Talk:Immigration to the United States

Wholesale erasures based on Aprock's personal POV

One editor Aprock has been making wholesale erasures of sourced material added by numerous editors (not me) based on his personal POV. The rule is that all serious views have to be included to provided balanced Neutral POV. Challenges to the quality of sources need evidence stronger rather than merely a delete key--so provide the challenges here first. Rjensen (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You also reintroduced statements tagged with citation needed. I agree with Aprock's judgment, those sources are not the kind of high quality sources that would be required for backing up such claims. The rule is not that all serious views should be included, it is that notable views should be included weighted according to notability. Some of the views removed by Aprock are clearly small minority views proposed in a single primary source. That does not justify inclusion. This article like all other articles should be based primarily on secondary sources summarising the primary literature about the topic, news articles, and single research articles that cannot be shown to have had a serious impact in the field are not good enough for most purposes.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

@Rjensen, I removed unsourced and poorly sourced material. If you think specific sources or content are worth keeping, by all means open the discussion. I'm not sure what you're referring to with respect to "the delete key". I believe I noted that most of the sources that I did remove were either undue, or not reliable sources. If you like, we can open the discussion. I'll add a new section below. I assume that you'll be constructively engaging in talk page discussion. aprock (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Think tanks are one of the major intellectual sources --and RS--for the current immigration debate and wholesale challenging them is ridiculous. Essays by leading experts are RS and should not be erased. The POV rules require all important viewpoints be included--not erased. Rjensen (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You might consider (a) being specific to which sources you are referring to here, and (b) joining the discussion below. The generalities you discuss here are not constructive with respect to determining which sources are in fact reliable and representative of mainstream views. Many of the references I removed, were removed exactly because they do not represent important viewpoints. aprock (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rjensen in that we should discuss before chopping. Secondary sources are of course preferred, but there are instances when primary information is helpful as well, used in combination with secondary sources. The Heather Mac Donald information -- isn't that a secondary source (ie HMD is a commentator, basing judgments on primary material?) -- and why was this information removed?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, when we have mainstream secondary sources which establish weight, inclusion makes sense. Without any secondary sources, we have a violation of WP:UNDUE. See the talk page of WP:NPOV more more discussion. aprock (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

See the section below, or start a new section if you'd like to discuss that specific source. aprock (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Effects on African Americans

This section is based on a primary source, with no secondary source establishing due weight. I suggest the section be removed as undue unless broader mainstream sourcing can be found. aprock (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

That is false. The section is clearly cited to secondary source by a famous expert writing in a leading economics journal. ^ Borjas, G. J.; Grogger, J.; Hanson, G. H. (2010). "Immigration and the Economic Status of African-American Men". Economica 77 (306): 255–282. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0335.2009.00803.x. --George J. Borjas has an endowed chair at the Kennedy School Harvard! and previously was a professor at the U of California. Not knowing who he is a sign on poor research indeed. Rjensen (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Novel conclusions and novel synthesis of data is primary work, not secondary. Likewise, a single citation to a research journal is not enough to make the research due in a general discussion of US immigration. Please provide a mainstream secondary source which demonstrates that this specific topic has sufficient weight for inclusion. aprock (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The "Effects on African Americans" -- it is sourced; seems right to me; only possible problem might be that it is too long to make the point -- I could write the paragraph in a sentence. So I condensed it. Not sure if it deserves its own section since its only one line.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you did not address the issue of WP:UNDUE (and WP:PRIMARY) that I raised. No one is disputing the fact that it is sourced. aprock (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Wiki rules are that "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable." PRIMARY = "Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." -- for example a forst hand account by an immigrant. That is not involved here. UNDUE refers only to giving exaggerated emphasis on a minority viewpoint, which is not at issue here. (Who says it's a minority view? Where is the majority view?) Rjensen (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rjensen. Academics used (supposedly) primary data X and concluded Y. So, why can we not include that in Wikipedia? And say that one study suggested Y. About the undue -- yes it was a bit long (I agree) so I trimmed it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

That's now how I understand WP:UNDUE. I'll start a thread at the appropriate noticeboard. aprock (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

See [1]. aprock (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The article in question written by scholars holding chairs at Harvard & U Chicago & U California --it is a mainstream secondary source published in 2010 by a leading British economics journal and citing dozens of other scholars. Aprock has no evidence whatever that it is a fringe notion like the "flat earth" (which is the example Wiki uses for UNDUE) --he has in fact not cited any RS for his views on immigration. That calls into question his competence to evaluate any RS on this topic. Rjensen (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Correction, I never once suggested anything with respect to WP:FRINGE. aprock (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Aprock erased without even reading the article or doing any research and cited irrelevant Wiki rules. Rjensen (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Aprock's interpretation of what constitutes a primary source and when to use it is correct. We can find ostensibly reliable primary sources arguing anything at all, that is why we must rely on secondary sources to determine how to weigh viewpoints against eachother according to notability. A research article may be a secondary source when it summarises previous research, but when it synthesises them in order to present a new conclusion it is a primary source. It is impossible to establish whether a view is majority or minority view based on a single primary source - that can only be determined by finding out how secondary sources regard those sources. If these professors are in fact leading scholars in their field it should not be difficult to find summaries of their work and descriptions of its reception in secondary sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Maunus has a view of primary sources that deviates dramatically from the Wikipedia definition. By his account we cannot report it when a scholar makes any finding. (In this case, Borjas was making more precise estimates that had been made by numerous other scholars.) The scholarly article in question is a secondary source and it is based on primary sources. Go to books.google and enter "Borjas NBER" and you will get over 2000 citations to Borjas work by other scholars. That's what "leading" means. Rjensen (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting my stated opinion and showing a lack of understanding of WP:PRIMARY.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Maunus perhaps can quote the Wiki definition of Primary he is using. The article is a standard secondary source with zero "primary" about it. Rjensen (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Footnotes problem

There are some footnotes at the bottom that seems to be broken, needed to be fix.Trongphu (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC) As well, link 57 is broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.41.103 (talk) 03:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• another issue is in the main article FOOTNOTE (19) article from Houston, of over one million immigrating to the United States in 1907 is a FALSE STATISTIC look at the correlation to population growth in United States as a whole from dates 1890-1930, the growth didnt show enough of an increase for the one million 1907 immigration have ever taken place. I estimate an immigration of only 200,000 or less that year to have taken place. - TwoAndrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwoAndrew (talk • contribs) 05:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

More sources

• Ousey, Graham C. and Charis E. Kubrin. "Exploring the Connection between Immigration and Violent Crime Rates in U.S. Cities, 1980–2000." Social Problems, Vol. 56, No. 3 (August 2009), pp. 447-473
• Waters, Mary C. and Karl Eschbach. "Immigration and Ethnic and Racial Inequality in the United States." Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 21, (1995), pp. 419-446

WhisperToMe (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome!

I hope that these help Wikipedians better develop this article and others related to it

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)