Template:Did you know nominations/Georgia House Bill 87
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Georgia House Bill 87
edit- ... that the anti-illegal immigration bill Georgia House Bill 87, which was signed into law in 2011, was partly based on Arizona's SB 1070 immigration bill? Source: "The measure -- which is partly patterned after Arizona's law -- also sets new hiring requirements for employers and penalizes people who transport or harbor illegal immigrants here."[1]
Created by Everymorning (talk). Self-nominated at 01:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC).
The article is new enough, long enough, and is policy-compliant. No issues with the hook. Citations abound, with no copyright issues - similar text strings are either quotations from the bill or proper nouns. QPQ has been taken care of. Good to go! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Premeditated Chaos and Everymorning, I wonder about the neutrality requirement. There's stuff in the article about criticism, but nothing about support, or even why the sponsors (and governor, and legislators who voted for it) thought it was a good idea. Also, out of general interest it would be nice to know what the vote was (i.e., how many for/against). --Usernameunique (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that it's not as fully fleshed out as it could be, but on the other hand, I don't see the presentation of reactions/criticism as POV. If the main impact of the bill was economically negative, then the press coverage will tend to show more of that. I don't feel that the article itself is phrased in a slanted way. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
The Reactions section is nothing but criticism, and the Effects section is equally negative. Unless you can show that there were no positive reactions (and there must have been) or positive effects (not as definite that there must have been, but still possible), then the article fails the NPOV test, and cannot run as a DYK unless it is made more neutral. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
BlueMoonset Most of the effects and (to a lesser extent) responses were negative, but not all of them were, so I added some positive reactions and a response by Deal. I hope this is sufficient to address bias concerns. Everymorning (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- Everymorning thanks for addressing that. Have there been any claimed positive effects, or have supporters of the bill substantively addressed the claimed negative effects in any way? --Usernameunique (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Usernameunique I don't think any of the bill's supporters have claimed it has had positive effects, other than "enforcing the law" (at least I couldn't find any such claims), but Nathan Deal (who signed the bill) has acknowledged that "HB 87 had ripple effects for the agricultural industry" but also said "it served as a compelling reminder that the federal government should address the issue." [2] Everymorning (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Everymorning, can you add what Deal said to the article, as a line in the effects section (pretty much exactly the way you said it above, i.e., "National Deal has achknowledged that 'HB 87 ... address the issue'" would be good)? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- I actually already added it just after I commented here in response to you. Everymorning (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. Neutrality concerns are ameliorated, so restoring tick. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)