Talk:All-American Canal

Untitled

Does anyone have a picture of this canal to post? It would really improve this article. Kukini 16:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Immigration Debate

The source for the immigration debate specifically states that the people attempting to cross the canal are illegal immigrants. Making this statement is not a NPOV violation. Changing this statement is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Arzel (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I also understand why Mexico was taken out because it wasn't mentioned in the source. Obviously, they are probably coming from Mexico, although all probably not Mexican. --NortyNort (talk) 01:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Our article currently reads:

"Advocates representing the illegal immigrant community [emphasis added] have promoted the idea of stringing safety ropes across the canal for those attempting to swim across to hang on and prevent drowning...

I think we need a cite for this wording, or better wording. I shortened the phrase to Advocates, but was reverted, with the reasonable quetion, advocates for who? Thoughts? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. The advocates are not necessarily advocating for illegal immigrants. They are advocating for making the canal less dangerous. In addition, the people who die in the canal are not YET illegal immigrants. They are in the process of immigrating to the US (yes, illegally), hence it's incorrect to call the victims illegal immigrants. Victor Victoria (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

So, based off of these definitions of illegal immigration (including one from Wiki), I don't understand how crossing into California without going through customs and getting papers exempts you from being illegal. What threshold is there? You have to be at your destination? Maybe "illegal alien" is a better term based off of these definitions. I know people don't like the word alien. Nevertheless, the people are illegal once they cross the border. I don't see any other way to describe it. It is what it is and is what the source cited.--NortyNort (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Until they reach their final destinations they are still in the process of immigrating. Is it really not clear? Victor Victoria (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You're arguing semantics, once they cross the border and are in the united states the are illegal immigrants (aliens, etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.170.233.92 (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm satisfied with the current wording, thanks.

From the NASA satphoto, it does appear that the AAC actually passes into Mexico -- see this larger version. [Rummages in paper map file]. The 4-lane hwy is I-8, as I surmised, and my old AAA map of BCN shows the AAC stays in the US, if just barely. The canal may be on the actual boundary (or very close to it) for a short distance just W of this photo. So I guess the swimmers (and/or sinkers) are only "slightly" immigrants at that point. Sounds like a case for the Coast Guard to me! Cheers, Pete Tillman 20:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, read the definitions. Just because you say it doesn't make it so. Based off what Pete said though, I feel the current wording is a fair compromise.NortyNort (talk) 11:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"Water withdrawal and usage" section

This section contains much information about U.S. water usage, which:

• is totally unsourced;
• refers to one figure and two tables, which are not supplied;
• is of scant relevance to the Canal.

I only fix little stuff. This needs an editor. --LCE(talk contribs) 18:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Current speed

Please watch the 60 minutes source in the links and sources section. In this video the current in the canal is stated to move at 8 feet per second, rounding out to about 5.45 mph if you do the math. The figure of 30 mph is ridiculous, that's faster than the speed limit on many city streets. Trust me, current moving at 5.45 mph is still quite swift. Other reasons for the dangerous nature of the canal given in the segment include it's depth (20 feet or deeper in many places), cold water, and slippery sides that make escape very difficult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.201.29 (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Undoing the edit is ludicrous because the 60 minutes segment CLEARLY states the reasons the canal is dangerous and gives a figure of the current moving 8 feet per second. In 60 seconds at 8 feet per second, one would travel 480 feet. So in one hour, one would travel 28,800 feet, or about 5.45 miles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.201.29 (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I am confused as to why this edit keeps being reverted. Where is your source for the current in the canal moving at 30 mph? I provided my source for the current moving at 5.45 mph, and other reasons for the canal's danger being deep, cold water, and steep sides. In the 60 minutes segment. I have a source, you guys who are reverting my edit DO NOT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.219.160 (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

"These five main branches of the canal"

I am confused, "The All-American Canal feeds, from east to west, the Coachella Canal, East Highline Canal, Central Main Canal, and the Westside Main Canal." I counted and counted again but came only with four. אביהו (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on All-American Canal. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613142851/http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g1000/pdfiles/bcpact.pdf to http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g1000/pdfiles/bcpact.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/pdf/136/13604106.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130210074010/http://www.yumasun.com/articles/project-68421-canal-environmental.html to http://www.yumasun.com/articles/project-68421-canal-environmental.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Illegal immigrants electing to cross?

Starting a section here so hopefully we can stop the edit war. Is there sourcing specifically calling those crossing illegal immigrants? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I would imagine many are. The article as written highlights a spike in drownings after improved border security in San Diego was implemented. Certainly legal immigrants would not be affected by those changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.52.187.2 (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

There are a lot of sources identifying the immigration across as illegal such as: CBS News 60 Minutes. Undocumented also shows up fairly often i.e. Desert Sun NBC San Diego. Perhaps going with undocumented rather than illegal would be a decent compromise. It communicates the same information with a less loaded phrase? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Many articles call people who commit murder murderers. Likewise for robbers, etc. What do you propose to call someone who immigrates illegally? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.52.187.2 (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The current trend in reliable sources is to refer to such people as undocumented, rather than illegal. You don't refer to someone who is crossing the street illegally an illegal walker, you call them a jay walker. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ScottishFinnishRadish, CBS described them as "mostly illegal immigrants" in 2010, PBS as "undocumented". If more recent media specify the "type" of immigrant, they (most likely reflecting a shift in terminology) describe them as "undocumented" [1] [2]. I've found one academic source calling them "undocumented". I'm sure there has been a discussion at some point on the project whether illegal immigrants should be called illegal immigrants ("nobody is illegal" and all that) if someone wants to bother looking.

I have not found any source saying that they elect to cross. Besides, it would possibly be against WP:NPOV: Do we ever do something consciously with out electing to do so? I don't "elect to" edit Wikipedia, I just do. To me, highlighting that they "elect to" seems like some political anti-immigration talking point, arguing that they should have known better or somehow deserve to die. or perhaps I'm just a cynical and not assuming good faith...

In any case, the onus is on the IP editor to justify their change. Best, Caius G. (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

No, "illegal immigrant" is the term that has been historically used. Again, this construction is consistent with other articles. For the most part, an illegal immigrant is such because of choices they made. Calling them "undocumented" implies they did nothing wrong, which would be pov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.52.187.2 (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I wikilinked undocumented immigrant to Illegal Immigration to the US, so if somehow someone didn't know what an undocumented immigrant was a single click or hover-over will illuminate the topic for them. @Caius_G. and 155.52.187.2, does this work for either of you? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, I'm not sure if "attempting to cross" (the border) is better than "travelling across" (or perhaps both don't work), given that the canal is on the US side of the border. Anyone drowning in it will have already crossed the border.Overthinking it, this is probably fine. Happy with "undocumented". Best, Caius G. (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Made a slight adjustment to the prose due to your concern. Decent? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Good, thanks. Caius G. (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Why is it relevant whether they did something wrong? It would be pov to consciously imply either, since we don't make moral judgments on this projects, but luckily neither "illegal" nor "undocumented" imply anything about "wrongness", as illegal≠wrong and "undocumented" is completely unrelated to this issue, hence why I prefer it (+ it is backed by more recent sources). Caius G. (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I do think it's worth noting the status of the immigrants since it points to why they're crossing at a dangerous canal rather than a safer route. I personally don't care if it's undocumented or illegal, but generally sources have been trending more to undocumented, and almost everyone knows illegal and undocumented mean the same thing for immigration. Those that don't can click the wikilink. So I take it you're satisfied with the current wording? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)