Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (immigration)

message: I can't read it on my browser. Bona Fides 13:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help! the main article is tooooo wiiiiidddddeeeee wide

message: The draft convention is focussed on the USA, and forgets that people might migrate (legally or otherwise) to or from other countries, too. For example, the idea that "illegal immigrant" might be offensive to Latinos just seems odd when read somewhere that does not have many Latinos. Likewise, in Australia, the word "alien" refers to creatures from other planets, not people from other countries. I don't even know if "illegal alien" is a tautology—do you need to contrast them from "legal aliens"?
In my mind, the distinction between "Unauthorized immigrant" and "Unauthorized migrant" is the distinction between "moving to" and "moving". An unauthorised migrant might be accepted into the place they are moving to, but not have authority to leave the country they were born in, for example due to being required for military service (e.g. American draft dodgers migrating to Canada) or a totalitarian government might not want to lose its labour force. 
In Australia, the term "illegal immigrant" is common, especially by the Government. The other common term is "asylum seeker" as many of the people who arrive here other than on scheduled flights are seeking to be recognised as refugees. There are also visa overstayers and fishermen who have violated the maritime boundaries. These are not normally seen as migrants, as they intend to go home without being caught. I can support "unauthorised immigrant" as a neutral term  that refers to someone who does not have authority to permanently reside in the country they have entered. --Scott Davis Talk 11:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is asylum seeker really used to refer to illegal immigrants?  Asylum seeker has a fairly unambigious usage in my dialect of english, and it doesn't make one an illegal immigrant, or an immigrant of any kind.  It merely means one is seeking to immigrate, under certain criteria.  We wouldn't refer to someone who's applied for immigrant status but hasn't entered the country illegally as an illegal immigrant.  WilyD 18:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess an individual could be either an "asylum seeker", an "illegal immigrant", or both. Most of the high-profile cases have involved people who might be both. See for example MV Tampa. The Australian government stands on the policy that a genuine refugee must seek asylum in the first safe haven country they enter. Therefore, anyone who has passed through another country such as Indonesia cannot claim to be a refugee on arrival in Australia. They are therefore tagged as illegal immigrants when they arrive in Australia. Many of them were encouraged to dispose of any documentation they had by the people smugglers who operated the boats that brought them into Australian waters (often to tiny uninhabited islands with no fresh water supply). This makes it very difficult for them to prove where they are from or why they require asylum anyway. Australia has very few "asylum seekers" who request asylum before they arrive. --Scott Davis Talk 01:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is "asylum seeker" a consensus term in Australia?  How about Britain, which I believe has a similar situation? Kalkin 01:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe the asylum in the first safe country you get to policy is the standard policy of most countries.  But uh, your point is well taken.  Of course, in Canada, almost all the illegal immigrants (of which there aren't many) show up legally and just stay past the visa expiry date or what have you.  There aren't a ton because almost every job above busker requires a social insurance numberl.  WilyD 13:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kalkin: I'm not sure what you mean by "consensus term", but I think the answer is yes. It generally means people who arrived in Australia unannounced and without previous authorisation. Most are placed in immigration detention either onshore or elsewhere until their identity and claims can be verified. See Pacific Solution for example. Some then receive refugee status, but many receive Temporary protection visas allowing them residence in Australia for only a few years, and others are deported. --Scott Davis Talk 10:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The world is bigger than the United States

message: Anyone have some idea how to go about making an official policy out of this?  We don't seem to have complete consensus and I doubt we'll get it, but maybe we should set up a straw poll if we want anything to happen?  I'm hesitant about that because I'm afraid we'll get a bunch of votes which are based on pure politics, without even a consideration of the arguments we've all been discussing.  What should we do? Kalkin 19:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless anyone objects, I'm going to boil this down to two options, "unauthorized immmigrant" and "illegal immigrant", respecting Radiant's advice, and moving the rest of the arguments to the talk page, and post it on the Village Pump. Kalkin 01:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me Perspixx 05:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Objection.  I think the two options should be "avoid "illegal immigrant"" and "use illegal immigrant", with no further prescription of an alternative term. RandomP 15:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  resolving this? 

message: In the U.S., this term is an attempt at equivocation between two vastly different categories of people.  It is rooted in political bias and deception.  It shouldn't be used.  The people it is meant to refer to are not immigrants, in the U.S.
As for other countries, I'd like to see some legal references to what terms are used in their governments for these people.  We may be able to reach a consensus by looking at that. -Psychohistorian 15:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes of course they are immigrants. Even the most intense nativists call them that. Most of the Chinese who came to US 1880s-1940s did so "illegally" and we always call them immigrants.  Rjensen 15:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "yes, of course they are immigrants" "Immigrant" is a legal category.  Provide a reference by a body legally empowered to make, enforce, or interpret law which says they are.  There is a reference already provided which says they aren't.  This is still Wikipedia and you are still required to source your statements.  I recommend that, since this is a legal issue, we should only consider alternatives which are used by bodies which make, enforce, and interpret law and that the legal term (from whichever country is being discussed) be properly referenced to such bodies before they fall under consideration as a possible option.-Psychohistorian 15:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "immigrant" is a common word for 200+ years and the dictionaries all agree on its meaning. Webster's 3rd defines immigrant as " a person that comes to a country for the purpose of permanent residence". That seems to fit pretty well. Encarta dictionary says "somebody settling in country: a newcomer to a country who has settled there". From England the Shorter OED says "A person who settles as a permanent resident in a different country. Also (esp. in Britain), a descendant of such a person. L18th century." Rjensen 15:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of those are empowered to provide intepretations of matters of law.  It was only a few years ago that 'witch', 'negro', 'queer', and a number of other words had definitions in popular dictionaries whose POV is now obvious.  Popular dictionaries are extremely POV and are not in any way reputable sources on complex issues (whether they be legal issues (such as this one) or otherwise).  Dictionary definitions fall into the same category as unsigned encyclopedia articles.  According to Wikipedia policy, "Note that unsigned Encyclopædia Britannica, World Book, and Encarta articles are written by staff, who may not be experts, and the articles may therefore not have the same level of credibility, but they are regarded as reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes. When wikipedians have the ambition to write a better encyclopedia entry than those extant[3], it does not suffice to rely on the content of such tertiary sources."  By the way, you're Australian, right?  Can you provide a reference to the Australian legal definition of people who fall into an equivalent category to 'illegal alien'?
-Psychohistorian 16:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Which of these other hits states, "'Illegal immigrant' is legally defined as.." or "'immigrant' is legally defined as.."? -Psychohistorian 16:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so we are all on the same page with regards to definitions.
According to the U.S. Government,
*An immigrant is, "An alien who has been granted the right by the USCIS to reside permanently in the United States and to work without restrictions in the United States. Also known as a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR). All immigrants are eventually issued a "green card" (USCIS Form I-551), which is the evidence of the alien’s LPR status. LPR’s who are awaiting the issuance of their green cards may bear an I-551 stamp in their foreign passports."  Check your dictionary, lawful (as in Lawful Permanent Resident) and illegal (as in illegal immigrant) are mutually incompatible.  
*An illegal alien is, "Also known as an "Undocumented Alien," is an alien who has entered the United States illegally and is deportable if apprehended, or an alien who entered the United States legally but who has fallen "out of status" and is deportable."-Psychohistorian 17:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Nonsense. We cannot allow Wiki to be overwhelmed by the POV of an editor who does not understand Wiki's role or the English language. Psychohistorian is quoting  IRS tax codes that are never even mentioned in the article nor are they relevant. Start with the English language--and any dictionary will do. Rjensen 20:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ad hominems such as "an editor who does not understand Wiki's role or the English language" are not productive discourse on this topic.  As per Wiki policy, focus discussion on the topic, not on other editors.  Further, you provide no argument at all for anyone to accept your claim that official government definitions such as I linked to aren't relevant.  As I said before, 'immigrant' is a legal category and, so, should be used according to government standards.-Psychohistorian 20:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Psychohistorian, feel free to parse through the definition of immigrant at 8 USC 1101 for the U.S. legal definition of "immigrant" - it is a couple of pages long.  You'll discover that the term "immigrant" includes all "aliens" (another defined term) except for people in the US under one of many special categories; I find no exclusion for anyone who is here illegally.  That having been said, you'll also see in that definition the flaw in using a legal definition in a non-legal work; there are many people in different categories excluded from the definition of immigrant whom most of us, and most statisticians, historians, and, I suspect, other legal systems, would describe as immigrants (for example, those who are admitted to the US as children or spouses of US citizens.  Likewise, there will be different legal definitions in different countries and states.  (By the way, the legal cite you provided above isn't a citation to legal authority, but rather to a summary that the IRS prepared of their view of the INS rules -- the IRS has different concerns in defining terms, and this one doesn't matter to them (it has no impact on how people are taxed), so it's not got any very interesting or authoritative legal meaning.) Sam 22:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am parsing through it, though it will take some time.  I find reference to trafficking, but I'm not through parsing the document yet.  I see no flaw in sticking to legal definitions.  It is irrelevant what common perceptions of the law is when discussing legal definitions, for example, you don't get to say, "but I thought heroin was legal, officer, honest!"  As for different definitions in different countries, I acknowledge that.  My point is that a common definition for Wikipedia for a legal term should be based on a composite of the law in the various countries.-Psychohistorian 23:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Calling these people "immigrants" is deeply objectionable sleight of hand in the U.S.

message: Wikipedia always depends on standard English language definitions of ordinary words like "immigrant." Psychohistorian rejects that policy and trieds to substitute a POV that is that is unacceptable in editing Wiki.  He adds his own "original research" arguing that "immigrant" is not a common word in political discourse but instead a "legal term" based on the tax code. That is done for no other reason than to introduce one editor's personal POV into the discussion. Wiki is not a law book sanctioned by the courts and Psychohistorian is not a lawyer. Rjensen 20:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You say that's a policy (to depend on standard English language definitions of legal terms).  Link to that policy. You're right that I'm not a lawyer, but neither are you.  That's why, when using legal terms, we need to use definitions used by the government.-Psychohistorian 20:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a lawyer.  See above for my take.  In short, I agree with R. Jensen.  Sam 22:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone can call themselves anything on Wikipedia. -Psychohistorian 23:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you implying that someone is lying? That's not a civil way to discss matters. -Will Beback 23:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I thought someone was lying, Id say so.  Im no more accussing someone of lying than you are accusing me of being uncivil.  Im simply pointing out that claims to being an authority dont carry much weight. -Psychohistorian 00:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you were talking about people being lawyers or not, the comment appears appropriate. As for the point, the U.S. Government does not legislate word usage. It's fine to say that particular terms are used in government documents, but that usage does not determine what terms we use in this encyclopedia. Likewise, the Feds may come up with their own definition of "terrorist", but we are not obliged to follow their definition. -Will Beback 00:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can choose to redefine "felony", "misdemeaner", or any other legal term anyway we want to.  If we do so, that's original research and POV.  "Immigrant" is no different.  It is a legal term, so we should use it as defined legally.  You are attempting to use a POV based definition of "immigrant" and pass it off as if its not.  Wikipedia needs to be based on reliable sources.-Psychohistorian 11:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, the heading of this section is addressing a person rather than the subject and, so, is against guidelines. -Psychohistorian 11:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Immigrant" and "alien" are not legal terms like "felon". Rather they are general terms, like "adult", that also have meaning in the law. While the legal uses of the terms is relevant, they aren't the sole uses, nor are the legal definitions necessarily the same as the common definitions. Dictionaries are reliable sources for word usage. -Will Beback 11:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are discussing which terms to use in an encyclopedia.  Those terms are meant to be used in a wide range of articles and to be used consistently.  Those terms need to fit the tightest definitions possible.  To do anything less is to be confusing.  The tightest definition is the legal definition.  "Immigrant" and "alien" are legal terms because they are categories which carry legal rights and legal responsibilities. -Psychohistorian 11:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we don't use the "tightest" definitions possible, we use the most common definitions. The most commonly used phrase in the English language to describe these folks is "illegal immigrant". -Will Beback 12:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We use the most common definition when writing individual articles.  Show me the policy which states that we use the most common definition when determining a standard for several articles.  Also, show me where 'illegal immigrant' is the most common term globally. -Psychohistorian 12:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tell you what, if you can get a consensus among the Wikipedia editors to adopt your position I'll cheerfully adopt it as well. However, until then, you appear to be in the minority. -Will Beback 12:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You want to take a straw poll on whether legal terms have legal rights and legal responsibilities associated with them?  Okay.  You want to have a straw poll on whether we should use a definition for a legal term based on a composite of what is used by legal authorities around the world?  Okay.  Personally, I think it'd be interesting to find out just how serious Wikipedia editors are about writing a legitimate encyclopedia or if they are more intent on finding a soap box (by making the kind of POV equivocations that you want to make).-Psychohistorian 13:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Psychohistorian, I see a clear consensus here, and would suggest that if you want to show what terms are common or not common or useful or not useful, that you go find your authorities to present.  I gave you the citation above for a legal definition under U.S. immigration law.  Please note that there is no such thing as a "composite" legal definitions - legal definitions are intended to be precise, and where there are significant differences it is usually because there are minority or majority views of a point and so two or more very different and often diametrically opposed definitions become common.  It also can be because there are different uses (for example, legally the concept of "alien" is usually meant to be a jurisdictional concept, and this can lead to differing definitions for tax purposes, for example, than for immigration purposes, because jurisdictional concepts differ in the two areas). If you wish to do a legal survey, please feel free to do so, but please use actual legal authority rather than things like that IRS website, and please realize that you will not get to a "composite" definition but rather a collection of disparate and often disjunctive definitions that have precision applicable in different contexts.  In the absence of some substantive work such as that from you, I believe the consensus is established.  Sam 14:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The core question here is "by what criteria will we weigh the various options against one another in order to choose a standard"?  There are three options.
1.) We may use original research (whether it be by consensus of everyone here or by a select few or one).  I think we can all agree that that's a bad option, right?
2.) We can judge the relative terms based on what is most popular on a global scale (but, remember, noone has provided any source which has been agreed to be reliable on this matter and which lists words by their global popularity).
3.) We can create a composite definition based on legal definitions as used around the world.  This is the option I favor.  It won't be a simple "cut and paste", but it does give us a system not created by us by which we can use to work towards a standard.
Those are the options as I see them. -Psychohistorian 14:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Using POV edits to attack immigrants

message: It seems deeply biased in at least two major ways and has another flaw which I see as fundamental.
1.) It throws 'alien' out without giving it any consideration.  All the options assume that 'immigrant' is the only valid choice, but the article never explains why.  It just kinda seems to hope that it can pull off a sleight of hand and noone will notice.
2.) It assumes that there needs to be some sort of standard terminology set from on high and handed down to the rest of the wiki editors.  That goes against the spirit of an open source encyclopedia.
3.) It assumes that open discussion is the way to create a standard - but open discussion on this issue would be just a bunch of people spouting their opinion - opinion is, at best, original research.  It would be better for this article to address the question of what is a reliable source in the debate over what terms should be used. 
In short, the article is biased and seems to have been artificially created to steer it towards a certain outcome.  I don't believe any degree of work will bring it towards neutrality.  It should be deleted.-Psychohistorian 19:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Responding to point (1) only, without prejudice either way to the "throw it out" proposal: "Alien" may mean "a person from another pountry" in the USA, but to the rest of us, it refers to the characters in Close Encounters of the Third Kind and its ilk — beings from another planet. --Scott Davis Talk 10:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source for that? -Psychohistorian 11:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Maybe this whole article should be thrown out

message: According to Wikipedia policy, one should be bold in editing.  There is no policy that I know of which requires discussion to be made before editing.  There are guidelines which suggests that deleting content shouldn't be done unless the content violates policy.  So, I'm restoring the reverted content.  If you have an issue with that content, discuss it here before further reversions. -Psychohistorian 15:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not an article, it's a project page devoted to deciding how Wikiepdia editors should use nomenclature surrounding immigration. Being bold does not mean ignoring consensus. Guidelines require consensus. If the author of the material, or anyone else, would like to propose the changes first and seek consensus then I'd be happy to join in the conversation. But a newcomer who is sekeing to promote a website is not going to come in and change our guidelines without some attmept at a consensus. It isn't vandalism to revert such eidting, it's being responsible. -Will Beback 16:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All articles are built using consensus and that consensus is achieved by everyone working together on the article - by allowing anyone to make edits to the article. Where is the policy which states that guidelines are created differently?  Now, I'll give you that there was a sentence in the middle of his edits which does come across as promoting a website and that needs to be looked at a bit closer, but throwing out all of his content because of one sentence makes no sense.  Frankly, without his edit, this 'guideline' is even more of a poorly disguised political piece then otherwise.  While he doesn't bring it back to a neutral position, he brings it closer to one.  Whether what you are doing is vandalism is something I'm not going to get into, but what you are doing is against Wiki guidelines (you can't just assume wiki guidelines don't apply whenever you don't want them to, you have to show why they don't apply - you haven't done that). -Psychohistorian 17:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You directly accused me of vandalism by reverting my reversion with the edit summary "rvv". And please show me what guideline says that one editor may make massive changes without comment, but that no other editor may remove them. If you'd like to make a change please discuss it here first.  -Will Beback 17:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for that.  I thought "rvv" meant "revert the reversion".  I misued the abbreviation and threw an accusation at you that I didn't intend.
"And please show me what guideline says that one editor may make massive changes without comment..", easy "be bold".  As for the other one, I'll have to dig it up. -Psychohistorian 17:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "major changes made without discussion"

message: This page reads like this is a US-specific issue, which of course it isn't.  There really shouldn't be any discussion about whether "immigrant" as specific legal connotations in the US... unless otherwise stated, naming conventions should be as broadly applicable as possible.  Guettarda 17:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true, but at the same time, it is not sufficient to just say "X is the most widely used term in country Y" unless we can provide a source for it.  Everything needs to be sourced or else its original research and noone has presented a reliable source for what the most common terms are -globally-.  Until and unless someone can do that, this article is just a mishmash of opinion and should be thrown out. -Psychohistorian 17:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, since this 'guideline' hasn't been created in a neutral or reasonable manner (since it doesn't even offer up for consideration 'alien' but just seems to brush it aside without reason), I plan on ignoring it anyway (a guideline which hasn't followed policy in being developed makes no sense to be followed).
So, you all can do whatever you want.  I'm done. -Psychohistorian 18:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  Guettarda 00:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That is the -first- time I've seen anyone on here actually use a reliable source that isn't from the US.  Now, can you actually cite that source?  See, the number one problem with this guideline is that it seems to be trying to set a standard based on pure opinion.  We need -more- of these global citations from reliable sources and we need to get away from pure opinion.-Psychohistorian 11:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The transcripts of the case include  and . The act itself contains the definition in section 14, as referred to by the interpretations section, section 5. --Scott Davis Talk 15:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much.  Now we have two terms which actually have legitimacy.  They are "illegal alien" (the term used officially in the US) and "Unlawful non-citizens" (the term used officially in Australia).  All the other terms listed as options in this guideline should be removed and these two terms should be the only options (as they are the only ones from reliable sources which have been provided).  Other terms, of course, can be added when reliable sources can be cited for them.  Personally, I'd table the question of which term to use until some time has gone by and noone has provided any more terms with reliable sources.  I'd like it very much if you added the citations you just provided above to the guideline. -Psychohistorian 16:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a law book. We are not restricted to using the legal terms for any topic. In general, Wikipedia prefers the most commonly-used terms. Commonly-used terms should not be removed from the options. -Will Beback 16:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As soon as you can provide a reliable source which states, "this is the most commonly used term globally for illegal aliens", you'll have a point to make.  As for removing commonly-used terms, the guideline already does that as a result of -your- efforts.  Finally, where is the policy or guideline which states that Wikipedia prefers the most commonly-used terms?  -Psychohistorian 16:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My only efforts in this proposal was to undo the unilateral changes of user:Illegalaliens.us. That one-time editor made no attempt to explain or justify his edits. The general guideline is at Wikipedia:Naming convention. I'm not sure why you demand that a term be used globally - it is sufficient to show that a term is commonly used in major English-speaking countries. -Will Beback 22:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your only effort has been to exclude "illegal alien" from the list of options and to do so by continuing what has become the standard practice in this guideline of ignoring sources and providing no source to support its exclusion.  As for using the most common term in English-speaking countries, you need to provide a reliable source which states "term X is the most common term used to describe illegal aliens in English-speaking countries globally".  As for making unilateral changes, every editor takes it upon himself/herself to make such changes.  Its called "being bold" and it is supported by policy.-Psychohistorian 11:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I provided the references, but that doesn't mean "unlawful non-citizen" is commonly used - it never appears in newspapers.  I think the most common use here would be "illegal immigrant", followed by "boat people", but I'm not sure where to look for a reference that would satisfy you. Any hints? --Scott Davis Talk 12:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The real issue isn't what will satisfy me, but what will satisfy policy.  We can't use original research and we need a reliable source for global usage.  As for whether or not a reliable source can be found which states, "X is the most common term globally in English-speaking countries for illegal aliens", personally I don't think such a source will be found and, consequently, we need to either back up and use the law as our yardstick (as it prevents OR and NOR is sacrosanct) or just scrap this thing altogether.  Sometimes the best guideline is no guideline at all. -Psychohistorian 14:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limited geographic scope? 

message: What is the process, or steps, that need to be taken to bring this proposal to a conclusion? 
Positions seem to be pretty well spelled out at this point, and there appears to be little chance of any major shifts amongst editors. So where do we go from here?  Brimba 04:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guidelines are voluntary.  If you want it to be embraced, people have to want to embrace it.  That means that the conclusion needs to be justified.  That means that the guideline needs to be reached using policy.  This guideline, at this point in time, doesn't do that.  There are very few sources and absolutely no justification for any of the major options which doesn't boil down to opinion (and we can't base options on opinion - that would be original research).  So, in other words, this thing masquerading as a 'guideline' is, at this point in time, nothing more than a political opinion piece.  It is -far- from being ready to be accepted.  To do that, we need options which are backed by citable reliable sources which focus on global usage and we need citable reliable sources as to -why- other options aren't used. -Psychohistorian 11:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, there are a large number of sources.  Please pay attention.   Kalkin 04:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are the one who isn't paying attention.  There is no statement in this article which states, "According to reliable source X, Y is the term used most globally by legal authorities and/or popular media to describe illegal aliens".  I challenge you to find such a source in this article. -Psychohistorian 12:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Further, while all the sources which are provided (and, yes, there are sources which are provided, but none are provided in the options section) are of a national scope, some are flat out ignored among the options presented while others are given priority (not the source itself, just the content) and there is no justification as to why.  If a source is to be ignored because it is of a national scope, then all sources which are of a national scope should be ignored, but that is not what we see here. -Psychohistorian 13:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: An alternative is to create a project page which connects all pages on this topic.  Project pages have been quite useful in the past on other topics.  What, then, do you call the project page?  Illegal immigration? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psychohistorian (talk • contribs) 15:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps simply "Immigration: Global Issues".  There would be no reason to suggest any particular sub-topic.  This would avoid the problem you seem to be suggesting, of having this same debate on language for the title of the project page.  You have a good point. Infoholic 09:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reaching a conclusion, for better or worse

message: Having a naming convention which enshrines the POV of one side in a battle, is a great way to bypass NPOV and go straight to bias. If, on the other hand, what we all are aiming at here, is to find a way in which contributors with conflicting viewpoints can cooperate to write a neutral article, we'll have to do something that seems harder but is actually simpler.
Do not attempt to find some "neutral viewpoint" - that is a contradiction in terms, and was specifically disclaimed when NPOV was first devised. Rather than trying to express some middle ground acceptable to both sides, describe the conflicting viewpoints. 
Thus, use phrases like the following:
* called "undocumented immigrants" by X
* dubbed "illegal aliens" by Y
Fair enough? --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Great way to avoid neutrality