Talk:United States deportation policies challenged in Santa Clara County, California

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search


What kind of photo might be good to accompany an article like this? I maybe should have taken a photo of the hearing this morning but didn't think of it. What would I need to do to get permission from people in the photo -- if any? I'm not clear on the rules. I assume I'm OK as long as the photo does not include an actor whose livelihood comes from his / her visual image. ??? Thanks. DavidMCEddy (talk) 08:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Only one source is recent. Accessdate should not be included in the sources used and does not assist in establishing newsworthiness. There probably should be at LEAST two sources confirming the main paragraph and main newsworthiness/recent point in the article. Just not there right now.--LauraHale (talk) 10:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe this is a Copyright Violation. --Computron (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. Large parts of it are copied from a source whose copyright does not allow commercial use; our articles can, to my understanding, be used commercially, so copying the material here violates the terms of the existing copyright on the material. --Pi zero (talk)
I am the author and copyright holder of the Indybay article. Spencer Graves = DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We'd need airtight proof that you are the person who is the copyright holder. I seem to recall your off-wiki identity has come up before, but I don't recall a need to establish it to a legal standard before (though I could certainly have forgotten). --Pi zero (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What would constitute airtight proof for you? I just forwarded to a reply I received from Sean Webby, Media Coordinator, Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office, to a request for comments on the Wikinews draft from I also sent an email subject "i am" from to Is that adequate? Preferences on list an email address for DavidMCEddy of I have three email addresses that I currently use daily: those two plus If you want to email at any of these addresses, I will reply.
Beyond that, when I wrote the article, I first posted a draft to Wikinews. Then I decided that I would rewrite it the next day based on new information, and since I owned the copyright and I knew that did not request a copyright assignment, I figured I could publish the version I already had there without jeopardizing publication of a revision in Wikinews. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, check the time stamps: The indybay article plagiarized the Wikinews draft, not the other way around ;-) DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Next time, I'll let you all know when I plagiarize a Wikinews article someplace else like indybay ;-) DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll take a look at all these things... in a bit. I'm drained atm from reviewing the asteroid article, whose sources put me in mind of Tom Lehrer's Lobachevsky — "Index I copied from old Vladivostok telephone directory." --Pi zero (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding newsworthiness, the focal news event appears to be somebody publishing an op-ed. It'd be pretty difficult for that not to make the article about the event a non-newsworthy rehash of an opinion (and we don't publish op-eds, as a matter of NPOV). --Pi zero (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article is still under development; I haven't submitted it yet on Wikinews. I plan to modify the lede to discuss a committee hearing on this currently in progress. I hope that will make it more newsworthy. Thanks for your comments. DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
:-)  --Pi zero (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suspect we might want to remove the copyvio tag on the article itself? (Assuming someone completed an off-wiki identity verification.) Gryllida 06:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article was first created on at 07:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC). The time stamp on the story in indybay ( is 12:19 AM Pacific time, 31 January 2013 = 08:19 UTC -- OVER AN HOUR LATER. I first wrote the article on my notebook. Then I copied it to Then I realized that it would not appear for several hours at best and would almost certainly be heavily edited before it is published on Wikinews, as it has been. So I revised it slightly and published in just over an hour later on indybay. Should we cite the indybay article as a source? I don't think it says anything the current article doesn't, so I won't unless others think we should. Should we change the title of the current article, if only to distinguish it from the indybay article? That may be wise, but I won't initiate that myself right now. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did NOT assign copyright to indybay, because I'm releasing it under the standard Wikinews copyright. DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Please excuse: I replied to the concerns early yesterday but overlooked the "resubmit" button until just a few minutes ago. DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Original reporting notes[edit]

Reporters notes and sources are mixed with the text <!-- like this --> at the end of most paragraphs. DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Emails, Phone call transcripts, other written evidence[edit]

I sent a couple of emails to One documented an exchange with the media relations person in the DA's office. He didn't say anything substantive, only acknowledging that he had tried the link I had given him.

Interview details[edit]


On-the-spot notes[edit]

see in line, as noted above

Details from broadcast report[edit]

??? The notes in line include several references to documents available on the web of past meetings by the Santa Clara County Public Safety and Justice Committee and the Board of Supervisors.

Information shared privately for off-wiki confirmation[edit]

Confirmation of email receipt by accredited reporter[edit]

Review of revision 1794581 [Not ready][edit]

Review of revision 1795122 [Not ready][edit]

Please excuse: I didn't know I was authorized to remove the copyright tag. I would have removed it early yesterday. Thanks for the clarification. DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review of revision 1795122 [Not ready][edit]

To clarify, at least a little.

  • It was, I think, not submitted with the copyvio tag on it. The author removed the tag, apologizing politely for not realizing he was authorized to do so, and resubmitted.
  • The issue of copyright is discussed further up on this page. The author believes the issue to be probably resolved, and I've been meaning to check and make sure.

--Pi zero (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review of revision 1796001 [Not ready][edit]

Review of revision 1797595 [Not ready][edit]

One question: I do not recall having heard of Marsy's Law before I saw it discussed in the DA's comments in the Agenda Packet from Nov. 7, 2012 ( -- pp., 97 - 101), and I do not recall having heard it mentioned elsewhere. Should I delete the mention of Marsy's Law?
Beyond this, I had difficulty understanding the DA's logic. He claimed his proposal would save money and provided figures, but they didn't make any sense to me and were contradicted in comments by others. Another senior public official -- see an email from me to scoop .a.t. -- said that the DA was incorrect in claiming a savings in the cost of probation. Also, if someone is detained by ICE, they may not consume Santa Clara County money for that detention, which seems central to the DA's argument. However, they definitely consume taxpayer money, and I heard someone say they didn't care if it came out of the federal or county budget -- their taxes still paid for it. That's my view, but I'm sure I'm not alone in that. The current text is my best attempt to summarize the DA's memo in a few words. I'm keeping the comment about Marsy's Law, because that was one of the major points he tried to make in that memo.
I've also added comments in line in the article in addition to emails sent to scoop .a.t. ... .
I just deleted 4 of the last 5 paragraphs. By my count, this leaved only the new second to last paragraph that has not been fact checked by a reviewer. DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the earlier ones were looked at by a reviewer. Not necessarily cleared altogether. But still.
I find myself wanting to split into four right now, so one of me can catch xyr breath from the review I just finished while the others review the three articles now on the queue. (But I suppose I'd really want five of me, since I suspect another article may be submitted soon.) --Pi zero (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I appreciate your dilemma, but I'm facing a similar one: It's now over 6 days since I first submitted this article for review. There's a hearing this afternoon at 2 PM at which this issue may or may not be discussed. I plan to attend that hearing, and I may revise the article after that hearing. Your comments are valuable, but I have to ask myself if it's worth my time to submit such a revision.
Would you object if I submitted essentially same story to (in Spanish translation, of course), or If I did, I'd also comments here and with about the dual posting. To my knowledge, I don't think or object to duplicate posting. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review of revision 1800630 [Not ready][edit]

Absolutely: As should be obvious from some of the email I forwarded to scoop .a.t., I've been involved in the campaign to retain the current policy. I'm also keenly aware of the need to "exercise great caution" to mitigate any appearance of bias in the story. You may also note that one of the emails I forwarded to scoop .a.t. came from the media contact in the District Attorney's office, who I assume should represent the other side: That was a reply to an attempt from me to solicit comments from the other side to reduce the chances that I'm presenting a one-sided view of the issue. I've done this kind of thing almost instinctively for 35 years: I got paper published 35 years ago in a refereed academic journal refuting a previous article. When I submitted my article to the journal, I also sent it to the author of the previous article. He replied, and I modified the article to reflect fairly, I think, his concerns. Also, you may recall that in "California judge disqualified" article, I attempted to contact the law firm for the other side to get their comments, and I did that also with a different article on that case that I published via In the case of the California judge, I'm not a party to that suit. I only met the plaintiff last year, because I was looking for people who were challenging the banks. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another comment: I was a follower of W. Edwards Deming. At a seminar I attended, he described serving as an expert witness about a sample survey. He identified for the court all the limitations of the survey as well as its strengths: What could be inferred from the results and what could not. After attorneys for his client finished questioning him, attorneys for the other side had no questions. There were no weaknesses left to expose in his evaluation. The group I'm working with is discussing doing a survey. I suggested consulting with a professor at UCLA who is an expert in why people obey the law. I said the prof might say that our proposed method is only good for propaganda. Or she might recommend a few tweaks that could make it valuable for an article in a refereed scientific journal -- and if the latter, it could have an impact far beyond Santa Clara County. Someone said that we should do it even if only for propaganda purposes. I'm not sure I agree: If it's only for propaganda, we could be exposed and it could damage our credibility for other issues -- and I'd rather spend my time working on other things. Moreover, I respect the reputation of Wikinews, and I don't want to jeopardize that by failing to present a balanced view of the issue. I'm not going to join the Conservative Forum of the Silicon Valley, but I may send an email to them inviting comments on this article (president .a.t. DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I hope to review this tomorrow morning (assuming someone else doesn't beat me to it, of course). The reporter has a three-hour advantage on me; it's after 9pm where I am, and I feel I'm not quite sharp enough for the decisions involved. --Pi zero (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I received the following reply to my email to president .a.t.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I expect to reply this evening. At first glance the article looks as fair-handed as any I have read in a long time. Don't want you to get too excited about that, keeping in mind the main stream media set the bar rather low.
Thanks again. I have sent your request for comment to an individual that is closely involved with this issue, Mr. Don Barich.
Best regards,
Howard Myers
This is quoted from an email forwarded to scoop .a.t., subj: Fwd: RE: ICE detainers?, 10:33 PM Pacific time Feb. 7, 2013 (Feb. 8, 2013 6:33 AM).
I'll be interested to hear what Barich says, if anything. If he replies with something I don't understand, I'll ask him for clarification and documentation. Otherwise, if he has a concern, I will endeavor to ensure that his perspective is appropriately reflected in the article. I hope you will agree that I have satisfactorily complied with the admonition to "exercise great caution" in writing on a subject where I have a conflict of interest. DavidMCEddy (talk) 07:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: Wikipedia cannot be used as a source under any circumstances. I'm seeing a Wikipedia article cited in the embedded notes; that's a non-starter. --Pi zero (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I've been struggling for some time to express this point. I'll try again.

There is a problem of approach to neutrality here. Any time you find yourself asking something like "is this a fair summary of the arguments for both sides", you have already made a mistake, because you shouldn't have been trying to do that in the first place. The Wikipedian approach to "neutrality" involves making subjective judgements like this; ours should not, by and large. I observe you sent an email to a group on the opposite side of this from the one you're on, asking for their opinion about the balance here — the balance of your summary of the positions. Which means you'd already made this serious mistake. This sort of Wikipedia-style debate over presentation of opinions is anathema to the expression of objective truth we aspire to at Wikinews. We aren't here to present opinions, we're here to present facts — including, sometimes, facts about what opinions others have expressed. Summarizing opinions is hazardous at best, and for someone with a strong bias —such as, admittedly, yourself— it's well nigh impossible to do in a "balanaced" way even in the Wikipedian sense. News has to be something that can be written neutrally, even by someone with a strong opinion on the matter, in a short time; if it requires a committee to decide how it should be written, there is already something wrong with the approach.

That said, the response to the email did point out a serious problem that I'd somehow failed to pick up on last time around — though I believe I did specifically flag it out as a problem in an earlier review. With luck I would have picked up on it again during a last-minute sanity check before publishing. But I note that your "fix", in response to the criticism, is inadequate. And the root problem is, indeed, that you're trying to "summarize" the arguments. I'm going to have to give the matter some careful thought, with an eye toward the article as a whole as well as the specific passage. --Pi zero (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm still not satisfied with the above attempt to express this. There are of course circumstances in which we do "summarize" in a sense of the word; the difference here is qualitative, and I'm still not sure how to articulate it. Perhaps something to do with oversipmlification? --Pi zero (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I"m making this harder than it has to be. Summarizing in the abstract the arguments for and against is analysis, not allowed. Summarizing what was actually said at a meeting is good; it's what we're here for. --Pi zero (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review of revision 1801830 [Not ready][edit]

Thanks. I've abandoned many projects into which I've invested more than this one, but it's never fun ;-) DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review of revision 1802533 [Passed][edit]

I attended initial "Public Comments" portion of the County Board of Supervisors meeting this morning. The room was packed and roughly 60 people spoke, but I heard zero comments about ICE detainers: A labor union is not happy with the status of contract negotiations with the County. That might make a story with some local interest -- but hardly anything of national importance. DavidMCEddy (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]