti-immigration "movement" is almost entirely the handiwork of one man, Michigan activist John H. Tanton. Here is a list of 13 groups in the loose-knit Tanton network, followed by acronyms if the groups use them, founding dates, and Tanton's role in the groups. Those organizations designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center are marked with an asterisk..." I like how SPLC puts 'movement' in quotes, to answer the need to distinguish it from the Beethoven and bowel types. Just in case the reader might get confused. The moral I think is that it's important not to call a one-trick pony a "calvary." -==SV 21:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think that the SPLC is largely correct: that the organized movement is chiefly the work of Tanton. And I think that we reflect that fact in the article, though perhaps not strongly enough. The SPLC was writing an article about Tanton, so naturally they focused on his involvements. There are numerous groups that have no visible connection to Tanton, and Rep. Tancredo has no special link to Tanton that I am aware of, nor does newsman Lou Dobbs. It is certainly possible for one man to create a movement, and the "movemement" is certainly larger than one man today. -Willmcw 22:16, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

"Though perhaps not strongly enough" Yes, certainly. Maybe something like "Immigration reduction is a political neologism coined by... Its advocacy is largely attributable to so and so... Ideally, works which are suspect should belong on the article for the individual, rather than under a general tag. "It is certainly possible for one man to create a movement" - yes I agree completely, and I am about to have one of my own in a few minutes. -==SV 04:14, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

POV title[edit]

The title is "immigration reduction", but some portions of the article talk about illegal immigration reducation. While these are similar subjects, I really think they are different enough that "immigration redution" is a POV title for an article that discusses border control. I don't know whether to split the article in two, or to have a subsection that clearly only discusses illegal immigration law enforcement, but I'd like to hear opinions on this. --Ar57 23:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The two issues are mixed up. This is about the political/cultural movement, not about immigration, immigrants (legal or illegal), or border control - we have articles on those topics already. I would oppose trying to split the article. -Willmcw 02:54, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
The thing is, I think the article tries to lump it into one catergory, but there are people who are strongly for legal immigration and believe in the positive effects it brings society, and at the same time, against illegal immigration because they believe that illegal immigration is detrimental to society. --Ar57 07:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Intro clean up[edit]

Hi Will, I think your blanket revert may have left out some things, and it's debatable whether the current intro needs clean up. For example, usage of this term isn't limited to groups who believe immigration should be 25% of current levels. As another example, what apparently separates immigration reduction from immmigration reform is that the former specifically advocates immigration should be reduced, not that it "see[s] immigration as being the source of most social, economic, and environmental problems, and wish[es] to cut current immigration levels by 75% or more."--Nectarflowed T 03:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that if you read the article you will find that it is about groups that do argue for reductions of that amount. If you want to add additional groups who have specified lower reductoins than we can change the number. "Reform" is a word that does not refer in any way to the numbers. One could reform the immigration system without changing the levels of immigration at all. To clarify, this article is about the U.S. political movement that started in the 1970s and encompasses both those who focus on reducing illegal immigration and those who seek other changes that will lead to a large reduction in what is commonly called "mass immigration" within the movement. [Willmcw]
  1. Yes, I read the article ;) Immigration reform refers to changes in immigration policy. Immigration reduction refers specifically to reduction in immigration. The intro gives an account of the difference that conflicts with this account.
  2. The article needs to recognize basic usage of the term first, then proceed to the specific numbers advocated by these groups.
  3. The article can be about U.S. immigration reduction, but it needs to recognize that this movement exists in every developed country. ----Nectarflowed T 07:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
1. I'm sure it could be worded better. Ted Kennedy could be called an immigration reformer, but not an immigration reductionist. I don't know of any group that agitates for small reductions, and the CCN condemns the idea of groups within the movement aiming for anything higher than 300,000 immigrants per year, total.
What separates it from others who want immigration reform is that reductionists see immigration as being the source of most social, economic, and environmental problems, and wish to cut current immigration levels by 75% or more.
2. I think it does.
3. I think it does make it clear that, while this article addresses U.S. immigration reduction, there are other countries which may have similar movements. However given the length of this article I think that other countries should get their own articles.
Immigration reduction is a movement active within the United States and elsewhere that advocates for a reduction in the amount of immigration allowed into the United States or other countries.
Cheers, -Willmcw 15:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Which American Political Party Support That?[edit]

This page does not tell which political party (Democrat or Republican) support the idea of immigration reductionism. That creates confusion on choosing a political party for me to support. I am a Latino and I, like other Latinos, hate the idea of immigration reductionism because it's racist. My personal reason why I disagree with immigration reductionism is that it is the persucution of Latinos and the conspiracy to wipe out Latinos in the United States.

The article doesn't mention it because neither major party has a clear position on the matter. I believe that some minor parties do, such as the Constitution Party. -Willmcw 19:39, August 1, 2005 (UTC)


How do people feel about renaming this article from "Immigration reduction" to "United States immigration reduction"? The article seems to have a very strong US-centric viewpoint to me - it is not generally about reducing migration everywhere, but specifically to the USA. Comments? --Scott Davis Talk 12:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The first sentence states that this is a political movement in the U.S. Unless there are different immigration reduction movements in other countries that would lead to confusion, I don't see a need for changing the title. -Willmcw 17:43, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

The first sentence contains ...within the United States and elsewhere... and ...the United States or other countries. This has confused at least one editor trying to use this article to support views that appear POV in Immigration to Australia. I was hoping that if this article was more clearly targetted as a USA concept, it would address some of the POV concerns here, and make it clearer to that author that this article does not apply to Australia. --Scott Davis Talk 22:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Since the article doesn't mention any immigration reduction movements except the one in the U.S., we can remove the "... and elsewhere..." Of course if there is material on an Australian immigration reduction movement we could add it. Let me see if we can do anything else to make the current focus of the article clearer. Thanks for pointing out the problem. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:04, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't the Australian immigration reduction movement be covered under the articles Pauline Hanson and One Nation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 08:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
Oppose renaming. This is a general topic that now has some worldwide data. If and when the article becomes cumbersomely large, one could think of having subarticles on France, Australia, USA, Denmark, Belize, etc. Tynetrekker (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, uh...[edit]

Fellow editors: In an article about "immigration reduction," please quit trying to ridicule people who are opposed to mass, unrestricted illegal immigration, and also quit trying to expunge any mention of the illegal immigration controversy from an article entitled "immigration reduction." In the last several months, both tactics have made the article--or its introduction, anyway--seem ignorant as hell. 21:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

America First[edit]

America First was cited by Wil Breback as an example of a group of immigration reductionists who are opposed to all immigration. According to their site, however, they support "A temporary ban or "time out" on all immigration, except for spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens, for a period of ten years, thereafter restoring America's traditional level of legal immigration at a limit of 250,000 per year." This is not a ban on all immigration - 11:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

A ten year ban is a ban. The immigration that would be allowed under their proposal is so minimal that it is negligible. We can change the ewording to say that some groups would ban "virtually" all immigration. -Will Beback · · 18:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Tancredo's proposed moratorium, which had no set time limit, would've only allowed 30,000 immigrants per year. That's nearly as drastic as the America First proposal. It was supported by many in the field, including FAIR. Tancredo and others have estimated current immigration as over 1 million annually. So 30,000 is less than 3%. That's virtually no immigration. -Will Beback · · 10:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The actual number was 300,000. That's not "virtually no immigration". Its about 30% of the current legal immigration and it had a set time limit of five years.- 15:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
A) I'll double check the numbers. B) It also says:
  • As used in this Act, the term `immigration moratorium' means the period beginning on October 1, 2003, and ending on September 30 of the first fiscal year after fiscal year 2008 during which the President submits a report to Congress, which is approved by a joint resolution of Congress, that the flow of illegal immigration has been reduced to less than 10,000 aliens per year and that any increase in legal immigration resulting from termination of the immigration moratorium would have no adverse impact on the wages and working conditions of United States citizens, the achievement or maintenance of Federal environmental quality standards, or the capacity of public schools, public hospitals, and other public facilities to serve the resident population in those localities where immigrants are likely to settle.
In other words, it has no definite expires. It only ends when Congress and Preisdent agree on an unlikely set of conditions. -Will Beback · · 17:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
"Virtually" is still POV. We need to be as objective and verifiable as possible.- 18:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


The article has been stable for a long time. Please explain major changes. -Will Beback · · 16:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the article has been stable is no excuse for not editing it. Edits are not discouraged. Reversions generally are.- 19:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Please explain the problem with the old text. It appears that you completely re-wrote two sections. -Will Beback · · 20:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Changes which adhere to the three pillars of Wikipedia do not need to be defended. We should be bold. The more relevant question, considering that reversions are discouraged is why you want to ignore the edict to be bold in editing?- Which is not to say that "why not?" is the only reason. There are problems with the version you are reverting to. But there's no need to defend edits which adhere to the three pillars, so I'm not going to do it. Reversions, however, are a different story - as I said, they are discouraged. 01:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
If you can't explain what was wrong with the old material, or why you made the changes, then I'll edit the material. -Will Beback · · 02:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
If you revert without explaining why, then I'll revert your revert.- 21:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a few tags. This sort of reads... bipolar in its NPOV tone. Its hard to categorize, but the article in its present state needs work. I'll take a crack at it this week. • Lawrence Cohen 06:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I restored a section that got deleted and added a {fact} tag - let's see if we can add inline sources for this material before deleting it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice smear (extreme POV)[edit]

I got a chuckle out of the crude smear tactic of including extensive discussion of the American Nazi Party as being prominent among immigration reductionists. Also, very subtle juxtaposing FAIR with the Nazis. The guilt by association tactic is tired, having been worked to death by pro-Open Borders groups like La Raza and its adherents.

I am sure the Jewish director of FAIR would be surprised to learn of his association with the Nazi party (to the extent that latter boogeyman even exists outside the fevered imagination of the SPLC). HedgeFundBob (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That was added recently. While there's no question that the ANP are anti-immigration, they are not a notable part of the overall movment. I've reverted the changes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This article should be renamed[edit]

As it is only about the United States, this article should be renamed to something like United States immigration reduction movement. While there are similar movements in other countries, this article makes no mention of them; for the time being, surely it should be renamed to reflect that? (I see this was discussed earlier on the talk page, but there wasn't consensus for a move then. Perhaps there will be now.) Robofish (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, a year later and no objections, so I'll move the page. Robofish (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is 'original research'[edit]

The preceding discussions have not resolved the central problem with this article - the fact that it consists of original research. For it to be a valid Wikipedia article the subject would have to be recognized as a phenomenon of note by reputable neutral sources (in this case other encyclopedias, or general guides to American politics for example). This article does not cite any such sources. Wikipedia is not the place to string together a history of people and organizations that share similar views and then expand on those views - this could be seen as trying to give a from of legitimacy and currency to otherwise contentious ideas. Nofoto (talk) 08:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Article deletion discussion on anti-immigrant sentiment in contemporary Europe[edit]

Article is Growing anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe from the late 2000s, deletion discussion here.--Sum (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

    Triggered by \bnowpublic\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 17:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Immigration reduction in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)