Talk:NumbersUSA

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on NumbersUSA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on NumbersUSA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on NumbersUSA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-immigration[edit]

I'd say it is. The SPLC says it's the most reaasoned of such groups but still calls it anti-immigration.[1] There are other media sources, one of which is this one. The book Anti-immigration in the United States: A Historical Encyclopedia by Kathleen R. Arnold[2] This books says it pushes racist policies. Again there are more. Doug Weller talk 12:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should say it's "anti-immigration", not "immigration reduction" (which the article currently says). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The organization itself does not describe itself with such a term. The SPLC is not a reliable or unbiased source, and it faces numerous lawsuits for defamatory claims. That book listed is just one source, again with its own political and ideological skew or bias. Its claims of "racist" and "anti-immigration" are highly subjective, biased and tenuous. To discuss matters of ethnicity and race in immigration is not "racist". And to advocate lower or reduced immigration is not "anti-immigrant" or "anti-immigration". 76.69.3.70 (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPLC "monitorng"[edit]

The previous discussion on this wording was archived, with all those participating in the discussion agreeing it does not belong in the lede.

Let me add my voice to them - this is undue for the lede, and not even supported by the source, which makes no mention of "monitoring" by the SPLC. Editors are encouraged to read WP:ONUS and see who needs to establish consensus for adding disputed content to an article. Here come the Suns (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC) — Here come the Suns (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of NoCal100 (talk · contribs). [reply]

  • Undue or not, it is supported: the very fact that the SPLC singles them out as being one of "the anti-immigrant movement's 'big three'" means they're monitoring them. BTW removing leading comments by such sockers is accepted practice: they were not here to edit in good faith. I don't really have a strong opinion, and that Daryl.jensen and their socks were illegitimately trying to game the system doesn't make the content good or bad, but I don't see you having a good argument yet. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not, it is not supported. One can comment that "Group X is a member of Y" without monitoring it. Monitoring implies an on-going close scrutiny, and we have no evidence of that in the source provided. The body of the article can mention that the SPLC considers them one of the big 3 of anti-immigration, but absent a source that says the SPLC is monitoring them, we can't state that. Certainly not in the lede. Here come the Suns (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here come the Suns, will you declare that you are not the same user as ModerateMikayla/Daryl.jensen and that you are not professionally connected to NumbersUSA, the Center for Immigration Studies, or John Tanton?--Jorm (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not ModerateMikayla/Daryl.jensen . I wasn't even aware that they had previously removed this same content until you drew my attention to the previous discussion, I just happen to think they are correct about this being WP:UNDUE. I am not connected to NumbersUSA, the Center for Immigration Studies, or John Tanton in any way, professionally or otherwise. Here come the Suns (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here come the Suns, yes one can comment blah blah blah but that is not how the SPLC works. Yes, they are applying ongoing scrutiny. No, that is not explicitly stated in the source, because people who know the SPLC knows that etc. Sheesh. Drop it already. You got a couple of hundred edits here, don't act like you know everything. Drmies (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that's how the SPLC works, perhaps not. For the article to claim "monitoring", we need a source that says that, explictly. We're not going to go by your say-so. Here come the Suns (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's... not how it works.--Jorm (talk) 01:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)>/s>[reply]
Really? How does it work, then? According to WP:V: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it" and "Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. " Here come the Suns (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The wording in the lede is perfectly acceptable , The fact that the SPLC issues reports on NubersUSA means that they are actively monitoring them. We are allowed to understand the common English meanings of words and phrases without providing a reference, and that is the case here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect, read what I wrote above. One can comment that "Group X is a member of Y" without monitoring it, and one can issue reports without monitoring. Per WP:V: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it" and "Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. " - this wording was challenged, and you are required to provide a source that says the SPLC is monitoring. Alternatively, if you want to say the SPLC "issues reports" on NumbersUSA, you need a source for that, too. Here come the Suns (talk) 03:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, your vast experience, with your hundreds of edits, has not lead you to the correct interpretation, as every other participant in this discussion has told you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do explain, then, what is the correct interpretation of "Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged "? I wish to learn. Here come the Suns (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Beyond My Ken and others, the argument made by Here come the Suns is a weak one at best. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration[edit]

In regard to this claim: "Henderson also noted that Beck makes it seem as if allowing immigration is done at a cost to Americans, but that is not what research on the issue indicates," I'm curious as to how nobody else noticed that this is totally wrong. Immigration is a heavily-researched topic and there is substantial evidence that Americans, specifically Americans with a high school education or less, are negatively economically impacted by immigration. So I'm wondering, how did nobody else notice this clearly false claim? Here is a link to the aforementioned publicly funded scientific research study which finds that yes, many Americans experience a net cost from immigration. Check out "5.7 KEY MESSAGES AND CONCLUSIONS" for details. I'll provide some relevant quotes:

"Consistent with theory, native dropouts tend to be more negatively affected by immigration than better-educated natives. Some research also suggests that, among those with low skill levels, the negative effect on native’s wages may be larger for disadvantaged minorities (Altonji and Card, 1991; Borjas et al., 2012) and Hispanic high school dropouts with poor English skills (Cortés, 2008)."

"Most studies find little effect of immigration on the employment of natives. However, recent research (Smith, 2012) does find that native teen employment, measured in hours worked, but not the employment rate, is reduced by immigration." --Señorsnazzypants talk 07:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That some specific subsets of groups may be negatively impacted does not mean that the impact, overall, is negative. For the flipside example: heavily restricting immigration may lead to benefits for Americans with a high school education or less, but would also likely lead to significant declines in agricultural output and economic productivity, because American agriculture is heavily dependent on immigrant migrant workers. Not all groups benefit equally from any given policy choice, and some groups may even be harmed.
So, when that sentence refers to the overall economic perspective, which is that immigration is a net benefit to the country, it is indeed true. No decision is without cost - the question is whether the benefits outweigh the costs. And at least from the economic perspective, the data seems to say yes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However, we do need to be clearer that the response is Henderson's opinion. I've made some wording changes to that effect. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear at all. Please substantiate this. Immigration has been closely linked to wage stagnation, which negatively affects the vast majority of American workers. As you correctly put it, some groups win and some groups lose, so if we're talking about what's good/beneficial for the country, then we would be discussing either the average American or the majority of Americans. Really the only benefit that the average American household gains from immigration is lower produce prices, and that does not offset the economic damage inflicted by wage stagnation since the 1970s. Economics is complex, and there is more than one reason why wages have stagnated over this time period, but you would be hard put to prove that mass immigration of low-skilled workers has been of benefit to the average American. However, if you think that increases in GDP are in and of itself a benefit to the country, then certainly immigration would be a benefit. Please clear up what you mean by "net benefit to the country" so we can move forward. --Señorsnazzypants talk 14:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your source argues that the best response to create wage growth would be full legalization which would mean that employers could no longer exploit undocumented status to pay sub-minimum wages. That's probably a good place to start. We don't have a shortage of jobs. I would also argue that our unfair trade relationship with Mexico and other Latin American countries exerts basic economic pressure on people, the same sort of pressure that has drawn immigrants to the United States for centuries. We probably need to support fundamental governmental reform and wage growth in Mexico and Latin America. If people are getting paid a fair wage and have a fair opportunity in their home countries, they won't feel as strongly that America is their only opportunity to get ahead. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The question is whether immigration and immigration policy has had a negative effect on the average American, not whether a hypothetical change in immigration policy might change its effects. It's certainly a complex issue, I would be lying to say that I have all the answers. But it seems clear to me that the evidence, when closely examined, shows the average American (who is a worker) has so far been negatively economically impacted by mass immigration. If you have a relevant, sourced counterpoint then I'd love to see it. Much as I enjoy discussing potential policy changes, at the moment I'm trying to clarify a point made specifically about NumbersUSA and their claim that immigration and immigration policy has had a negative effect on the average American. --Señorsnazzypants talk 15:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Henderson's opinion is his own. NumbersUSA is certainly entitled to its opinion, but we are also supposed to note relevant opposing opinions. So I'm not sure what you're proposing. If you're proposing to remove Henderson's opinion, well, we would need to find a similar opposing opinion to replace it. We can't objectively state that NumbersUSA is right and everyone else is wrong; not when there are clearly a wide number of economic experts who disagree. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should note differing opinions and of course correctly cite them as such, we have specific tags and those opinions should be tagged as such. At the time I made this section, the issue was presented as if NumbersUSA was factually incorrect, and that opinion wasn't properly labeled. The way you've now reworded this is I think sufficient to convey that the question of "is this a net benefit to Americans" is a controversial question rather than decided. --Señorsnazzypants talk 23:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP complaints about previously settled wording[edit]

I changed the lead to accurately reflect how this organization describes itself as directly quoted in an article by the Associated Press. A user named "Jorm" keeps reinserting an unreliable and unacceptable citation from a far-left, ideological blog called "mother jones", and an unsubstantiated claim that this organization is "anti-immigration" or "anti-immigrant". Advocating for low immigration or reduced immigration is not "anti-immigrant" to any rational observer. 76.69.3.70 (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An organization's self-description is not the deciding factor for how we, or anyone else, should describe them, and you've violated WP:3RR. XOR'easter (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An organization's official description of itself, as per an official source like AP, is a very important part in how it should be labelled. And certainly more so than an unreliable, feminist, far-left ideological blog like "mother jones". I did not violate 3RR, as I only was reverting persistent vandalism. 76.69.3.70 (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The exception to WP:3RR is for edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language. That does not apply here, by any stretch of the imagination. XOR'easter (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: I was in the middle of filling out a report at WP:ANEW about this nonsense. Glad someone got around to finally stopping them. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What "nonsense"? And I am reverting offensive language, as the article includes a defamatory claim about an organization made by an unreliable, ideological blog that is not an acceptable source, according to Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources. This dispute is far from over. Defamatory, inaccurate and unsubstantiated claims about a person or organization should be removed as quickly as possible. The only opposition has been from one or two editors with an extreme ideological bias who arbitrarily and wrongly equate reduced or lower immigration with being "anti-immigrant" or "anti-immigration". They even used hostile and unacceptable language (e.g. "whitewashing") when doing so. 76.69.3.70 (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you cannot understand that Mother Jones is in fact a very well-regarded magazine and has existed for over 44 years, is not a "blog", is but one of multiple sources that backed the wording you tried to remove, and that your other epithets such as "feminist" and "far-left" are equally inappropriate, I think the issue here is Wikipedia:Competence is required. Your removals of information were inappropriate, lacking in consensus as well as factual basis, and were absolutely attempts at Whitewashing (censorship) violation of wikipedia policy. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mother Jones is not a "very well-regarded" magazine. It is an ideological online publication with a massive bias, not an academic publication or a reputable, official source like a news or government organization. It has a large, far left-wing ideological slant on cultural and political issues, and the article cited is an opinion piece, not an acceptable reference for the correct description of what NumbersUSA represents. As for the feminist and far-left bias of Mother Jones, no one disputes that. Not even the creators and editors themselves of this blog-like, online magazine.
My removals were appropriate. 'Mother Jones' is NOT a reliable source, as per Wikipedia's policies, and certainly does not override a source from the Associated Press that includes a direct, official statement from NumbersUSA itself on what their organization advocates; this is far more factual than an opinion piece from an ideological online magazine. There is no 'consensus' on this article, and consensus is always shifting on Wikipedia anyway, so that point is also moot. Your false claims of "whitewashing" also verge on being a personal attack, and are unacceptable. The sources and the organization itself clearly state what they stand for. You are merely trying to push your own point of view to attempt to equate advocacy for low or reduced immigration with being "anti-immigrant" and "anti-immigration", which is utter nonsense that merely points to your own ideological bias on this issue. But your personal opinion and attempts at defamatory characterization are irrelevant, and do not override what an organization officially describes itself as. 76.69.3.70 (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"There is consensus that Mother Jones is generally reliable." - per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Per Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies, the unduly self-serving "official statement" of NumbersUSA bears little weight in the face of multiple Wikipedia:Reliable sources. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. The 'consensus' actually states otherwise: "There is consensus that Mother Jones is generally reliable. Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source, so its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article." [3]
Thus, it is not fully reliable, and it is highly biased. It is not official, neutral or academic, in any sense. It is completely irrelevant here, and has no weight in comparison to an official statement by NumbersUSA itself made to the Associated Press, which IS reliable. There are not "multiple reliable sources" here. All of those cited are actually slightly biased or skewed; it is just that Mother Jones is heavily and unquestionably biased, as well as frequently inaccurate. None of the sources point out any evidence, anywhere, that NumbersUSA has ever been against all immigration (i.e. "anti-immigration") or immigrants in general (i.e. "anti-immigrant"). They all admit the organization has only ever stated that it only advocates for low immigration and/or reduced immigration. This holds more weight than anything else. Ideologically-motivated smears are not facts, and do not override you or any other person or organization's statements or self-descriptions. American law is not based on guilt by suspicion, defamation or hearsay. 76.69.3.70 (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The wording in question is sourced to multiple Wikipedia:Reliable sources despite your trying to single out one to attack (which you have already failed by trying to misrepresent a 44-year-old magazine with a strong factual record as an "ideological blog" as well as making snide and sexist comments by calling it "feminist" as a sneer) and there is community consensus for it. Your lack of understanding of both policies and sources does not make for a good argument. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralNotability: can you do something about this, please? I thought this IP had a block from this page.--Jorm (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jorm, they're blocked from the page for edit-warring, they are not blocked from the talk page at this point. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GeneralNotability so they get to continually call me a vandal? Cool. Cool cool cool.--Jorm (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Criticism" section[edit]

@Beyond My Ken: Regarding your edit which undid my edit, please see WP:CRITS. Article sections dedicated to negative criticism of a topic should be avoided. The section title "Reception" avoids the negative connotation. Plus, a description of an organization as "anti-immigration" or "nativist" is not necessarily negative, making the "Criticism" section title misleading. feminist (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NumbersUSA&oldid=1204056616"