Talk:Raúl Grijalva

Award

• While a Pima County supervisor, Grijalva pointedly snubbed an award from an environmental group named for Edward Abbey, and attacked Abbey's views.

What's our source for this? Thanks, -Willmcw 00:47, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Edward Abbey: A Life by James Calahan Kaibabsquirrel 01:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And do we know the name of this group and what his commetns were? This is such a short reference, it would help if it were expanded. Thanks, -Willmcw 02:04, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

This reference makes it seem that Grijalva is on good terms with a group called the "Western Watershed Project, which give out a "Edward Abbey Memorial Hooved Locust Award" [1]. -Willmcw 05:19, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if that was the group or not. The name of the group wasn't specified in Cahalan's book. I'll replace that part of the article with the verbatim quote from Cahalan as soon as I can dig out the book. Kaibabsquirrel 03:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since it appears to give a different slant than other sources show, and since we haven't been able to find out more, I'm going to remove the assertion. We can add it back when we learn more. -Willmcw 05:35, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

In April 1990, while a Pima County Supervisor, Grijalva declined an environmental award named after Edward Abbey, saying that he was "uneasy because of Abbey's views on immigration, Mexicans, and population growth." (Cahalan, James M. Edward Abbey: A Life p. 213; Arizona Daily Star, April 21, 1990, p. 5B)

I believe this Abbey "controversy" is a case of WP:Undue Importance, especially given that we can't seem to dig up any of the facts about this so-called snub. I don't see why turning down an obscure award in 1990 from an unknown group, the name of which we don't list, is encyclopedic in any way related to Rep. Grijalva. It seems more like a failed political smear or an old grudge than proper content for Wikipedia. I've cut it and placed it above for consideration. Just because it's sourced (but poorly) doesn't mean it's particularly important. --Kynn 04:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand, why isn't there any reference to Mr. Grijalva being associated with MEChA? Wasn't that a big party of this controversy? Does somebody keep deleting this?

anon added

anon added and an endorser of the Genocide Intervention Network to a bunch of pages.

Don't want to revert if it's true.

Mikereichold 07:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

List of Links

The critical links listed here seem to be a violation of WP:EL and WP:RS which dissuade us from using extremist sites. "Widely acknowledged extremist or even terrorist organizations or individuals, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should never be used as sources for Wikipedia..." The Southern Poverty Law Center is very critical of the first source and states that American Patrol head honcho Glenn "Spencer posts dozens of immigration-related articles but replaces the words "illegal immigrant" with "illegal alien," among other editing touches."

The second site is anonymous as documented by one blog and may be in violation of election law in addition to featuring pictures of Grijalva with the Mexican flag and Osama bin Laden.

• Raul Grijalva Watch critical website
• Shame on Grijalva critical website

I think it would be great to link to critical sites, but I feel that the ones chosen here don't measure up to the standards for external links. One is almost a hate site, and another is an anonymous site that is barely linked to besides this site and blogs critical of its criticism.

I say those two links should be removed. (Full disclosure: I'm a resident of AZ district 7, Grijalva is my congressman, I've met him, and I voted him. But I am not in any way affiliated with his campaign nor have I ever been.) --Kynn 04:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. -Will Beback · † · 17:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation for MEChA membership: found!

The original link for Grijalva's MEChA membership was a partisan, anti-MEChA conservative site with many unsourced and exaggerated allegations about Grijalva.

While his MEChA membership does not seem to be disputed, the source used is very questionable and I suggest it be replaced with a more reputable source. I've added a request for sourcing.

This may be a possibility, but it isn't a great one:

• OC Weekly mentions his MEChA membership in passing

--Kynn 00:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• I found a Communist Party article[2], and a Michelle Malkin commentary[3], but neither are good sources. -Will Beback · † · 01:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I listened through the audio link given by an anonymous editor, and on the Alex Jones(radio) program, Grijalva himself vouches for his membership in MEChA when he was a student at the University of Arizona. So that settles the question, I think -- despite the fact that that the show he was on is more than a bit dodgy, and the hosting site for the audio clip (the American Patrol) is way questionable. --Kynn 01:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Alex Jones interview links

On November 26, 2002, Grijalva was interviewed on the Alex Jones radio show, where he said private border patrol groups like the Minuteman Project in southern Arizona were "racist." For audio - [4]. In December 2002 he said that his first official act in office would be to ask the FBI to investigate them for alleged ties to white supremacy groups, saying "If you shine the light on the cockroaches, they don't like it." [5].

I'm at a loss as to why this particular interview is being highlighted on this entry. These are statements from a 2002 interview with a controversial media figure, which is only used to quote one word from Grijalva. The second link is not actually a source, but is a copy of an article in the Tucson Citizen newspaper.

I cut this paragraph, but it could be replaced easily. --Kynn 04:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

With the exception to being added to his school's hall of fame, none of the Trivia was about Grijalva, but rather about Arizona's 7th congressional district. So I moved all those factoids there instead. --Kynn 04:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Arizona Growler incident links

I am the blogger involved with the Arizona Growler incident recently added to the article. In the interest of neutral point-of-view, I will refrain from editing the page myself, but I would like to include some more-specific links users may want to add at their own discretion.

• Original incident report
• Other interviews from the same day
• Further explanation in regards to initial misconceptions
• Arizona Daily Star story (Probably a more authoritative source, but they also never approached me for comment.)
• Arizona Daily Wildcat story
• My reaction to the Wildcat story
• Archive of all posts regarding Rep. Grijalva

Thanks and regards, Gpohara 21:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The Wildcat link doesn't work anymore.[6] I'll replace it in the article with the Star link. Unless someone presses charges this appears to be a minor incident. -Will Beback · † · 23:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I was attempting to record a conversation that was out in the open between Rep. Grijalva and his Republican opponent Ron Drake. I had already interviewed Grijalva before the microphone-pulling incident took place. Please see the clarification link above and feel free to ask questions. It may also be worthy to note that in the Wildcat article (whose link is working for me), Grijalva's office claimed that they thought I was from the Wildcat. Thanks again.--Gpohara 23:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I won't ask you any questions because that would be original research, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. What we can do is verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. I will rephrase that it was not during an interview, as that was a misreading by me of the AZStar report. The Wildcat link still doesn't work for me, maybe you have to be on campus. -Will Beback · † · 00:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough on the question deal. I don't live on campus, and the server is actually College Publisher run. Try their website or one of the other papers, such as the Daily Texan. If those don't work, it's something between the ISP and CP. I can't imagine only one of their papers being inaccessible from your location. --Gpohara 01:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The College Publisher main site is up, but the Wildcat and Daily Texan won't load. It may be some temporary problem. I'll try again tomorrow. -Will Beback · † · 01:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

The page was vandalized on January 6, 2007 by a particularly annoying vandal, and it needs reversion. Thanks. (Also, would be nice to get that user blocked from Wikipedia.) --Kynn 22:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That vandal would be my little brother. Ban him. Please. --Gpohara 21:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone tell me how to become a recent changes patroller and someone change Garrett's name back to Garrett not TTerrag. TheChroniclesofratman. user

Election Results

Can anyone find the election results for his last three races? Most other congressmen have them on their wiki entries. Demoman925 08:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Start here for Arizona election results. --Kynn 20:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"some" civil liberties

I reverted to Meelar's version again; I deleted "some" before "civil liberties". I don't think it sounds very charitable to say someone supports "some" civil liberties. I know nothing about this particular biography, actually. Another possibility might be to say the person supports "certain" civil liberties; that sounds slightly better, but probably it's better to just say "civil liberties". --Coppertwig 00:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a site of being “charitable”, or factual? Why would Wkikpedia choose words to “sound slightly better”, rather then be as accurate as possible?

Meelar has suggested that it is biased to call the Second Amendment a Civil Liberty. I will say to deny that classification is an act of bias. Meelar has let stand the text “Grijalva is a supporter of civil liberties. “ That text as written states an absolute and denotes bias. Meelar could have chosen to change the text to find a middle ground but he/she did not. This would reinforce the view that the edit was an act of bias.

Meelar then argued that because there are differing views on the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights being a Civil Liberty then it should not be an item of merit in the Civil Liberty topic on the Raul Grijalva page. Let us test the argument.

If the statement was made “Raul Grijalva as an operator of gas chambers in Germany was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Jews during the holocaust.” Would it be a valid dismissal of that statement to say “There are people that do not believe the Holocaust ever happened, so that statement cannot be on Wikipedia”?

NO! In the interest of factual discovery it would be appropriate to dismiss the statement by means of bringing to light the fact that Raul Grijalva had not been even born yet during the events in question.

By saying “remove biased sentence--that's certainly a contested way to characterize the second amendment” you can dismiss any statement by only recognizing there are people that it is not their belief. Thus you can undermine any fact by saying it is not held to be true by all. You should use material experts to define truth. It would not be appropriate to dismiss the physics of String Theory by noting it is not held to be true by Baptist ministers.

If you are “not going to argue one way or another that gun control is a civil liberties issue” than dismiss yourself from the topic. If you wish to contribute then consult several constitutional experts and then edit based on their view.

Have you read the most recent authoritative writing on the subject? Here is a link. I would suggest you give it a good reading. http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf Consider first that, although these people may not share your view on the topic, it should still be classified as the most resent thorough review of the topic by experts in the field. If you do not hold that view of this document, I can only ask you if you are a Judge on the United States Supreme Court. If you are not, then I hold these Judges as the authority on the matter.

Here is a quick quote: “To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.” http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf SHELLY PARKER, ET AL., APPELLANTS v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND ADRIAN M. FENTY, MAYOR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Sounds like that pretty much classifies the Second Amendment as a Civil Liberty to me.

If “it is not neutral to refer to gun control as a civil liberty without reflecting the debate over this terminology” would providing a link to this Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States) be enough to let readers make up their own mind? Or better yet how abou ta link to: http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

I have, by my edits, contested that the Raul Grijalva Wikipedia page is not neutral, and now, I say it here. --199.64.0.252 05:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)