Talk:Birthright citizenship in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Questions

I have two questions regarding this entry:

1) When did it become a "U.S. tradition" that any child born to parents owing alligance to another country is an American citizen?

2) When did the United States choose to recognize Jus soli?

I am positive from my research that from 1791-1946 that allegiance to the Constitution is what defined American citizenship. Many of the the narrative stories of New York Italian, Irish and Polish immigrants from 1900-1930 speak of being born in NYC and gaining citizenship years later when their parents had become naturalized.

At least as far back as 1830, when the US Supreme Court decided Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbour in City of New York, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99 (1830) which tried to settle whether a child born in NYC in approximately 1776 was a US citizen, or a British citizen. If John Inglis was born with New York City while it was under US control, then he was a US citizen, if on the other hand he was born while the city was under British control, then he was a British citizen. Unfortunately there was no proof as to when Inglis was born, and the court could not find enough evidence to decide one way or the other. His father was a staunch Royalist, and removed Inglis to England when the British Troops abandoned the city. It was determined that his father had made a choice for him, and that he as an adult had never done anything to counteract that choice, and had spent his adult life living as a British citizen, thus he could not very well claim US citizenship. Hope that helps. Brimba 02:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the answer to #1 is that national allegiances owed by either or both parents (to whatever extent those allegiances might be known or knowable with certainty) do not bear under current U.S. legal tradition on the question of whether or not a child has a valid claim to U.S. citizenship. Inglis does speak of parental allegiances, but that case involved a legal environment present within a critical timeframe during the U.S. revolutionary war. I think that the answer to #2 is July 9, 1868 -- the ratification date of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. -- Boracay Bill 03:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court said that jus soli in the U.S. had been inherited as part of English common law. The 14th Amendment entrenched jus soli but didn't start it. Richwales 05:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I read somewhere under New York law (and a few other states) the state did not recognize citizenship by birth to non-resident aliens. That is most likely the cause of the narrative stories you mention. Considering that Montana and South Dakota adopted similar laws show Jus Soli was by no means the rule. LawPro (talk) 04:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed reversion of Revision as of 07:58, 9 February 2007

This revision added a block of text which had been moved from Illegal immigration to the United States into the Congressional actions section of this page. The added text is not a good fit with the writing style elsewhere on this page, does not relate well to the section where it was placed, in some places repeats points made elsewhere on the page, in some places seems to conflict with points made elsewhere on the page, and in some places seems to make points which are at least implicitly POV (IMO, of course - See the diffs here). Barring objection, I propose deletion of the text added by this revision. Comments? Objections? -- Boracay Bill

I'm particularly concerned about the portion of the new text which talks about whether U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark does or doesn't apply to US-born children of illegal aliens. Although some do admittedly argue that the Supreme Court majority in Wong Kim Ark went out of their way to highlight his parents' status as legal US residents and did not intend their ruling to apply to children of illegal immigrants, an argument can be made that the court majority was simply trying to make it clear that Wong's parents were not diplomats or any other sort of official representative of the Chinese emperor, but were simply ordinary people (and thus unquestionably subject to US jurisdiction). The Supreme Court's later ruling in Plyler v. Doe seems to reinforce this interpretation. If the block of text in question is kept, I would feel a need to rework this portion for NPOV. Richwales 19:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

I think this article needs a revision.

It makes hardly any mention of the denial of birthright citizenship to non-whites prior to the 14th amendment. The statement "Throughout the history of the United States, the fundamental legal principle governing citizenship has been that birth within the territorial limits of the United States confers United States citizenship.", while a direct quote from a reputable source, is not really technically accurate as birth citizenship was denied to African slaves, as shown in the Dred Scott case. After the civil war, The 14th amendment was created to ensure that African-Americans, particularly freed slaves, received U.S. citizenship.

Good point. Quoting a bit from DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, 60 U.S. 393 (1856):

It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or law-making power; to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is, to interpret the instrument they have framed, with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted.

In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the State which gave them. The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal Government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the [60 U.S. 393, 406] rights and immunities which the Constitution and laws of the State attached to that character.

which probably makes legal sense, if not moral sense in light of today's sensibilities, especially in light of the 10th amendment in 1791 which had mandated: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Of course, the 14th amendment changed that in 1868 with: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That big change probably should be pointed up. -- Boracay Bill 13:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This article makes no mention of any of these concepts, instead focusing largely on today's hot-button topic of immigration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.210.192 (talk • contribs)

Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001)

I have removed a sentence from the section Children born overseas out of wedlock
(1)The final element has proven especially unfortunate in these cirumstances, as once the child has reached 18,
(2)the father is forever unable to establish his son's paternity to deem his child a natural-born citizen.
The first part of the sentence fails POV and the second is in error. DNA tests can determine paternity within the bounds of reasonable doubt. They are used in U.S. courts regulary.-----Adimovk5 (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, but it's not sufficient to satisfy the statute, as it has to be established prior to the 18th birthday. If DNA evidence is proffered after the child has turned 18, it won't cure the deficiency. Jkatzen (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit of first sentence

I had to edit the first sentence of this article, because it was getting a bit ridiculous and clearly not neutral. It previously read that under the "current" reading of the US Constitution, anyone "now" born in the US is automatically a citizen. While there's nothing in the sentence which is technically untrue, the use of the words "current" and "now" imply that this is a recent development, which is not the case at all. As the article points out, the 14th Amendment was ratified over 140 years ago, and the reading of it to include birthright citizenship has court precedent going back at least 100 years. Clearly the author of the sentence isn't happy about the fact, but if that's the case he or she can take it up with Congress and state legistlatures, because that's the way it is now. To phrase it the other way is clearly in violation of Wikipedia's NPOV rule. You may as well start off an article about President Bush saying "President Bush is not technically classified as a moron." Nothing untrue there, but clearly the sentence is trying to imply something.

- HowardWtalk 7:08pm, Dec 22, 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 00:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Section on children born overseas is not relevant to this article

It would be better placed in a general article about US citizenship. Grover cleveland (talk) 07:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez

I question the relevance of the section mentioning U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, and I also question the claim that this case "clarified" the Supreme Court's earlier ruling in Plyler v. Doe.

I think the editor is making too much of the "substantial connections with this country" phrase from the Verdugo-Urquidez opinion. Verdugo-Urquidez didn't have anything at all to do with the constitutional rights of aliens (legal or illegal) within the US; the case was about an alien who was arrested in Mexico and extradited to the US, who was challenging searches/seizures done in Mexico as being violations of the Fourth Amendment. The "substantial connections" verbiage was directed at the suggestion that Verdugo-Urquidez had supposedly gained the right to challenge those Mexican searches on US constitutional grounds because he had been extradited to the US (and was thus now in the US).

Verdugo-Urquidez cited Plyler, to be sure, but it did not "clarify," change, or overrule the holdings of Plyler in any way. Even if the Supreme Court's intent had been to overrule or modify the Plyler holdings, such comments in Verdugo-Urquidez — a case involving a totally different situation — would at best be obiter dicta. Richwales (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The specific statement which is in dispute is "those cases in which aliens have been determined to enjoy certain constitutional rights establish only that aliens receive such protections when they have come within the territory of, and have developed substantial connections with, this country. See, e. g., Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 212." Here, the court is explicitly stating that the only thing Plyler v Doe established was that "aliens receive such protections when they have come within the territory of, and have developed substantial connections with, this country". You question whether it is a clarification. What then would you call it?

You say, "Verdugo-Urquidez didn't have anything at all to do with the constitutional rights of aliens (legal or illegal) within the US" On the contrary, the case was about the rights of an alien in the U.S. (it only became a case after the alien entered the U.S.)

However, even if you were right (and I point out once again, that you're not, but just for the sake of the argument), I don't see its relevance. The court was specifically talking about Plyler (it wrote, "see, e.g. Plyler v. Doe") and other cases. Noone has suggested that Verdugo-Urquidez in any way changed or overruled the holdings of Plyler. What has been said is that Verdugo-Urquidez clarified the findings of Plyler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.153.110 (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the thing that's making me confused/unsettled here is that I don't understand what use you (or others) are proposing to make of the "have developed substantial connections" phrase in the context of an article about birthright citizenship. Do you believe this verbiage opens up the possibility of a situation in which a US-born child of illegal alien parents would not have US citizenship by birth if the parents had somehow not "developed substantial connections" with the US? I haven't seen any suggestion that this would be so — certainly nothing on point in Plyler (which dealt with children who were unquestionably not US citizens by birth, having been born to non-citizens outside the US) — nor in Verdugo-Urquidez (the whole point of which being that the person involved was indisputably and unquestionably not a US citizen).

The only use of the "substantial connections" idea which I saw in Verdugo-Urquidez was to make the point that Mr. Verdugo's having been brought to the US as an extradited prisoner was not enough of a US connection to endow him with Fourth Amendment protection against search/seizure activity performed in Mexico. I suppose this case, or the way you're proposing that it "clarified" Plyler v. Doe, might be applicable to the birthright citizenship debate if a pregnant female alien were extradited to the US, gave birth while in US custody, and the question of her child's right to US citizenship were to come up; but other than that, I'm afraid I don't see enough of a connection to hold water, and if you believe there is a connection (presumably something else that I've got a mental block about right now), then I think it needs to be made more explicit — all the while, of course, taking care to avoid violating WP:SYNTH. Richwales (talk) 04:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the thing that's making me confused/unsettled here is that I don't understand what use you (or others) are proposing to make of the "have developed substantial connections" phrase in the context of an article about birthright citizenship.

Until we have a reliable source which answers the question, "what does 'have developed substantial connections' mean in the context of birthright citizenship?", that's another irrelevant question.

Do you believe this verbiage opens up the possibility of a situation in which a US-born child of illegal alien parents would not have US citizenship by birth if the parents had somehow not "developed substantial connections" with the US? I haven't seen any suggestion that this would be so

Again, what I believe isn't relevant. What you believe isn't relevant either. What's relevant is what adheres to Wikipedia policy.

certainly nothing on point in Plyler (which dealt with children who were unquestionably not US citizens by birth, having been born to non-citizens outside the US) — nor in Verdugo-Urquidez (the whole point of which being that the person involved was indisputably and unquestionably not a US citizen).

Given as how the court was specifically talking about Plyler v Doe, the court did think it was on point.

I suppose this case, or the way you're proposing that it "clarified" Plyler v. Doe, might be applicable to the birthright citizenship debate if a pregnant female alien were extradited to the US, gave birth while in US custody, and the question of her child's right to US citizenship were to come up"

Verdugo-Urquidez was about about an alien in the U.S. and the rights he received within the U.S. given that he had not developed substantial connections with the U.S. Plyler was about aliens within the U.S. and the rights they received within the U.S. given that they had developed substantial connections with the U.S. The fact that we're discussing here is that the court clarified that Plyler v. Doe found that these constitutional rights apply only to aliens who are in the U.S. and have developed substantial connections with the U.S. Though, neither case answers the question as to what exactly "substantial connections" are, that's, again, irrelevant.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

75.179.153.110: You need to find a secondary source that backs up your contention that Verdugo-Urquidez is relevant here. If you can't, it should be removed from the article. A supreme court ruling is a primary source. See WP:PSTS: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:

• only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
• make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

Grover cleveland (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

And until we have a reliable source of any sort addressing the question of what having "developed substantial connections" with the US might mean in the context of US birthright citizenship, there is really no justification (much less any Wikipedia policy mandate) for bringing up the phrase in this article. Just because the words exist in the Verdugo-Urquidez majority opinion is not, by itself, enough to justify an insistence that the phrase be cited in an article without any context showing it is relevant to the article's topic. At most, there might possibly be justification in mentioning the "substantial connections" issue, but with a cautionary note saying that its possible relevance to the birthright citizenship question remains unclear pending future rulings by the court. But given the very limited extent to which the court applied this concept in Verdugo-Urquidez — invoking it only to counter the suggestion that Mr. Verdugo had acquired as much Fourth Amendment protection as non-resident US citizens have by virtue of his having been brought onto US territory as an extradited prisoner — I would be very hesitant to consider the "substantial connections" phrase to have any sort of widespread application in the absence of some definite indication of its applicability (as illustrated by other Supreme Court decisions). That was why I asked my questions above, and why I (still) consider them relevant to whether or not this phrase belongs in this article. Richwales (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

In order to avoid bias, all sources in the article must be examined to see if they withstand the justification given for removing Verdugo-Urquidez. Current justifications given for removing Verdugo-Urquidez (that the case wasn't about birthright citizenship, for example), when applied in an unbiased manner, will result in the removal of other content in the article (for example, INS v. Rios-Pineda and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld aren't specifically about birthright citizenship either). This is not to say that current justifications given for removing Verdugo-Urquidez are sufficient for removing it (I do not believe the Wikipedia community has reached a consensus on that yet, though I do admit that it seems to be obviously leaning more in one direction than another), This is only to point out that we must be consistent in our application of any justification we go with.-198.97.67.57 (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I would definitely support the removal of the sections on Rios-Pineda and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, as they currently stand, from the article. As 198.97.67.57 points out, they don't have any secondary sources supporting their relevance here, and neither case, on its face, is about birthright citizenship. (In addition, the sections hardly add anything to the article since the discussion is so brief.) This is not to say that they (or indeed Verdugo-Urquidez) should never be in the article, but that they should only be inserted when we have sources to justify their inclusion. Grover cleveland (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Everyone please be aware that I've made a "request for comments" (RfC) on the Plyler v. Doe talk page, asking for outside input on whether or not citing U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez is appropriate on that page. Richwales (talk) 06:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Anchor Baby

"Anchor baby" is not synonymous with "US born child of alien parents". An "Anchor baby" is a child born of illegal aliens in the US with the intent to anchor those illegal aliens to the US. Parents of anchor babies are not awarded citizenship for having had that baby - they remain illegal aliens - they just get some form of unofficial protection from being deported. But, if those illegal aliens have other children within the US at a future date, those other children are not anchor babies - so, as I said, "anchor baby" is not synonymous with "US born children of alien parents". It appears that the only reason this precise term (ie. anchor baby) is being replaced with a less accurate terminology is that some people may find it offensive. I can not emphasize enough that an encyclopedia does not exist to reflect political correctness. Accuracy is a fundamental goal of an encyclopedia. While offending others is not a goal, until and unless terminology which is just as accurate and less offensive is offered, we must fall on the side of accuracy.-198.97.67.58 (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the use of "anchor baby", as long as it's wiki-linked to the article for such a term. One editor has been unilaterally removing it without consensus. I just haven't cared enough to get a discussion going about it. Jkatzen (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The term is highly POV and generally considered to be derogatory. And no, it is not more accurate because it is based on a premise that cannot be proven or disproven. Using the term in this context would be to push a specific POV that assumes the intentions of every illegal immigrant that gives birth. In the case of a dispute, it's better to use neutral language, not loaded terms. And finally, there is no reliable source for using the term in an encyclopedic article. You would never see it in a legitimate news source, why would we use it here? --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What is POV about it? Is the POV whether or not it is possible for illegal aliens to achieve some form of unofficial protection from being deported by having a child born in the US? What -specifically- is POV about that? What is the "premise that cannot be proven or disproven"?-198.97.67.57 (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's start with your original premise. That the term is not synonymous with "US born children of alien parents." How do the terms differ? The only difference seems to be the point of view that everyone involved is intentionally culpable. It pushes the POV that these people are, as you put it, specifically trying to "achieve some form of unofficial protection from being deported by having a child born in the US." This is not demonstrated by reliable sources (and would be impossible to prove anyway as you would have to examine the specific intentions of every person. Better to simply describe the tangible actions and leave the speculation about intentions to the blog. And finally, there is no reliable source for using the term in an encyclopedic article. It would never appear in a news article, why would we use it here? Please don't edit war. Let's let this discussion play out and get some outside comments. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me see how clearly I can spell this out. The -first- child born in the US of illegal aliens grants to those aliens some unofficial protection against deportation. Additional children do not grant this protection (because the protection has already been granted). Therefore, there is a clear distinction between the -first- child born of illegal aliens in the US and all other children born of illegal aliens in the US. This unofficial protection granted by the -first- child is what gets it identified as an 'anchor baby' and any children past the first are not 'anchor babies'. Therefore, it is -not- true that an 'anchor baby' is any "US born children of alien parents". -75.179.153.110 (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Your theory about it only applying to the first born is not mentioned in any references. Do you have a reliable third-party source for this or is it your own personal theory? Also, if true, then you should have no problem simply adding the phrase "first-born" to the neutral language, correct? --Loonymonkey (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's the thing: regardless of whether it's pejorative or not, it's a term that's ever-present in the central debate, and it's used frequently. Addressing the term here is appropriate, even if for no other reason than its prevalence (see also 60,000 search results on Google for the term, and an article on Wikipedia already). I'll grant that many sources consider it pejorative, but that's one of characterization and nuance, as others disagree. Adding the qualifier "so-called" as I've done now should help make clear that this isn't necessarily a standard term, but one that is used by people coloring the debate one way or another. Jkatzen (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to find compromise, but here's the problem with that. Use of the phrase "so-called" is tendentious and that phrase is specifically discussed in WP:WTA. Essentially what you're trying to do is insert a term that pushes POV ("anchor baby") and then push the POV back the other direction with the term "so-called." That isn't neutral point of view, that's just two different non-neutral points of view in the same sentence (which should never be confused with "balance.") It is far better to simply use neutral language to begin with. Since you acknowledge that the term is not neutral (it is "one that is used by people coloring the debate one way or another") we should use language that is neutral. That is one of the most fundamental prinicipals of Wikipedia. As for google hits, that has nothing to do with the debate. We don't use google hit counts to determine what language to use. The term "wetback" would get as many hits or more, but would be equally inappropriate. --Loonymonkey (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that I necessarily "acknowledge" that it's not neutral. I merely grant that some people consider it not neutral . . . which doesn't mean that their characterization is absolutely true. I also acknowledge that it's heavily used in the debate over the subject and has been raised in news articles regarding that series of bills numerous times. In any debate, there are going to be terms that one side prefers over another (possibly because one side's terms may appear to presumptiously assume what the other side is seeking to disprove), but it doesn't mean they're invalid. And it especially doesn't mean that the reality on the ground (their usage) should be erased from existence. "So-called" here is actually a very legitimate qualifier: it shows that there is significant usage of the term in the debate, though its neutrality is questioned by some as well. From my own point of view, I'd never heard of the term (or the series of bills or the debate over the bill, to be honest) until I read this article. I feel much more informed for having been introduced to it and having been able to click on the term's wiki-link and read about it. Jkatzen (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, also, if consensus truly builds to remove the term, I wouldn't fight it. But it seems, at least at this point, that you're the only one who's raised a problem with it, though it's been added back repeatedly. My involvement has usually only been after a series of reverts between you and other editors. I'd almost rather have this discussion sit here a while to see if anyone else contests the term, rather than listing it on some general Wikipedia request for comments, because, from my experience, that tends to attract a slew of thumpers-for-a-cause, who don't have a particular familiarity with a subject or involvement with an article. The result is that you get a million YESes and a million NOs and really are in no better position to gauge after it's over. Jkatzen (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't like "anchor baby" either. I think it's derogatory and inherently POV. I could possibly live with "so-called 'anchor babies'" if others insist on using the term, but it strikes me as similar to saying "so-called 'n****rs'" in an article about racial discrimination. I would vastly prefer to use a more neutral expression. And I'm not impressed by hair-splitting over whether one is talking about an illegal immigrant couple's first vs. subsequent US-born child; I've never seen anything (except for discussion here) suggesting that that's a genuine consideration in the minds of people who oppose jus soli citizenship in the US. Richwales (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that it's similar to saying "so called 'n****rs'", because that term, at least currently, isn't central to a debate. A better example might be for a hypothetical anti-abortion act, where it sometimes is referred to, in the media, etc., as a "pro-life bill". It would warrant stating in the article that it is the "so-called pro-life bill". The term has some weight behind it, but could a very present element of a debate. In the instant case, I've seen a number of sources refer to the congressional action as "the anchor-baby bill." Jkatzen (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You all are missing the fact that Wikipedia isn't about adding only content you like. It is about writing content that adheres to policy. With that in mind, I'm waiting for any of you to describe what exactly is POV about the term "anchor baby". You are dancing around doing so and the fact that you are dancing around speaks very poorly for the strength of the point you are trying to make.-198.97.67.59 (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The POV aspect has already been explained to you several times. Please go back and read this discussion from the beginning again. Perhaps you missed those arguments as you never responded to any of them directly. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What has been said about this term is that "I think it's derogatory and inherently POV", "what you're trying to do is insert a term that pushes POV", "The term is highly POV" and the like. These are all assertions that the term is POV - but that's all they are, assertions. Further, such assertioins are inherently POV themselves. What you are aggressively resisting providing is a description of what exactly is POV about the term. You are dancing around doing so and the fact that you are dancing around speaks very poorly for the strength of the point you are trying to make.-198.97.67.58 (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, please go through and read this discussion again, particularly the very valid points and arguments that you still haven't responded to. I really shouldn't need to quote myself from within the same discussion, but here goes. The term pushes the specific "point of view that everyone involved is intentionally culpable. It pushes the POV that these people are, as you put it, specifically trying to "achieve some form of unofficial protection from being deported by having a child born in the US." This is not demonstrated by reliable sources (and would be impossible to prove anyway as you would have to examine the specific intentions of every person. Better to simply describe the tangible actions and leave the speculation about intentions to the blogs." Also, you still haven't provided a single reliable source for your claim that this term only applies to the first-born child of illegal immigrants. Do you have one or is this your own personal theory? --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, you haven't made any valid points, yet, let alone "very valid points". I'll let you know when you have since you seem to be having trouble determining what a very valid point might look like. The quote you made, for example, is a case in point. You assert that the term pushes a specific point of view that everyone involved in intentionally culpable, yet you fail to discuss how that point of view is allegedly being pushed in this case. You just make assertions - assertions which reflect a POV (that POV being that political correctness is more important than accuracy). I mean, you haven't provided a single reliable source for your claim that this term applies to all US born children of illegal aliens. Do you have one or is this your own personal theory?-198.97.67.58 (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, since you can't refute any of those points (rather, just hurl insults) it's obvious that you don't really have a thought-out rationale for why the term is NPOV as you claim. I pointed out the POV in the term and, rather that counter argue, you simply bluster about political correctness. And, once again, you still cannot provide a reliable source for your claim that it only applies to first-born children so it's pretty obvious that you simply made that part up. I'm going to take this to an RfC as it's clear you aren't very interested in discussion or consensus. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't we just let this sit for a while? An RfC is just going to stir up muck among people with a bone to pick. Jkatzen (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, as you said below, the four of us have said all we can say on the subject (and I would add that only three of us are even attempting to discuss this). Clearly one editor is more interested in disrupting wikipedia in order to make a point than reaching consensus and will almost certainly edit war if changes to the article are made so we need to achieve consensus on our own. The only way to do that is through the involvement of a few ouside editors (at which point any edit-warring can be dealt with through administrative means). I'll probably submit the request tomorrow.--Loonymonkey (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Once more, because you seem to have missed it the last time, you haven't -made- any 'points', just assertions. So, there's nothing to refute. And, once again, you still cannot provide a reliable source for your claim that it represents all U.S. born children so it's pretty obvous that you simply made that up.-198.97.67.57 (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I never made any such claim, of course. Perhaps you should go back and read through this thread again. You, however, did claim that it only applies to first-born children, a claim for which you can't find a single source. But hey, prove me wrong. Show us a couple of reliable sources to support your claim. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's "Anchor baby" article says the term has been characterized as derogatory / pejorative. And that same article also defines the term without giving any indication that its proper use is restricted to apply only to a firstborn child of illegal immigrants. Richwales (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that focusing on some purported distinction as to whether it's first-born or not is either irrelevant or minutae. The question, to me, is whether the term--which is offensive to some but ever-present in the debate--has a place in a reference to the debate. Let's let this sit a while to get more thoughts on it, as the four of us have said all we can, I believe. Jkatzen (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Having stepped away from this for a couple of days, I'd like to return from a different perspective. Before we decide whether or not anchor baby should be used in this discussion, let's agree on what is and what is not a valid way of discussing the question.

These are arguements that I do not consider legitimate and which I believe do not have any role to play in whether the term should be used. 1.) Is it offensive? Note that this is not a question of whether or not it is offensive, but rather whether or not the question of whether it is offensive has any place in whether or not the term should be used (as I said, I'm focusing on how the debate should be resolved, not on resolving the debate - because the actual debate is too energized right now) My answer? I can find no Wikipedia policy which instructs us as to whether we can use terms which some people consider offensive. Further, Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, should not be censored based on whether or not someone considers something offensive (if it were so censored, a great deal of the content in this encyclopedia from evolution to white power to homosexuality would have to be removed). 2.) Is it POV? The question of whether or not it is POV is relevant to the discussion (but everyone should read the actual policy on POV - "not POV" is not synonymous with "not offensive to anyone", but rather, "not POV" means the article is "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources"Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). 3.) Is the term synonymous with some other term? This question is not relevant to the question of whether the term should be used. However, should we decide that the term shouldn't be used, this question needs to be asked when looking for a replacement-198.97.67.58 (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that offensiveness of a term or availability of an alternative should not be a consideration. I'm not saying that we need to avoid all terms that anyone might find offensive. However, if there is an honest choice available between a "charged" term and a reasonably equivalent, non-charged term, I think it's appropriate to go with the latter. In this case, "U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants or other non-citizens" — or perhaps simply "U.S.-born children of non-citizens" — seems to me to be fine, and I would prefer one of these expressions. Richwales (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You write, "I'm not saying that we need to avoid all terms that anyone might find offensive." This seems to indicate that you are saying that we need to avoid all terms that some particular group(s) might find offensive." By what criteria do you want those particular group(s) identified so that they might be so empowered? What does 'honest' mean in this context and by what criteria do we determine whether a choice is honest or not?

Please reference relevant Wikipedia policy to support the answers you give. Failure to reference relevant policy will be taken to mean that you know of no relevant Wikipedia policy which supports the answers you are giving.-198.97.67.59 (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

While you're demanding links from others, we're still waiting for you to provide a single reliable source that supports you claim that the term only applies to the first born child of illegal aliens. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Could we please back off a bit on the "lawful neutral" rhetoric? I really don't think it's helpful from the standpoint of our trying to reach a consensus.

Since only one of the sources currently given in the article for the comment about "so-called 'anchor babies'" actually uses the expression "anchor babies" — and since (as far as I know) none of the proposed legislation on the subject in Congress uses the term — I think it would be much more appropriate to use something closer to what the various bills say, such as "U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants".

Also, AFAIK, none of the bills introduced in Congress from time to time on this subject have made any attempt to distinguish between a child who is the first to be born in the US to illegal aliens and subsequent US-born children of the same parent(s). Again, without some independent source narrowing down the definition of "anchor baby" to encompass only the firstborn, I'm not satisfied that we should accept this point as a distinction in meaning between "anchor baby" and something like "U.S.-born child of illegal immigrants".

Finally, I'm still worried that the standard you're putting forth to justify the use of "so-called 'anchor babies'" in this article — namely, that we can't shun a term simply because it offends some people — could just as validly justify the use of "so-called 'n****rs'" in an article about racial discrimination in the American South. I'm not trying to ridicule your position via reductio ad absurdum, but I would like to understand what sort of difference (if any) you see between these two cases. Richwales (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Richwales said, "Could we please back off a bit on the "lawful neutral" rhetoric? I really don't think it's helpful from the standpoint of our trying to reach a consensus". First, what does lawful neutral mean in this context? Second, what specifically in the history of this discussion makes you think that the way we were discussing the issue previously was going to lead to a resolution?

"since (as far as I know) none of the proposed legislation on the subject in Congress uses the term"

"Since only one of the sources currently given in the article for the comment about 'so-called 'anchor babies' actually uses the expression 'anchor babies'"

This is not true. Border baby boom strains S. Texas _Houston Chronicle_ uses the term border baby, but Born In the USA _San Diego Union-Tribune_ and Rep. Gayle Harrell says immigration is 'No. 1 issue' _Fort-Pierce Tribune_ both use the term Anchor baby. As an aside, would you prefer the term that the Houston Chronicle uses - Border baby - over Anchor baby? I don't much care for it as it implies (in this context) that the only people having anchor babies are EWIs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.97.67.59 (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the terms that Congress uses have a place, probably even a major place, in our decision. However, "as far as I know" has no place here. You need to reference the actual proposed legislation and point out what terms it is using.

"I would like to understand what sort of difference (if any) you see between these two cases." No difference. There must be no difference, else we're not creating an objective document but one based on political whim. This is not a reductio ad absurdum, but rather standing up for Integrity.

BTW, all three of the articles use the term "anchor baby" -- you just need to read the full-text of the "Border baby" article to see it there. Jkatzen (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Loonymonkey said, " never made any such claim, of course", but, in fact, he did. He made that claim implicitly by replacing Anchor baby with U.S. born children of illegal immigrants and, now, having made that assertion, he needs to be honest about it.-198.97.67.57 (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Now you're just being absurd. How is that edit the same as making the claim that the term has anything to do with whether a child is first-born or not. In fact, you made such a claim after I made that edit. Go back and read through this thread again if you've forgotten the details. I didn't read your mind and know that you were going to make a false claim and then make an edit to refute it.

Let's go back to square one. "U.S.-born child of illegal immigrants" seems to be the most accurate and NPOV term to use so what is your objection to it specifically? Your previous objection (your claim that it was inaccurate because it doesn't distinguish first-born or not) has been proven wrong. It's pretty clear that you made it up and if you could find a reliable source for that, you would have provided it by now. So absent that claim, what is your objection to the term. Please be specific and try not to answer by simply asking a bunch of questions. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is heading into a direct confrontation between editors on issues other than content. I insinuated that Looneymonkey wasn't being honest. He claims that I'm being absurd. This is non productive. Let's back up a bit here and try to focus on something a bit more productive.

Looneymonkey, in your opinion, how is replacing one set of words with another not implicitly saying that those two sets of words are synonymous? ""U.S.-born child of illegal immigrants" seems to be the most accurate and NPOV term to use so what is your objection to it specifically? Your previous objection (your claim that it was inaccurate because it doesn't distinguish first-born or not) has been proven wrong." First, no it hasn't. Second, this is exactly the kind of debate that we were locked in previously. So, I'll ask you the same question I asked Richwales. What specifically about the earlier manner in which we were arguing has led you to believe that it will lead to resolution on this issue?-198.97.67.59 (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, even more so, as I stated earlier, the question of whether the term is synonymous with another term or which terms it is synonymous with is irrelevant in deciding whether or not the term should stay (because if the term can stay, then it doesn't matter whether there are other terms that are synonymous - it is only if we decide that the term can't stay that we need to decide what it can be replaced with). That being the case, this whole branch of this discussion is currently irrelevant.-198.97.67.59 (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the "anchor baby" article flags the term as derogatory and pejorative should suggest to a reasonable editor that use of the expression is likely to violate NPOV. Even with mitigation via the "so-called" qualifier, such a term shouldn't be used if a more neutral alternative is available and there isn't any compelling reason to use a POV expression.

I pointed out before that Wikipedia does not define 'POV' as 'not offensive to anyone', rather it defines 'POV' means that the article is not "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Explain specifically how you feel that use of the term Anchor baby results in an article which does not represent fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.-198.97.67.56 (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

My earlier reference to "lawful neutral rhetoric" was basically a plea to avoid the kind of obsessive hyperfocussing on rules that leads to wikilawyering. Sorry if you weren't familiar with this expression or didn't understand the reference. Richwales (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"My earlier reference to "lawful neutral rhetoric" was basically a plea to avoid the kind of obsessive hyperfocussing on rules that leads to wikilawyering."

So, instead of using objective criteria and integrity to determine what should be in a Wikipedia article, you believe we should focus on using what exactly?-198.97.67.59 (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

A couple of useful quotes from the WP:LAWYER article you referenced earlier, "In any case an accusation in wikilawyering is never a valid argument per se, unless an explanation is given why particular actions may be described as wikilawyering, and the term "wikilawyering" is used as a mere shortcut to these explanations" - so, while you've not accussed me of wikilawyering, merely insinuated that I've been doing so, before you get to the point of making such an accusation, you should be prepared to give an explanation as to why particular actions I've engaged in may be described as wikilawyering. "simply being a stickler about Wikipedia policies/guidelines and process does not make an editor a wikilawyer" and what ever explanation you give must be more substantial than that I've been a stickler for the rules. You should also remember that accusations of wikilawyering are uncivil.-198.97.67.56 (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a RfC on this topic (see below) in an effort to solicit outside input. With respect, and without any desire to be uncivil, I feel that you have been making arguments here which are based on unreasonably narrow and overliteral interpretations of Wikipedia principles. I'm not sure how to articulate my feelings precisely, but I don't believe that means my position is wholly without merit. I hope the RfC will bring some more seasoned editors into the discussion and that we all (myself included) will be able to come away with a better understanding of how to contribute constructively. Richwales (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I was just getting ready to do the same. This is clearly just going in circles and these demands that we first "argue what should be argued" seem designed simply to completely obfuscate the issue and wear everyone down. It's time to let the larger community of experienced editors weigh in and accept the consensus that develops from that discussion. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Richwales, you've chosen to throw a term at me which is uncivil and disrespectful. The fact that the term is uncivil has been pointed out to you, yet you insist on using it. To now say, "without any desire to be uncivil" doesn't mask the fact that you are knowingly insisting on being uncivil. The fact that you are also "not sure how to articulate my feelings precisely" is just rhetoric, you are expressing your feelings very precisely. What you are unable to do is articulate precisely how I'm wikilawyering other than to point out that I'm being a stickler for policy, guidelines, and process (something which was also pointed out to you not to be wikilawyering).

If you truly do not desire to be uncivil, then you should apologize and, in the future, choose your words more carefully - especially when you are unable or unwilling to back those words up.-198.97.67.58 (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Jesus, do we need a law to close this "anchor baby" loophole, or what? US welfare services (Medicaid, etc.) are becoming so deluged with hospital bills that these parents can't pay for these kids that free clinics are shutting down all over the West at a far more rapid rate than in the past. Illegal aliens use almost 10 times in government services what they put back into the system in taxes and this country's wealth is not so profligate that we can take this slow bleed forever. Outlaw the anchor babies. Seal the border. Prosecute US businesses that knowingly employ illegals, driving down wages for actual US citizens. Bush, McCain, Obama, Pelosi have all failed us repeatedly on this issue. Who the Hell will stand up and fight for AMERICANS in America?

-TROY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.0.175.249 (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RfC regarding appropriateness of "anchor babies" in this article

We've been unable to reach a consensus as to whether the term "anchor babies" (or "so-called 'anchor babies'") belongs in the article, as opposed to an expression such as "U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants", and regarding which specific or general Wikipedia principles might apply here. See the above "Anchor Baby" section of this talk page. Richwales (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The passage in question is:

Some legislators, unsure whether an act of Congress regarding the citizenship status of so-called "anchor babies"would survive court challenges, have proposed that the Citizenship Clause be changed through a constitutional amendment. House Joint Resolution 46 in the 109th Congress proposed such an amendment; however, neither this, nor any other proposed amendment, has yet been approved by Congress for ratification by the states.

The question is whether we should use "anchor babies," "so-called anchor babies" or ""U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants" in the above paragraph (and in future similar references. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Use Anchor baby

• the term is what is used by the sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.97.67.58 (talk • contribs)
• the term is in common use (having over 60,000 Google hits) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.97.67.58 (talk • contribs)
• while some consider the term offensive, if Wikipedia uses whether some consider something "offensive" as a measure of whether to include content, many articles, from evolution to homosexuality to white power would have to be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.97.67.58 (talk • contribs)

Don't use Anchor baby

• while "offensive" should not factor into whether content is added to Wikipedia, illegal aliens are a special case - we should avoid risk of offense where illegal aliens are involved-13:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.97.67.58 (talk • contribs)

• Note that all of the above opinions including the "don't use" argument were added by 198.97.67.58. Let's have this discussion in regular RfC format, okay? That means bulleted comments (comments that you actually believe in, not strawman arguments that you disagree with) and signed posts. At this point we really need to hear from uninvolved editors. Thank you. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note, all RfCs I've ever seen summarize the issue under concern - they don't just pont to a long, unstructured thread of background info. Providing a list of pros and cons for the different sides is a very common structured format to achieve this summary. Both pros and cons should be listed in a neutral manner as I've attempted to do so. Ordinarily, the actual RfC format is agreed upon by the people working on the issue before it is submitted (but that wasn't done here). Now, to prevent stacking the deck, to make it easier for editors replying to the RfC to see what the issues relevant to the discussion, I've had to go back and rewrite the RfC and the only mechanism I've had for doing so is appending to the RfC.

As for signed posts, I wasn't making a reply to the RfC, I was trying to write it in the manner I've seen most RfCs written. So, no signed posts. If you care to rewrite the RfC in the way that it is commonly done, please do so. Thank you. -198.97.67.58 (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you did so in a very disruptive and unnecessary manner by using a false strawman argument to "summarize" the other side. Read through the entire thread above and you'll see that not one person used the rationale that "illegal aliens are a special case - we should avoid risk of offense where illegal aliens are involved." You simply made that up, which is rather dishonest. There is no need to attribute false arguments to others, let's let the discussion play out. This is exactly the sort of behavior that created the need for this RfC in the first place. Let's try to avoid such shenanigans and let others weigh in okay? Thanks --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

First, you need to stop splitting up other peoples' posts. It makes it really difficult to follow the discussion.

Secondly, this demonstrates why we should have discussed the RfC before it was posted. When I read back through the thread, I see, Richwales acknowledging that we shouldn't avoid words, generally speaking, just because somebody thinks those words are offensive (Richwales (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)), but he also says that we should not use Anchor baby because some people consider it offensive (Richwales (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)). If I've misunderstood him, well, I've tried since the beginning of this thread to get both of you to actually make a clear argument rather than just dance around and avoid doing so. So far, you've refused to do so.-198.97.67.57 (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not had internet access during this past week, and will likely not have access during the next week, so for the moment I will simply express my shock and dissapointment that we are actually engaged in discussing whether or not to indulge in gratuitous name-calling in a wikipedia article. While it is appropriate for wikipedia to have entries on pejorative terms such as Wetback and Anchor baby, it does not follow that articles such as this one should indulge in the gratuitous hurling of such epithets in a context where the discussion of the terms themselves is not the issue. What exactly is the pressing need to be offensive? --Ramsey2006 (talk) 03:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have the completely opposite perspective. I'm full of shock and disappointment with the idea that something meant for educational purpose (an encyclopedia) is expected to abstain from content simply because somebody might consider it offensive. What is lost, I think, is necessarily reflection before rushing to call something one doesn't like "gratuitous". It chills me that one day the very same argument you make here in your rush to censor content will be used against "gay", for example, because such a term offends others as well. As has been pointed out before, we do not get to pick and choose who it is okay to offend - not if we wish to lay claim to writing with integrity.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 03:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. My head is spinning. I see three different anonymous IP editors here participating in this RfC. Are 198.97.67.57, 75.179.153.110 and 198.97.67.58 three different wikipedia editors who are agreeing with and reinforcing each other in this RfC, or are all three simply the same anonymous editor using different IPs? I'm starting to feel outnumbered.--Ramsey2006 (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

As best we've been able to tell, these are all one editor, using dynamic IP addresses in two different networks (possibly one network at work and another at home). He/she has been operating in this fashion for some time. He/she has been asked many times to please consider setting up an account, but he/she apparently wishes (for private personal reasons) to remain an outsider of sorts. While this is definitely not the ideal situation — and I, for one, would much rather see him/her play by the accepted customary practices — my understanding is that this sort of behaviour is not strictly a violation of Wikipedia's rules as long as he/she doesn't use multiple IP addresses for deceptive purposes (such as for sockpuppetry, or to evade 3RR or sanctions).

There has been some speculation that this anonymous editor may very possibly be the same person as the owner of the (apparently inactive) account Psychohistorian. I don't know if that's the case, and frankly, I don't really care. Unless and until he/she does something to bring down the wrath of the admins, I'm content to just let him/her keep on using IP addresses (in lieu of an account), and for his/her edits and talk-page comments to stand or fall on their own merits without regard for whether or not I approve of his/her online manner. Richwales (talk) 05:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all three of those IP's are the same editor. Outside parties reviewing this discussion should not get the mistaken impression that they represent the opinion of more than one person. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I notice you misdirected the conversation instead of responding to the point. I'll ask you again. Do you believe that things such as "gay", "evolution", and "anchor baby" should be avoided because they risk offending somebody or do you just believe that we should make a special case exception with regard to risking offending illegal aliens? I find it remarkable that everyone of you who make the "it's offensive" argument immediately start dancing around when asked this question.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any valid analogy here between "anchor baby" (a disparaging term) and "gay" (a term widely used by the people whom it describes). And "evolution" isn't relevant at all — unless by "offending" you are referring to the fact that some people are offended by the teaching of evolution.

In fact, I'm not even sure I agree that the valid question here is whether or not a term is offensive (whether universally, or just to some). I think the real question is whether a term is commonly used with derogatory or pejorative intent. And it's clear that "anchor baby" is in fact so used (see the "Anchor baby" article for sources); therefore, we shouldn't use it gratuitously, but any use of the term needs to be justified (e.g., because it's in a quotation, or because we're discussing the term itself). Same with "n****r" (the ethnic slur); integrity demands that we not use this term unless absolutely necessary (and maybe not even then!). "Gay", on the other hand, is not normally used in a derogatory sense and should be fine to use in an article (unlike such pejorative synonyms as "fag", "homo", or "queer").

If the current Wikipedia rules insist otherwise, then I submit that the rules need to be either ignored (see WP:IAR) or changed to conform to ethical integrity and common sense. Richwales (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You consider the term Anchor baby to be disparaging. Others do not. You don't consider the term gay to be offensive. Others do. Incidentally, Anchor baby is in use be people the term describes as well.

You don't get to choose which words are okay based on whether you, yourself, find them offensive. Either someone considers a term offensive and, so, it shouldn't be used or whether or not a term is offensive has no bearing on whether it should be used.

I have no idea how often a word needs to be used before it is considered "commonly used". Those are weasel words. As weasel words, I'm going to ignore them as an attempt to build a straw man.

As for changing the rules of Wikipedia, I encourage you to work to make Wikipedia a better place (whatever you think 'better' means). This article, however, is not a soapbox and it is not the place you should be breaking rules. Go to the appropriate article on the appropriate policy and discuss in the talk page.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to see a pattern here. Any time criticism of your arguments is pointed out, you simply repeat that exact same criticism back at others whether it's applicable or not. Your use of the terms "weasel words" and "straw man" here are especially baffling, and by the context it seems apparent that you don't understand either term. Weasel words are a form of tendentious editing and as such the term is only applicable to article namespace. It has nothing to do with discussions. A strawman argument is when one incorrectly rephrases their opponents argument and responds to that rather than the actual argument being discussed (as you did above when you unhelpfully "summarized" the opposing arguments for outside parties). I think we need to get back to basics in this argument and break it down point by point (hopefully without the grandstanding and amateur wiki-lawyering). It's not that complicated. I'll start a new section later today. --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Use "Anchor babies" - call a spade a spade, don't bow to political correctness. The controversy regarding the term is described on that page. - Schrandit (talk) 07:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Avoid "so called". Replace with " what some have termed as" and show who those are that have used the term by the links. I don't like "so called".-Die4Dixie (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Die4Dixie's suggestion is against Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words-75.179.153.110 (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The key to improving weasel words in articles is either a) to name a source for the opinion (attribution) or b) to change opinionated language to concrete facts (substantiate it).

This, with my suggestion of attribution skirts weasel wording. Quot is from the policy that you wiki linked to.Die4Dixie (talk) 07:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right and I misread the policy before. I change my stance. So, considering that all the sources which the section in dispute references use the term Anchor baby, we should be able to use those sources as a stand-in for 'some'. Yes? How would you write it - specifically? -75.179.153.110 (talk) 10:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Responding to the RFC. I think mention of the term anchor babies with respect to this debate is relevant and worthwhile, and will inform the reader. However, the way it's introduced in the text, without prior explanation and introduction of the current debate, is not helpful. I suggest something along the lines of

  In recent years, the birthright citizenship of children born to nonresident aliens in the United States has become controversial. To critics of current law, these children have been called "anchor babies."

might work better. As it is a charged term, it might be better to avoid frequent usage, lest the appearance of POV be given. You could probably rewrite the sentence in question to avoid mentioning the term. Something along the lines of

Some legislators, unsure whether an act of Congress regarding birthright citizenship would survive judicial review, have proposed ....

I hope this comment is somewhat helpful. Best, RayAYang (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm generally okay with this, if it'll ease the bickering. I think defining the term in its own sentence is making the term more central than it needs to be for this particular article, but I'd see it as a decent compromise. Jkatzen (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely, positively, no. I came here for the RFC and this is one of those Wikipedia embarrassments that makes one do a double-take. We should not use politicized pejorative neologisms to refer to groups of people. It is not a standard term, and it's offensive. There is little to no reliable sourcing, and the term is on its face a POV argument - it argues that illegals are coming to America to have babies so they can immigrate themselves, then applies that term to all babies born of illegals. It's reminiscent of the old paranoia that women were setting themselves up as baby factories just so they could collect more money from government handouts. If we decide to devote a section of the article to bigotry towards citizens of foreign parentage we can add a section on bigotry and describe the term's usage there, but I hardly see the point. We don't have a section on welfare queens in the welfare (financial aid) article, or "breeder" in the marriage article. We do avoid slang epithets when they are offensive, but even when not offensive they are nonstandard terms to avoid. Wikidemo (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Insofar as our article wishes to discuss an ongoing political debate, to fail to define (for the reader's reference) terminology in common usage on one side of the debate is a flaw in the article. Whereas "welfare queen" is purely derogatory and self-explanatory, "anchor baby" is, in addition to being derogatory, a precise summation of one opinion of a particular phenomenon. I agree that we should not use the term commonly, but to fail to explain the term would be carrying political correctness too far. RayAYang (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite the same thing (and gratuitous, bolded adverbs don't particularly color the discussion in your choice direction). In this case, the term (which is, I'll note, properly sourced, and available in myriad other publications as well) is very present in the current debate, as I've learned during this discussion. One of the major reasons (if not the primary reason) the bills regarding this issue are being raised in Congress is to address the issue of which you speak: "illegals [who] com[e] to America to have babies so they can immigrate themselves." The argument (right or wrong) is that the present legal situation directly incents that sort of behavior. If there were bills being hypothetically bandied around in Congress referred to informally, but regularly, as the "welfare queen bills," regardless of whether someone found the term offensive, it would be noteworthy in a section about Congressional actions on welfare. Jkatzen (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Bolded adjectives are a convention here when having consensus discussions - so don't scold. It's not reliably sourced. Where are the "myriad" sources? I see some reference to 60,000 google hits, that is all. Perusing them I see only informal use as political polemic. Congressional bills aren't a reliable source either. You will certainly see the term "welfare queen" throughout the congressional record, as well as terms like "unnatural acts" to refer to gays, and in an earlier era "savages" and "heathens" for Native Americans. There may be a scattering of newspaper hits from publications with loose or biased editorial standards, in which case reliable sourcing says we look to the higher quality publications. Do the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, CNN, Economist, etc., use the term other than in op-ed pieces or to report it's what someone else called them? What term do they use? We don't adopt bigoted language simply because we can document others using it.Wikidemo (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The article has three mainstream sources, as it is, for the use of the term. (Read the actual article, not just the Talk page. Though, the Talk page also references these sources in passing above.) As for whether a particular news article uses the term in its own narrative or as a quotation isn't dispositive of anything, given that my belief that it belongs here is rooted in the idea that it's a bona fide part of the debate that's the subject of the section containing it, not because the term is necessarily neutral (though it might be).

And, of course, as would any decent media or information outlet, we report on language, even if it may be bigoted -- which, I'll note, is apparently an available, though not universal interpretation of this term. I don't think using it in this article in quotes or with a qualifier such as "so-called" in any way connotes that the article is adopting it as neutral, nor making a positive value judgment on it, and others agree. I'm not arguing you should use the term in your speech if you don't like it, but the fact is it's out there and a very real element of the debate. Even if it were "racist," removing its existence would be "whitewashing" things.

As for bolded adverbs (not adjectives), I understand comment headers are bolded, but it seemed like you were attempting to make your views appear to trump all others with the over-the-top "absolutely, positively" language. But, alas, I don't really care, and I'll drop this tangent. Jkatzen (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to see any arguement for the need to use the epithet anchor baby in the text of the article. I am not disputing whether wikipedia should report on language used in the debate over the issue, but we already have separate articles on some of the epithets used in the debate, such as Anchor baby and Wetback. This article is about Birthright Citizenship in the USA. It is not about the epithets that get thrown around in the course of the debate over said citizenship. Again, those articles that explicitely discuss the epithets themselves already exist. It seems to me that unless there is an over riding need to mention the epithets themselves, that we should simply state the facts in neutral and NPOV language. let's discuss birthright citizenship in the birthright citizenship article, and the epithets that tend to get thrown around in their own separate articles.

It is worth noting that a search reveals that the word Jap does not appear even once in the rather lenthy World War II article, whether followed by a period, a comma, or a space. It also does not appear in the plural form Japs. The epithet has its own separate page. I can see no reason why we cannot follow the example of the editors of that page. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

For further evidence of wikipedia precident and practice, I think that it is also illuminating to examine the Japanese American internment article, which is also rather lengthy. Dispite its length, the epithet Jap only occures 4 times on the entire page. One of the occurances is in the title of one of the references at the bottom of the article (reference #15). the other 3 occurances is in the body of a quote (my emphasis)

• Internment was popular among many white farmers who resented the Japanese American farmers. These individuals saw internment as a convenient means of uprooting their Japanese American competitors. Austin E. Anson, managing secretary of the Salinas Vegetable Grower-Shipper Association, told the Saturday Evening Post in 1942: "We're charged with wanting to get rid of the Japs for selfish reasons. We do. It's a question of whether the white man lives on the Pacific Coast or the brown men… If all the Japs were removed tomorrow, we had never miss them in two weeks, because the white farmers can take over and produce everything the Jap grows. And we do not want them back when the war ends, either."

Again, here there is a clear need to use the epithet, since it appears in a direct quote that is essential to the article. Absent any such over riding need here in this article, I can't see how the use of the epithet Anchor baby can be justified. And if it is used in this article as part of a direct quote (say, from Tancredo or somebody), I would want to be convinced that the inclusion of the quote was necessary for some other purpose other than a means of slipping the epithet into the article through the back door.--Ramsey2006 (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I've removed it. It's a gratuitous application of a bigoted epithet. After reading further I see the term is generally condemned, politicized, and it does not mean what it purports to mean. The section can be reworded in many ways to mean the exact same thing without resorting to pejorative language. There's no excuse for using it in the encyclopedia. Wikidemo (talk) 06:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted your changes, not because they're necessarily wrong (though I don't like them), but because you did them in the middle of an ongoing RfC where opinion is split down the center. It's very clear you consider the term an "epithet" that should never be used under any circumstances, but, dude, you're not the dictator, and others here disagree with you. You're just going to have to wait this one out to see if some sort of consensus builds. Jkatzen (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with Wikidemo's change, and the "dictator" comment is a bit over the line. He was simply being bold, the "B" in WP:BRD, after all. As for consensus, consensus is never going to be achieved for the language that was reverted to and no amount of "waiting this one out" will make that language acceptable. That particular phrasing was an imperfect temporary compromise to slow down an edit-war, but in no way should be mistaken for the status quo. We need to be working toward neutral language not simply kicking the same football back and forth. Do you have any alternative suggestions for how to phrase it? --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I note, since it appears to have been forgotten, my suggestion above. When in doubt, I think we should clarify the discussion for the reader. Have a section introducing the existing controversy, where the peculiar language of the debate can be explained. Subsequently, avoid using charged terms in the discussion itself, except where quoting participants. RayAYang (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to edit it into something along those lines now, though I'm not convinced it's the best, and it involves a run-on sentence. I invite others to play with it in such a way that the term in question still appears. I won't find acceptable a version that completely omits the term, as there would be no way for someone unfamiliar with the subject to learn about it otherwise. Jkatzen (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

People shouldn't edit war - if there's no consensus the term stays out. Any use of the it here to describe the concept is unacceptable. It's an unnecessary epithet about a phenomenon of dubious legitimacy. The only reasonable mention is to report that people use an inaccurate pejorative neologism as part of the public debate, but that fact isn't relevant to the subject. A "see also" list isn't so bad. If a reader unfamiliar with the term wants to know about it they can follow the link and we have a whole article devoted to it. Wikidemo (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Says who? Where is there a rule that if there's no consensus, the side proposing less language wins? Here's a proposal: In recent years, the issue of birthright citizenship of American-born children of nonresident aliens has become controversial, as fears have grown in some circles that the present law incentivizes immigrant parents-to-be to illegally cross the border to give birth to their children in order to improve the chances of the parents gaining their own citizenship. In an attempt to reduce this alleged concern, one controversially referred to by critics as the "anchor baby" phenomenon, . . . I would offer that opponents would hardly find it "inaccurate" or an inappropriate "neologism" (any more than "Googling" is an inappropriate neologism), even though some would. The point is that people have different opinions of this, and I think it's important to inform readers of the debate. Jkatzen (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo, with the utmost cheerfulness and goodwill, let me remind you that it's generally considered unseemly to change the article to something you consider desirable, and then declare that "people shouldn't edit war." I think Jkatezn's view that this article is a place to introduce readers to the ongoing debate over birthright citizenship is a decent one; we have not heard arguments to the contrary. Taking that as a given, I have not yet heard an argument stating that we should discuss the debate while failing to educate the reader as to elementary terminology and arguments being made by one particular side. I would find such an argument, if it were made, to be dubious, to say the least. Your "see also" suggestion is a good one, and I will boldly implement it, anticipating no objection from anybody. RayAYang (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I also don't mind the See Also concept, but I don't think it's something that should be at the exclusion of at least referencing it in the proper section. This article covers birthright citizenship in general, and this term only applies to one section of the article. One reading that section would have no way of linking up the two if it's only at the bottom of the page. Perhaps there could be a reference under the section header to "Full Article: anchor baby" or something along those lines. Jkatzen (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the accusations, it's standard editing practice - expressed in the essay WP:BRD - that you need consensus to make a disputed change, particularly to add disputed language. You don't need consensus to keep it out. That only makes sense. Any other result and people could repeatedly introduce inflammatory language, as they've done here, and each time the language would stick until overturned. People have been pushing the term "Anchor Baby" throughout the encyclopedia for a couple years now it seems, and it's never gained general acceptance. The term is clearly a neologism - the first usage I see is 2001. The weight of sources describe it as derogatory. And it's clearly inaccurate in a way that isn't subject to opinion: it's applied to all US-born children of illegals whether they serve as "anchors" or not. It asserts, as a premise, the dubious claim that the parents' motivation to have a child is for their own immigration status, and/or that they actually achieve it. Plus it's unnecessary. There's a perfectly adequate way to describe children of illegal immigrants, which is to simply say it. Adding the term is gratuitous. Setting aside the bigotry and accuracy problems, googling would be an inappropriate neologism to describe the generic practice of web searching because not all web searches are google searches, and the web search article does not currently use it. To RayAYang, I could do without the scolding. I made one edit to an article that hadn't been edited for a day and a half, after concluding that consensus ran against a recent addition. That's the "R" from "BRD" and is entirely consistent with good editing practice. That precipitated 6 reverts in 10 hours, including one editor going up to 3RR, which is edit warring. My caution to avoid edit warring is reasonable, and I'm not exempting myself from it either. I'm not about to revert a second time or tag team with anyone else here. Wikidemo (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I'll also note that I wasn't reverting. I reverted once at the beginning where I thought it was out in left field. After it exploded, every edit of mine was an attempt at consensus, with substantive changes and additions (do a diff, you'll see). It's I that's being accused of reverting and not those on the other side, only because my view is different. Jkatzen (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the term "anchor baby," but I'm prepared to concede that it's OK to include a minimal reference to it (clearly described as being a controversial term), plus possibly a "full article" link. If readers look up the various sources we're supplying as references, they're going to see the expression and will wonder what it means. We should not, however, use "anchor baby" in any way that would make readers think it's an ordinary expression which can be used freely, routinely, and neutrally. Richwales (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This, I agree with. I'm not sure if there's true distate of my proposed suggestion above, or if it was more of a quick discount. But given the unease, perhaps Ramsey or Wikidemo could propose language that at least references/defines the term as aprt of the debate, while noting it's controversial (and also hopefully not giving the reference here way more prominence than it deserves for this article). I would hope that any such proposed text wouldn't use language assuming a particular viewpoint, including words such as "epithet," "clearly," or "bigoted." Jkatzen (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Redrafting of sentences regarding the American-born children of nonresident aliens

It looks like we're all in agreement - at least we can all agree on something. Building from Jkatzen's earlier proposal, how about this?

In recent years, the issue of birthright citizenship of American-born children of nonresident aliens has become controversial,<cite1> as fears have grown in some circles that the present law encourages immigrant parents-to-be to illegally cross the border to give birth to their children in order to improve the chances of the parents gaining their own citizenship.<cite2> To address this concern, which some refer to controversially as an "anchor baby" phenomenon,<cite3> critics have proposed....<cite4>

Some notes about the citations that would be ideal:

• cite1 - stands for fact that the matter has become controversial in recent years, ideally a 3rd party source describing the controversy and its origin, not a link to people taking part in the controversy. If that's not sourceable we should describe what we can source regarding the timing and extent of controversy.
• cite2 - stands for description of what fears have grown in what circles (not linking to people who are afraid, which would be OR or use of a primary source). We don't need to take sides or prove one way or another that there is an incentive (which is controversial and would need considerable research and balance), just to show that people are concerned about it.
• cite 3 - stands for cite that some people refer to it as "anchor baby" and that the term is controversial. We shouldn't claim it's controversial without citing the claim. Also note that I separate the "some people" who use the term from the people who propose the legislation or constitutional amendment. There's some overlap for sure, but not everyone who uses the term wants new laws, nor does everyone behind the new laws use the term.
• cite 4 - verifies whatever we describe as the proposed change to the law.

Thanks for sticking with this and editing productively! - Wikidemo (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. RayAYang (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Basically looks good. One suggestion: Instead of in order to improve the chances of the parents gaining their own citizenship, I'd rather see something acknowledging that what the parents would potentially get first is legal permanent residence (a "green card"). Possibly this: in order to improve the parents' chances of gaining legal permanent resident status and eventual citizenship — with the phrase "permanent resident" linked to the article on Permanent residence (United States). I know there's a lot of confusion in the media nowadays over the difference between a "green card" and US citizenship, and anything we can do to make this point a bit clearer is probably a good move. Richwales (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

First problem, non-resident alien is undefined. You aren't sourcing it and many of you are against using legal definitions, so I have absolutely no idea what you mean by the term, I have to point out that a child can't become an Anchor baby -unless- the parents are present in the U.S. (and the distinction between being present in and residing in is far too murky given that you are against legal definitions). Richwales, you have stated, "Neither Elk nor Wong was ever alleged by anyone to be an anchor baby" (in the talk pages of the Anchor baby article 06:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)). Given that, it is clear that you do not believe that an Anchor baby is any child born of aliens in the U.S. - since Welk concerned a child born of alien parents in the U.S. So, here's the question, if an Anchor baby is -not- synonymous with child born of alien parents in the U.S. and Anchor baby -is- synonymous with child born of non-resident alien parents in the U.S. where non-resident means is present in, but has not crossed some undefined (undefinable?) threshold into residing in (whatever that means), then how exactly do you all define anchor baby such that Welk did not involve an anchor baby and anchor babies are born of aliens in the U.S.? And how do you distinguish non-resident from present in without resorting to law? -198.97.67.58 (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The anonymous-IP editor does have a point — though I think it's a bit complicated and needs some careful analysis. (I assume "Welk" in the above, BTW, was either an inadvertent typo or an unintentional spoonerism.)

The reason I said (on the "Anchor baby" talk page) that neither John Elk nor Wong Kim Ark was ever alleged by anyone to be an "anchor baby" was because people at the time (late 1800's) were not thinking/debating in terms of whether Elk or Wong would provide an immigration benefit to their respective parents (much less whether alien parents in general might arrange to have a child born in the US specifically for the purpose of improving their own immigration status). The prospect of either man's parents gaining US citizenship never came up in their Supreme Court cases: Wong's parents moved back to China several years before Wong's US citizenship became a legal issue, and Elk's parents are mentioned in the court's opinion on his case only in the context of establishing that they were members of an Indian tribe.

Hence, I said that I didn't think Elk v. Wilkins was relevant to a discussion of "anchor babies" at all — and that although U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark was relevant because it confirmed jus soli (birthright) citizenship as a general principle, it should be accompanied by an explanation that since Wong's parents were living legally in the US at the time of his birth, some experts have questioned whether his case is or isn't fully applicable to US-born children of illegal immigrants. I do think it's appropriate to mention both Elk v. Wilkins and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in a more general article on birthright citizenship, although I strongly recommend that any citation of either case needs to be accompanied by at least a minimal background explanation so that the case's relevance to the overall subject can be properly appreciated.

The term "anchor baby" does indeed convey not only a literal reference to a child born in the US to parents whose own legal status in the US is limited or nonexistent, but also an implication that the reason the parents had their child in the US was as a cynical ploy to "game the system" in order to secure an enhanced legal status in the US which the parents would be unable to get in any honest way. Pinning down this sort of intention in a concrete legal manner is likely to be impossible to do in general — which I assume is probably why the various bills introduced on the subject from time to time in Congress have always talked in terms of whether a US-born child has a parent who is a US citizen, or who has been lawfully admitted to the US for permanent residence, etc., and have not tried to narrow down the issue further in terms of establishing the parents' intent, distinguishing an alien mother's first US-born child from subsequent US-born children, etc.

For purposes of this "birthright citizenship" article, I agree that the anonymous-IP editor has a valid point in objecting to the use of the specific phrase "nonresident aliens". Since I believe most of the outrage that exists in this area has been vented against cases where the parents are in the US illegally, I would have no objection to rewriting the sentence to use "illegal immigrant parents", or possibly "parents who are in the United States either illegally or as tourists" (with the word "tourists" linked to the article on Birth tourism). I would also suggest that the first use in the paragraph of "lawful permanent resident" should be linked to the article on Permanent residence (United States).

There may perhaps be room for an extremely circumscribed mention of the term "anchor babies" in the article, but only insofar as absolutely necessary to explain what the sources mean when they use this term. I still do not want to use "anchor baby" in this article as a casual replacement for other terms, because I believe "anchor baby" is (or, at best, borders on being) a derogatory slur that has no place in the general text of Wikipedia.

Just in case anyone might possibly wonder if I have any personal bias on this subject, I'll go ahead and mention here that my wife and I are dual US/Canadian citizens, and that we have a son who was born in Canada while we were living there as non-citizen permanent residents ("landed immigrants"), and our son has therefore had both Canadian and US citizenship since birth (Canada confers jus soli citizenship on essentially the same basis as the US does). My experiences have undoubtedly shaped my understanding and views on the subject at hand: I do strongly support the concepts of relatively liberal immigration policies, jus soli (birthright) citizenship, and dual/multiple citizenship, and although I do not like the idea of parents having children in the US specifically as a means for the parents to circumvent immigration laws, I also do not personally believe that the right answer to this issue is to restrict or abolish jus soli citizenship. Despite my background, however, I do believe I'm capable of writing about this topic in a fair, balanced, neutral fashion. Richwales (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"The term 'anchor baby' does indeed convey ..an implication that the reason the parents had their child in the US was as a cynical ploy to 'game the system' in order to secure an enhanced legal status in the US which the parents would be unable to get in any honest way." Yes, and this distinguishes people who are anchor babies from children born to aliens who are not anchor babies. I believe that we can agree that there are people who are trying to game the system in this manner whether or not we agree on who these people are. So, the question we are dealing with isn't whether anchor babies exist, but who is an anchor baby. But as for the question of words that mean the same thing as anchor baby, it is clear that if the word means the same thing, then it must also carry that implication. "I still do not want to use "anchor baby" in this article as a casual replacement for other terms" - if you can find a word that really does mean the same thing (and by that, I mean that it carries that same implication), then I have no problem with using another word.

You insinuated elsewhere that I'm not editing in good faith, despite the fact that there have been a number of third-party admins review my edits and they've all found that I have been. You insinuated that the reason I'm editing the way I am is that I work for the military and that, as I work for the government in some manner, that makes me against illegal immigration (a curious position considering that our government leaders overwhelmingly support illegal immigration). I'm willing to bury the hatchet if you are. Towards that end, I do have a personal bias. The betterment of the United States poor is one of my core values. Illegal immigration betters the rich (both in the U.S. and Mexico) and hurts the poor (both in the U.S. and Mexico), so it goes against one of my most deeply held values (improving the plight of the poor). However, I am supremely confident that any open evaluation of the facts will point this out and, so, I don't feel any need to do anything but edit in good faith.-198.97.67.56 (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The term is used indiscriminately for all children born of illegals in the US without regard to their intent (which is something not at issue, not legally relevant, and which cannot readily be proven). Those who lobby to enact legislation or change the constitution are not proposing such a test - it's a simple rule that being born in the US does not confer citizenship, whatever the parents' intent. If the word implies gaming the system, then, it is unfairly applied. Moreover, any discussion of this creating an easier pathway to citizenship must be tempered by the reality that it does not. The parents do not become eligible for a resident alien visa for 21 years - with an extra 10 thrown in because they are here illegally. Waiting 31 years for a chance at an immigration visa is hardly a pathway to citizenship, so ascribing that particular motivation to people without proof is dubious. As a side comment, why the heck would military service create a COI? Or being an immigrant oneself? Everyone here is either an illegal, on a visa, a US resident or citizen - in which case they're either descended from immigrants or a full blooded Native American, or editing from outside the US, or something else, all of which would imply some kind of bias. Wikidemo (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"it's a simple rule that being born in the US does not confer citizenship, whatever the parents' intent"

It's a simple fact that having a child born in the US makes it less likely that you will be deported for being in this country illegally. Having an Anchor baby gives you an anchor against being deported.

"Those who lobby to enact legislation or change the constitution are not proposing such a test - it's a simple rule that being born in the US does not confer citizenship, whatever the parents' intent." Moral character is a basis for denying citizenship. If these people believed that everyone trying to have a child born in the US were trying to game the system, that would be grounds for preventing them from gaining citizenship based on moral character. None of these people are saying that. You are simply wrong here. Every one of these people that I know of maintains that citizenship would still be available through other means.

Redraft, version 2

I've incorporated some of RichWales' suggestions to Wikidemo's text, and present it for further discussion with the goal of reaching consensus:

In recent years, the issue of birthright citizenship for American-born children of illegal immigrants and tourists has become controversial,<cite1> as fears have grown in some circles that the present law encourages parents-to-be to come to America to have children, in order to improve their chances of attaining American residency.<cite2> This phenomenon has been dubbed the "anchor baby" phenomenon by its critics,<cite3> who have proposed....<cite4>

Some notes about the citations that would be ideal:

• cite1 - stands for fact that the matter has become controversial in recent years, ideally a 3rd party source describing the controversy and its origin, not a link to people taking part in the controversy. If that's not sourceable we should describe what we can source regarding the timing and extent of controversy.
• cite2 - stands for description of what fears have grown in what circles (not linking to people who are afraid, which would be OR or use of a primary source). We don't need to take sides or prove one way or another that there is an incentive (which is controversial and would need considerable research and balance), just to show that people are concerned about it.
• cite 3 - stands for cite that some people refer to it as "anchor baby" and that the term is controversial. We shouldn't claim it's controversial without citing the claim. Also note that I separate the "some people" who use the term from the people who propose the legislation or constitutional amendment. There's some overlap for sure, but not everyone who uses the term wants new laws, nor does everyone behind the new laws use the term.
• cite 4 - verifies whatever we describe as the proposed change to the law.

What do we think? RayAYang (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Redraft, version 3

It seems like a bit of overkill to say "illegal immigrants and tourists" . . . but if that's what it takes, yahoo. I think the grammar could be tweaked a tad:

''In recent years, the issue of granting automatic birthright citizenship to American-born children of illegal immigrants and tourists has become controversial,<cite1> as fears have grown in some circles that the present law encourages parents-to-be to come to the United States to have children, in order to improve the parents' chances of attaining legal residency themselves.<cite2> This has been dubbed the "anchor baby" phenomenon by its critics,<cite3> who have proposed....<cite4> Jkatzen (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

RayAYang's suggestion, as tweaked by Jkatzen, sounds basically reasonable to me. I assume some will still be uncomfortable with any use of the term "anchor baby", but given that many of the sources we need to cite do use the term, we probably have no choice but to hold our noses and agree to include at least one (but hopefully only one) carefully circumscribed use of the term, if only to establish a connection between said sources and the situation the sources are objecting to.

I would recommend against any detailed discussion in this article over whether the term "anchor baby" is controversial or not. Some of us already went through an extended process regarding that point a few months ago, when we were trying to agree on what the "anchor baby" article itself should or shouldn't say; let's make as passing a reference as possible here (albeit flagged sufficiently that people won't just think it's an ordinary, everyday expression to be used freely), and include a link to the "anchor baby" article, and leave it at that.

Responding to the olive branch from the anonymous-IP editor: My only goal here is for this and related articles to describe the issues in an intelligent and well-balanced manner. I appreciate your willingness to share some of your background and biases — something I think many or most of us are reluctant to do as a rule, because we're afraid that any admission that we do in fact have personal viewpoints will be seen as obvious proof that we can't possibly write fairly.

I think the main issue that originally got me upset here was that I perceived you were saying that we needed to accept the indiscriminate use of terms such as "anchor baby" (or even some more egregious terms which I won't repeat here and now); that Wikipedia policy demanded (in the name of editorial integrity) that we must not care whether expressions of this sort are perceived as offensive by any, some, or even most people; and that this position was so clear-cut and fundamental to WP that it absolutely wouldn't matter if there happened to be a consensus holding a different view. Apologies if I've overstated or distorted your position here, but that's how it came across to me.

I still feel, as I tried to explain earlier, that Wikipedia principles can not reasonably require us to allow the gratuitous, unheeding use of words and expressions which have been recognized by consensus as being derogatory (a condition which, I believe, does encompass the term "anchor baby") — and that it's OK to insist that such an interpretation of the rules has got to be simply "wrong", and that if the WP core policies seem to be saying otherwise, we must be open to the likelihood that we're misunderstanding something somewhere. And even if no precise, concise drop-in replacement exists for the term "anchor baby", that (in and of itself) does not force us (or even give us leave) to use the compact (but charged) expression as opposed to some more involved (but more carefully neutral) description.

If you're willing to work with the rest of us on the question of how (or whether) to use "anchor baby" in this article, and try hard to reach a consensus, then yes, I'm willing to "bury the hatchet" and put this disagreement behind us. Please understand that part of seeking a consensus is that if you feel a WP core policy is involved, you need to try to help others understand the issue — and perhaps be open to the possibility that your own understanding could stand to be improved and refined by other people's insights.

I apologize to everyone else that this discussion had to take place on the article's talk page, but since you don't have a talk page of your own, the alternatives are somewhat limited. I do still feel that it would make a lot more sense, be much less confusing to others, and be far more in keeping with the accepted norms of Wikipedia if you were to consistently use an account. Doggedly hanging on to an "outsider" role for years on end is probably not a strategy calculated to make people feel like you're a team player who is trying to join in on the collaborative effort to improve WP. If nothing else, if you used an account, the rest of us would have some "normal" way of referring to you, rather than having to say something like "that anonymous editor, who could be using any one of half-a-dozen IP addresses, and who may or may not also be the owner of such-and-so account that was apparently abandoned ages ago"! And I'll point out, once again, that having (and using) an account actually makes you more anonymous to WP editors, readers, and even most of the high muckamucks than if you edit using just an IP address. I understand you've felt you had some valid personal reasons for not using an account — and since I don't know what those reasons are, I'm not really in a position to judge whether they're valid or not — but if you can figure out some way to be able to use an account, I think everyone (including you!) would probably benefit in the long run.

Richwales (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"Doggedly hanging on to an "outsider" role for years on end is probably not a strategy calculated to make people feel like you're a team player who is trying to join in on the collaborative effort to improve WP."

I have watched as you and others engaged in such "team playing". Your team has harassed me, accussed me on multiple occassions of not editing in good faith (despite the fact that every time an outside admin reviewed my edits, they found that I was editing in good faith), accussed me of wikilawyering, etc. Richwales, when have I pulled these kinds of underhanded games on you? Further, your team is not the only team on Wikipedia who does these kinds of things - working together to lock down an article such that it pushes some political position.

The number one greatest problem with Wikipedia occurs when editors cease working as a mob and start working as a team. So, you'll have to excuse me when I state that I have no desire to be joining any teams. Wikipedia content should not be derived from political machinations taking place on the talk page but from the three pillars of Wikipedia.

"Please understand that part of seeking a consensus is that if you feel a WP core policy is involved, you need to try to help others understand the issue — and perhaps be open to the possibility that your own understanding could stand to be improved and refined by other people's insights."

I have been doing that. In return, you've argued that we should just ignore Wikipedia policy.

"I think the main issue that originally got me upset here was that I perceived you were saying that we needed to accept the indiscriminate use of terms such as "anchor baby" (or even some more egregious terms which I won't repeat here and now); that Wikipedia policy demanded (in the name of editorial integrity) that we must not care whether expressions of this sort are perceived as offensive by any, some, or even most people; and that this position was so clear-cut and fundamental to WP that it absolutely wouldn't matter if there happened to be a consensus holding a different view." And the thing that got me upset here was that I perceived you as saying that we should use words which don't mean the same thing as other words we'd otherwise use except that somebody somewhere considers that terrm offensive. I've always held that I'm okay with other words being used as long as they mean the same thing.-198.97.67.57 (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This seems to work. It's neutral language and it's a reasonable compromise. To be clear, the argument was never whether the term should be mentioned at all anywhere on Wikipedia. It was whether to use it in the previous context as if it is the correct encyclopedic term. I support Jkatzen's proposal above. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

New removal of consensus language

I took the language from above and placed it into the article. Now, WikiDemo has reversed course and stated it's gratuitous? Please explain, how after all this, it's still not consensus. Jkatzen (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, the edit statement stated that the source doesn't stand for the principle suggested by the statement. I would disagree. The source states, ". . . the "anchor baby" issue needs to be addressed, which prevents parents of babies born in this country from being deported." This "issue" placed in quotes is then subsequently defined by a critic. If this isn't a phenomenon as dubbed, I'm not sure what is. Jkatzen (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

What it is a derogatory epithet, not a phenomenon. The rest of the paragraph does not need the epithet to get the point of the paragraph across. The use of the term in this paragraph is gratuitous, as well as inaccurate. I support its removal.--Ramsey2006 (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I never agreed to the version that was inserted into the article. I proposed that if citeable, a statement be included that some critics controversially use the term over their concern. The version said that (all) critics use the term (without pointing out it is controversial or considered derogatory by many), and that it describes a phenomenon (without pointing out that the supposed phenomenon appears for the most part to be imaginary). My version was a compromise because I don't think we should be in the business of showcasing informal politically charged words in a discussion of the actual issue. Catchy epithets like that are usually the realm of politics, not serious discourse about immigration law. And we would have to find sources to support it too. Pointing to a critic who does use the term, and then claiming the term is in use, is original research. To suggest that people who want to change the law all use the term is clearly wrong. Wikidemo (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Aiight, I've tried to allay your concerns. Even though you haven't commented as the language has been tweaked over the past two days, I understand that you have several problems with the language as proposed. As such, I've added that it's "some" critics and that it's "controversially" used, and that the politicians and critics aren't necessarily one-in-the-same. If you continue to have concerns, I ask that you please be productive toward some sort of compromise, rather than simply reverting or excising. Jkatzen (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The changes are provisionally okay. At some point I may seek to find project-wide consensus on usage of the term. There is at least one other vociferous editor who opposed the change as well, and some questioning of the legitimacy of at least one of the accounts participating. Under the circumstances you probably shouldn't declare consensus without hearing from the parties who had objected before, or at least not be surprised to find that the declaration was premature. I can't read minds, and don't feel that two days of silence during an ongoing, long-lasting discussion across multiple pages constitutes prior acceptance of whatever version someone decides without notice to elevate from proposal status to the page. Wikidemo (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Editing comments of other editors

I object to the practice of one editor editing the talk page comments of other editors, especially in an RfC, as occured here:[1]

--Ramsey2006 (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I didn't edit it. I put in a pull-quote at the beginning to avoid editing the comment. I felt it needed a bolded beginning to point out that it was a different comment than mine. Quoting his own language avoided putting words in his mouth. To the extent you have problems with specific actions of mine to the extent you'd impugn my character, I'd appreciate it if you'd discuss it with me personally on my own talk page. Jkatzen (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Reorganization of the Page

Looking over the page, it seems to me that the early sections are pretty straightforward, but the later sections (beginning with Supreme Court cases), are disjointed and have breaks in their continuity. I propose that, rather than separating by Supreme Court and Congressional actions for particular special cases, we separate by those cases. In particular, I suggest that we create a new section called "Special Cases" or "Particular Cases of Interest," and inside there create subsections with titles like "Children born to foreign nationals" and "Children born to Native American tribes." That way, supreme court decisions, relevant law, proposed action, and political controversy can be placed in one single section for each topic at issue. Since there is currently an RfC active, I don't want to just go ahead and do it -- comments? I'll wait a day or two, and if there no objections, I'll go ahead and do it. RayAYang (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably not a bad idea. I think it developed this way sort of organically from a stub. Now that it's longer, it could use a reorganization along those lines. Jkatzen (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have carried out the reorganization. Any objections? I do not believe I changed any of the substantive text (excepting that I edited out text that had already been commented out of the article). RayAYang (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

On first glance, it looks fine to me. I didn't notice anytning conspicuously missing.--Ramsey2006 (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Methodology

I have a fundamental problem with the methodology being used here on this talk page in the current construction of sentences for inclusion into this article. We seem to be putting the cart before the horse in this game of Let's all try to use "anchor baby" in a sentence.

The parameters of our task, as I understand it, were laid out here:

• I invite others to play with it in such a way that the term in question still appears. I won't find acceptable a version that completely omits the term, as there would be no way for someone unfamiliar with the subject to learn about it otherwise. [2]

Now, I'm no writer, but it seems to me that the standard procedure is to first figure out what it is that you want to say, and then later figure out how to say it, that is, the exact sequence of words needed in constructing the sentence. First the claim seemed to be that there was something that was already said in the article using the epithet "anchor baby" that could not be said accurately and succinctly without it. That arguement seems to have fallen by the wayside.

It seems to me that what we have tasked ourselves with here is how to construct a sentence that, first and foremost, contains the derogatory epithet anchor baby. Hopefully, the sentences constructed will be somehow relevant to the topic of this article, and hopefully also the sentences will be constructed in such a way that the phrase anchor baby is difficult to remove later without distroying the sense of the passage so-constructed.

Is this a standared methodology in writing wikipedia articles? Admittedly, I'm just a mathematician, but such a methodology in writing articles strikes me as nothing short of bizarre, and I for one do not feel confortable in using this as a methodology. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

We should be saying what needs to be said, not looking for excuses to gratuitously use derogatory epithets, or racking our brains trying to think of something that could be said using said epithets.--Ramsey2006 (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It is customary when introducing a subject to define the terms used in the discussion of the subject, so that the student may not be confused when he goes out to peruse the literature. It is, so far as I am aware, a customary practice in mathematical lectures as well. That is a point that I have made since I joined this discussion, to which you have not replied. I invite you to do so, explicitly this time. Consistently repeating the word "epithet" does not assist us in reaching consensus; nor does it help to produce an article which will inform a student of American politics who comes here for information. RayAYang (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I am unaware of any use of the epithet "anchor baby" is any serious academic discussion of the issue of Birthright Citizenship in the USA, which is, after all, the topic of this article, unless said discussion is centered on the related racism and xenophobia. If you are suggesting a section foccussing on some of the epithets that get thrown around on the street and over the internet, then I would suggest a separate section laying out the definitions of several terms, including "anchor baby", "beaner", "wetback", etc. I see no reason to privilage one of these terms over the others.--Ramsey2006 (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Typing the search term into Lexis turned up a dozen results on a cursory "recent times" search, in legal journals. The term "anchor baby" is also used by a variety of think tanks whose manners are above reproach, however much their agenda may come in for criticism. Taking an intolerant and censorist view of their positions is not what Wikipedia is about -- Wikipedia is about taking a neutral point of view and explaining all notable positions in a civil fashion. Your suggestion of a full section for terminology would be a good one, if there was that much specialized vocabulary to explore. As it is, there isn't -- "anchor baby" is invested with several layers of meaning and a particular argument of relevance to the topic which may need to be explained to the first-time reader. A sentence is adequate to dispense with it. RayAYang (talk) 00:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing intolerant or censorial about avoiding inaccurate pejorative neologisms; and nothing in our encyclopedic mission means we parrot newly minted bigoted language of limited usage. Nor are we a language guide. The neutral point of view is to describe the facts and leave the loaded language out of the article. This isn't a legitimate term, it would be more like a guide to informal language. Such articles exist - for example the one on racial epithets - but they're fairly rare here, and not summarized in the main article usually. Wikidemo (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I would venture that the "neutral point of view" is to state the existence of a legitimate debate (a language debate or otherwise), whatever it may be. It's undisputed that you find it not "a legitimate term," "inaccurate," "pejorative," "newly minted," and "bigoted." But while your opinion is clear, it assumes one side of the debate. Those who use, address, or discuss the term (references which include, apparently from RayAYang, legal journal articles) certainly don't agree. For you to decide, unilaterally, that the term isn't worth mentioning as part of a reference to the debate, is to be not neutral. It's as if you not only refuse to acknowledge the existence of a term you don't agree with, but insist that the world ignore possibly unpopular history. Jkatzen (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's actions are any more or less unilateral than anyobdy else's. I simply don't agree, and don't think the sources or our guidelines and policies support using this word. I'm wondering if we need a new or broader RFC. "Anchor Baby" appears in three (or maybe four?) articles, and a separate debate is taking place in each. It raises the exact same questions each time: must we use an informal, uncommon term some find offensive to describe the concept that could well be described in neutral language, and should we describe the underling thing as a real phenomenon or just a claim or statement someone made? Wikidemo (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

He said she said that somewhere out there there are some legal journal articles that use the term, at least to the extent that they show up on some results page of some search engine somewhere. Um....OK. I find it somewhat difficult to make any sort of judgement about how central or essential the proported use of said epithet is to the legal topics of said proported legal journal articles with the given information. Aparently, these supposed legal journal articles were not deemed essential to this article, or else they would be listed as references. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Anchor baby: How is the term used, who uses it, and why?

The most authoritative source that we have found yet on the questions of how the term is used, its meaning, who uses it, and why, would seem to be Grant Barrett. As for his qualifications to speak to this question with some authority, here is his wikipedia entry:

Grant Barrett (born 1970) is an American lexicographer, specializing in slang, jargon and new usage. He is the editor of the Official Dictionary of Unofficial English (McGraw-Hill, 2006, ISBN 0071458042), the Oxford Dictionary of American Political Slang (Oxford University Press, 2004, ISBN 0195176855), and the award-winning web site Double-Tongued Dictionary. In January 2007, he became the new co-host of the national public radio show A Way With Words. He is also the vice president of communications and technology for the American Dialect Society and a member of the editorial review board for the academic journal American Speech.

On December 24, 2006, Grant Barrett wrote an article in the New York Times Week in Review titled Buzzwords: Glossary containing definitions for some of the "terms that became prominent or first appeared" that year. The very first term in that (alphabetical) list was the very term being so prominently discussed here on this talk page: [3]

anchor baby: a derogatory term for a child born in the United States to an immigrant. Since these children automatically qualify as American citizens, they can later act as a sponsor for other family members.

The term also appears in Grant Barrett's award winning web site Double-Tongued Dictionary. Here is the entry: [4]

Anchor baby: n. a child born of an immigrant in the United States, said to be a device by which a family can find legal foothold in the US, since those children are automatically allowed to choose American citizenship. Also anchor child, a very young immigrant who will later sponsor citizenship for family members who are still abroad.

The entry has 3 comments, of which the first two are of interest here because Grant Barrett himself responds in the second comment to correct misconceptions of the author of the first comment:

Reader comments:

Well in reality:

Anchor baby:
n. a child born of an illegal alien in the United States, said to be a device by which a foreign family can find legal foothold in the US, since those children are automatically allowed to choose(no, it is automatic; they do not choose) American citizenship. This baby citizen, will later have the ability to sponsor citizenship for family members who are still living abroad.
by Campbell 09 Nov 07, 0533 GMT

No, you’re wrong, Campbell. As one can plainly see in the citations above, such as in the third one, it is used for *any* immigrant. Those who use this term tend to be opposed to *all* immigration and immigrants, not illegal immigration, especially those who use their immigration stance as a mask for racism and xenophobia.
by Grant Barrett 09 Nov 07, 0123 GMT

If we are to discuss the use of the term here in this article, then we need at the very least to mention the following facts, as established by our most reliable secondary source on these matters reguarding this term:

(1) That the term is derogatory.

(2) That it is used for the US born child of any immigrant.

(3) That those who use the term tend to be opposed to all immigration and immigrants.

(4) That the immigration stance of people who use the term is often a mask for racism and xenophobia.

--Ramsey2006 (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

An interesting analysis. As a lexicographer commenting directly on the subject of word usage, his analysis is a lot more reliable and to the point than, and therefore trumps, any original analysis we do here about what the word means based on reading examples of people using it. On the other hand he is not an authority on politics, so at the edges, although I concur that the word is tinged with racism and xenophobia he is not necessarily any more authoritative on that topic than any other reliable source. Wikidemo (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's fairly easy to call yourself a "lexicographer". There's no certification or distinguishing mark required. Barret seems to be hiding his educational background. Google Scholar reports no peer reviewed articles on word usage that he's authored. And his book was co-written by James Carville who is certainly a well-educated man, but also a man well known (and once upon a time highly paid) to twist words for political effect (about as reliable as Karl Rove) and whose political bias is familiar to everyone. So, no, I would not call Grant Barrett an expert - except perhaps an expert rhetoricist.-198.97.67.59 (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Lexicography is for the most part a practical discipline, not a scholarly one, so lexicographers' output gets published in dictionaries (which are peer reviewed) rather than academic journals. I don't know of an academic program to teach people how to write dictionaries, so while being well-educated is helpful there is no specific degree or credential required. One of the most famous lexicographers ever, William Chester Minor, wrote from prison. There are contemporary examples too.[5] At any rate Barret considered a topic expert by the New York Times[6], and designated as an expert by the American Dialect Society[7]. He is editor of two well regarded slang dictionaries, co-host of a nationally syndicated PBS radio show on language, works with Cengage Learning, is an editor of the Cambridge Dictionary of American English and Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary, and is working on the New Oxford American Dictionary. That gives him more to say on word usage than our original analysis of occasional usages that pop up in blogs, newspaper articles, or law journals. Wikidemo (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"lexicographers' output gets published in dictionaries (which are peer reviewed) rather than academic journals"

A quick search for lexicography journals pulled up International Journal of Lexicography and Lexikos. It appears that lexicographers do, in fact, get published in academic journals. What reference did you use for your assertion that they don't? "I don't know of an academic program to teach people how to write dictionaries, so while being well-educated is helpful there is no specific degree or credential required. " I did a search on "lexicography degrees" and the first hit was http://www.english.bham.ac.uk/drc/ which is the graduate degree program in lexicography from the University of Birmingham. What reference did you use for your assertion? The New York Times is not an authority on lexicography and, so, is not qualified to identify "top experts". Can you find a reference from the International Journal of Lexicography which states that Barrett is a top expert? Can you even find something he wrote that has been peer reviewed in a Lexicography academic journal? Barrett heads the American Dialect Society. If I create a society for aeronautics and set myself up as the head, do I become an expert?-198.97.67.58 (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

New York Times is not an authoritative source on word usage? Presumably every word definition Barrett prepares for a dictionary is peer reviewed by the dictionary's editorial staff. One turns to dictionaries and books on words, not academic journals, to learn what various words mean. The high water mark for a practicing lexicographer like Barrett is the Oxford University Press, and Barrett literally wrote the book on political slang there. If you would care to learn more about the field of lexicography the Wikipedia article is a good start. There you will find a distinction between the nonacademic field of practical lexicography (those who do lexicography, i.e. studying the meaning of specific words and publishing their results in a dictionary) and the smaller field of those who do academic lexicography (those who study lexicographers). The journals, degree programs, and academic scholarship are devoted to the latter. As an example, the International Journal of Lexicography has three feature articles this month: a history of Australian aboriginal words in dictionaries, usage labels in a French/English dictionary published in the year 1699, and Contronyms (words like the verb weather that have two alternate, opposite meanings). You might compare it to the difference between being a film critic and a film scholar, a politician versus a political scientist, and so on. Wikidemo (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You are essentially agreeing with me that he's an armchair lexicographer (no academic credentials, no peer-reviewed articles in academic journals, etc.), but we are disagreeing over whether being an armchair lexicographer is sufficient to be an authority on lexicography. Perhaps the question, "is an armchair lexicographer who has no apparent academic credentials and no peer-reviewed articles in academic journals an authority on lexicography?" should be asked in WP:Reliable sources. This is a particularly intriguing question given that, with your use of Wikipedia as a source to back up your arguement, you've referenced the article on lexicography but left out the statement that, "It is now widely accepted that lexicography is a scholarly discipline in its own right". So, we've got a guy who claims to be an expert in a scholarly discipline but who has no identifiable academic credentials and doesn't appear to have been published in any peer-reviewed academic journals and we are debating whether or not he can be considered an authority on the subject? Special:Contributions/198.97.67.58|198.97.67.58]] (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no debate. Practical lexicographers - a nonacademic field - write dictionaries. Scholarly lexicographers - an academic field - write about lexicography. The question here is about the former, not the latter. Is "anchor baby", on its face an inaccurate, racially-charged insult, a real immigration term or is it just a piece of slang? The foremost authority in the field says it is slang. Barrett is at the top of his field. He is working on dictionary projects for Oxford. They've put him in charge of some categories of slang. The neologism in question fits squarely in one of those categories and he has written specifically on the subject. Oxford is an academic institution and its dictionaries are peer-reviewed. Yet it does not require of the professionals it has hired for the project that they have academic credentials and tenured positions in dictionary-writing, or write articles on the subject of dictionaries for academic journals. Exactly what are you proposing? That when we find a few anti-immigration people promoting the insult and a stray neutral party here and there picking it up, we can declare for ourselves that it is a legitimate term despite Oxford saying otherwise, because Oxford has lax standards for its dictionaries? If Oxford (and every other dictionary in the world) chooses to write its official institutional works on language via a hierarchy distinct from its tenured faculty system, it's hardly Wikipedia's place to call the institutions less than authoritative for that decision. Wikidemo (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There sure is a lot of irrelevant content in your last post Wikidemo - there's also a lot of claims for which you don't seem to have a source. Cutting through all the noise, this is the relevant and verifiable part of what you said, "..Practical lexicographers - write dictionaries. Scholarly lexicographers - an academic field - write about lexicography. The question here is about the former, not the latter..Oxford is an academic institution and its dictionaries are peer-reviewed..despite Oxford saying otherwise, because Oxford has lax standards for its dictionaries?"

The following is just noise. "There's no debate" - of course there's a debate, that's what we're doing right now - debating. "a nonacademic field" you've provided no source for this claim - unless you think that if something is an art that it can't be academic? Computer scientists would like to have a word about that. "Is anchor baby, on its face an inaccurate, racially-charged insult, a real immigration term or is it just a piece of slang?" Irrelevant to the question of whether Barrett is an authority. "The foremost authority in the field says it is slang. Barrett is at the top of his field." Whether he, a guy working in a scholarly field who has no apparent academic credentials and no apparent peer-reviewed publications can be considered 'top of his field' is what we are debating. "He is working on dictionary projects for Oxford." To be precise, he is working for Oxford University Press, not Oxford University. Oxford University Press is a publisher of academic books - not an academic institution. "They've put him in charge of some categories of slang." Source? "he has written specifically on the subject." - that's whats being discussed, so a bit redundant. "Oxford is an academic institution and its dictionaries are peer-reviewed." Oxford University Press is not an academic institution. "Yet it does not require of the professionals it has hired for the project that they have academic credentials and tenured positions in dictionary-writing, or write articles on the subject of dictionaries for academic journals" - like I said, Oxford University Press is not an academic institution, so the fact that it doesn't require the professionals it hires for a job to have academic credentials isn't surprising. However, Oxford University Press makes sure that actual experts at Oxford University vett the books it publishes , so there is proofreading for veracity, but that proofreading isn't done by Oxford University Press staff (and Barrett is an OUP staff member, not in OU). "Exactly what are you proposing? That when we find a few anti-immigration people promoting the insult and a stray neutral party here and there picking it up, we can declare for ourselves that it is a legitimate term despite Oxford saying otherwise, because Oxford has lax standards for its dictionaries? If Oxford (and every other dictionary in the world) chooses to write its official institutional works on language via a hierarchy distinct from its tenured faculty system, it's hardly Wikipedia's place to call the institutions less than authoritative for that decision." - just a bunch of meaningless dribble where you seem to have spun off your tracks. -66.213.90.2 (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

IP editors should not be uncivil. This whole line of discussion is silly. The term is pejorative slang and doesn't belong here; the expert in the field says so. Out it goes. Anything beyond that is just gaming. End of story. Wikidemo (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is that it is pejorative because an armchair lexicographer says it is pejorative and we know he's not just an armchair lexicographer because he says the term is pejorative? Are you familiar with the term Circular logic? I'm sending the question "Grant Barret is a person who has no apparent academic credentials and no record of having peer-reviewed articles in academic journals. Despite his lack of notability in academic circles, can he be considered an authority on lexicography - the scholarly study of words? To be fair, he has co-authored a book on the subject with James Carville a well-known politcal spin doctor, but it's a book which doesn't appear to be referenced by any scholar working in the field." to Wikipedia reliable sources. You're welcome to respond there.-66.213.90.2 (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

66.213.90.2 posted it as a question on Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Terjen (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's pejorative because it's a facially bigoted term that disparages an entire class of people for supposedly having nefarious intentions. An expert in the field of political slang confirms it. As such we should not use it where there are neutral ways to say the same thing using standard terminology. You're not going to get anywhere trying to discount Oxford University's lexicographers as not being experts in the English language, in service of trying to use a derogatory slang word here. This is getting tedious. Wikidemo (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Circular logic - an expert in the field of political slang confirms it - how do we know he's an expert? Because he confirms it. Anchor baby only becomes pejorative when it is inappropriately applied to all children of illegal aliens. When it is used appropriately - the way it is used by reliable sources - it isn't pejorative at all.-198.97.67.57 (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you, 66.213.90.2, the same editor as posted earlier in this thread as 198.97.67.58? Terjen (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD for Anchor baby article

Just a heads up for anybody interested in commenting. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anchor baby.--Ramsey2006 (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Donofrio v. Wells

I'd like this matter left included until the community gets a chance to decide if the material is, in fact, notable or not. Bearian (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donofrio v. Wells. Bearian (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not. In the future, please refrain from marking contentious edits as minor edits. It can be confusing for other editors. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The AfD has nothing to do with this article. The AfD is to determine whether the lawsuit merits its own article (consensus seems to be that it doesn't, especially now that it's been thrown out). But that is completely irrelevant to this article, where mentioning it adds nothing. There is no information about Birthright citizenship in the United States of America that is given by mentioning a frivolous lawsuit that's been thrown out. Further, keep in mind that if you're seeking to add material to an article, the burden is on you to make the case for inclusion, not n others to make the case for removing it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If the court had taken it, it might be relevant to this article because it could elucidate the issue and represent an important application of the principle. As it is the court is not taking the case so whether or not the case is a notable thing on its own, it does not add anything significant to understanding the issue. Wikidemon (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)