Talk:Anchor baby/Archive 2

message: Since there seems to be some dispute over the use of pejorative (and since there doesn't seem to have been Talk: on it for a few months): Wikipedia defines "pejorative" as connoting contempt or disapproval. Can anyone point to an instance in which the term "anchor baby" was used (non-sardonically, say, and not by way of quoting or explaining), by an author who does not disapprove of chain migration? If not -- if most who use the term "anchor baby" have, at a minimum, a certain level of disapproval (not to say contempt) for the immigrants they describe, the term isn't POV so much as accurate.
By the way, my revert of removing "pejorative" got me a friendly note from User:Save Our Country. Save Our Country, your account looks new; is it your first? --Rocketfairy 11:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll see that our article on the word "nigger" also makes the point that it's a pejorative term. Should we remove the word "pejorative" from all equivalent terms? There are ample sources to show that "anchor baby" is considered a pejorative term.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then provide the sources and quite wasting our time with banter. What sources, say it is a perjorative, provide them here? Further the article itself in its context can help the reader understand and make up their own mind whether it is perjorative or not. But sources for our perusal to better understand where your coming from? --Northmeister 20:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I urged Rocdahut to use the talk page rather than engage in a revert war, and I also cautioned him/her about the 3RR.  Richwales 19:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I am a bit new to this, I was unaware of the rules/regulations that were in place.  That being said, as an English Lit major who specializes in language and secondary education I take wording quite seriously.  A public rebuke of my actions was unesscessary, as I am so new to the system that I also failed to notice that I had new messages until this afternoon.  As for the topic at hand, that of the term perjorative and its inclusion here, the arguement for inclusion is a weak one.  The word itself (pejorative) carries connotations to it that the term "anchor baby" did not have, and as of now appears not to have, the same socially unacceptable ramifications as the aforementioned "n-word".  Furthermore, the quote and the nctimes article that was used to argue for the inclusion of the word "pejorative" was that of a member of the government during a speech; and the NCtimes ariticle, the writer of the article himself seems to have been the orginator of the considering the word parjorative.  Though it may seem like a worthwhile point of reference, and I can certainly understand the mistake made by those who originally included them, such use of the term is POV in the context that it was said.  Thus, it can be assumed that these are POV references that is unworthy of the high standards that wikipedia strives to achieve.  Reducing the wording of this article to say either "terms" or "words" in the place of "pejorative" would cause the article to be less inflammatory from the start.  If there are those who seek to make a point that in the realm of social acceptance that there are some who consider it be a perjorative, then it should be stated as such.  For example:  "There are some who consider this term to be a perjorative" and then the appropriate footnoting that shows the quote from the politician.  Thanks for you time.Rocdahut 20:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I could go along with Rocdahut's "There are some who consider this term to be a pejorative" suggestion, but I would need to see references to at least a couple of sources which clearly and unambiguously use the expression in a non-pejorative fashion.  If no such sources can be found, I think the sources that do classify it as pejorative would win out and the original language should be restored to the article.  Richwales 21:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pejorative redux

message: The dispute above seems highly charged and political fromt he rhetoric used. I am being a-political as I and other editors should be. Defining the term 'anchor babies' as pejorative is not only taking sides in a current event dispute - it is highly misleading as not all media or commentators use this term pejoratively. There are five references indicating its usage - two describe the term as pejorative (their opinion) and three use it without description of the term (media standard now) as a descriptive itself to describe a phenomenon occuring in recent American history. No authoratative evidence is shown indicating that the term takes on the same connatation or has the same history as agreed pejoratives such as the "N*gg*r" term for black persons or other such racially and gender wise terminology. Rather whats been displayed here is the bias of editors. My own bias is that the term has a pejorative feel to it and I WOULD NOT USE THE TERM - but I don't subject my bias into Wikipedia or attempt not to. We must be NEUTRAL and simply provide all the details and let the READER make up their own minds without POLITICAL BIAS getting in the way. Hence, although I seem agreed with Willbeback and Rocketferry about the term being pejorative or leaning that way - my native sense of fairness and accuracy and Wikipedias standard of NPOV sway me to offer the credible solution to this dilemma by providing a paragraph on the word being pejorative or not in the article and not as DEFINITIVE explanation at the opening. --Northmeister 17:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I resent your implication that I am editing this article with a political bias. Please leave personal comments out of content disputes.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I am going to revert your boldness pending the outcome of this RfC.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Being bold and moving forward