Talk:Illegal immigration/Archive 1

message: Is there a wikipedia-wide policy with regards to the terms "illegal immigrant", "illegal alien", "undocumented immigrant", etc.? Illegal immigrant seems to be the neutral-er, middle road, but I'm curious what others think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandanar (talk • contribs) 16:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial text

message: Controversial subject improvement
Many peope felt we should legalized the undocumented immigrants or not. They accuse undocumented immigtants broke the American laws. It was a subject that become our every day life talk. Why should help or not help undocumented immgrants. So this is debate is going on. s subject as well as others that are so laden with emotional opinion ought to be subject to a different standard for editing, one that slowed down the process and subjected it to more community review.
--Unsigned edit by 4.131.222.208  10:09, 27 December 2005
:I think this article has been an improvement over what I read in convention media outlets.  That is, the article uses the cock term alien to explain why alien has been replaced because common readers don't usually have the legal meaning of the term, i.e. even for corporations, one chartered out of state is foreign, one out of country is an alien corporation.  Then the article explains the alien as extra terrestrial connotation.  The improvement I would like is the inclusion of the word non-citizen used the first time the term alien would have been properly used so we remove ambiguity with immigrants who are citizens and extra-terrestrials. John wesley 18:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial subject improvement 

message: How come theres no mention that the grand majority of anti illegal immigration people are white racists? Face it LATINOS TAKING OVER get Over It. How can something like this be neutral when there need to be open borders US=MEXICO IN 2007
You've shown you're no better than the people you oppose. I am against illegal immigration. However, I also understand the main reason for it is the magnet of employers and administration after administration that largely looks the other way. Usually the most annoying and vocal protesters tend to be racist on both sides of this game, and it is one. Why do you even type in caps? To make the "racists" more angry? am I talking to air?.....I think he/she won't get a notification of this response...besides...it is not NPOV, bottom line. RMartinez
RESPONSE
Because we aren't...we of all kinds of people agree that we are a lawfull nation, a compassionate nation and we have rights under our constutition to have our government protect us and our nation.
Weapons of mass destruction aren't only Artillery, Arms and Missiles.... It's.... the threat of Invasion of a Country, Potential passage for Terrorist, Digging holes and tunnels for unlawful passage into our Country, Over- staying visas, Unknown Illegals within, Vicious and Violent intruders turned loose on our streets, Violent Illegal Gang and Drug wars, Murder of Citizens and Government Workers, Smuggling Humans, Felons, Animals, Weapons and Drugs by the tons, Aiding and abetting criminal activity, Corruption, Mexican Militia crossing our borders questioning and trying to intimidate Citizens. Personal attacks on our Citizens, Property and Government, Illegal and Fraudulent use of State and Federal documents to obtain Money, Social Services and passage into and around our Country and bringing in diseases that threaten large populations. All of these atrocities result in Mayhem and Endangering lives of Citizenry. As a result there has been a magnitude of: Theft of people's identifications, buying, selling and using fraudulent Social Security cards, Licenses, Voter's Registration cards, Passports, Visas, Green cards and other Government Documents, driving with/without legal licenses, no insurance and a danger to all people. A crippling effect on States spending, Federal Government spending because of Illegals fraudulently obtaining State and Federal Social Services, Education, hiding from the government, tax evasion, unlawful employment and businesses not paying their share
::I've noticed that Mexico really hates it when people cross THEIR southern border... hypocrites. Vizierde 18:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti Illegals Are Racist: No Mention?

message: What's the source on the 9/11 perpetrators?  Two of them were granted visa extensions after their deaths, so they couldn't have been illegal when they committed their act.  All were legally admitted as far as I know, but what's the source that all their visas expired?  Bruxism 03:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be partly my fault as my re-write may have introduced an inaccuracy. Atta was on an expired visa, but I am not certain of the others. Ah, I think this sums it up: "Two hijackers could have been denied admission at the port on entry based on violations of immigration rules governing terms of admission. Three hijackers violated the immigration laws after entry, one by failing to enroll in school as declared, and two by overstays of their terms of admission." Prepared Statement of Vice Chair Lee Hamilton and Commissioner Slade Gorton of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States I'll correct it. Thanks for catching it. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source on 9/11 perpetrators 

message: There really should be a section on illegal immigration in Europe, where it is probably a more heated political issue than it is in the United States (where both main parties generally seem content with the status quo). Funnyhat 19:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illegal immgration in Europe 

message: ==== I have removed the following chunks of text ====
"Crossing the border without papers is not a felony but only a misdemeanor (that is, a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment not to exceed one year). Mexicans who are caught illegally crossing the border are fingerprinted and immediately returned, unless they are a repeat offender, in which case they may be criminally prosecuted. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) made the hiring of an illegal alien an offense for the first time. American businesses have hired well over 10 million illegal aliens per year. (There is always heavy turnover in low-skilled jobs.) Enforcement has been very lax due to the efforts of powerful lobbyists such as the Chamber of Commerce, which argues the labor is needed by the American economy. Some major companies have occasionally been found to use undocumented workers. Tyson Foods was accused of actively importing illegal labor for its chicken packing plants, but a jury in Chattanooga, Tennessee resoundingly acquitted the company after evidence was presented that it went beyond mandated government requirements in demanding documentation for its employees. And Wal-Mart was accused of using illegal janitorial workers, though it claimed they were hired by a subcontractor without company knowledge. Philippe Kahn, who wanted to stay in the United States, created the successful computer software company Borland International without proper legal status. During his 2003 campaign for California governor, it was alleged that Arnold Schwarzenegger had violated his visa by working without a permit in the 1970s; he vehemently denied the charge and produced his documents. The employment by prominent individuals of persons without work permits has been an occasional issue in politics. Linda Chavez, Zoe Baird, and Tom Tancredo are among those accused of hiring illegal aliens, the resulting scandals sometimes being dubbed "Nannygate". Many or most illegals, of course, commit other federal offenses by accepting wages without withholding on "day laborer jobs" with millions of such transactions occuring annually, or by purchasing fake documents such as Social Security cards, birth certificates and driver's licenses, and many use fake social security numbers (knowing they will never see the money that they extra-legally pay into Social Security.) In addition to supplying cheap labor to American businesses, and day laborer services to individuals and families, illegal aliens also supply a significant quantity of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and, of course, marijuana, to the illegal American drug trade. Many experts estimate that over 25% of all major narcotics traffickers in the United States are illegal aliens." 18:40, 1 January 2006 67.124.195.107
"Irridentism, the operative "poly-sci" word, related to U.S. - Mexico Border Issues, is almost unknown by press,& public
Most nations located on a border between one cultural region and another quite different cultural region, tend to see illegal immigrants from that culturally different country to be among the least welcome, should they come in very large numbers. If they come illegally, and outnumber all other immigrants 2 to 1, this threatens by their very presence, the cultural identity of the counrty entered. This is usually seen as a "non-combat" form of invasion. Mexico's revolutionary hero, Pancho Villa, did in fact, invade the State of New Mexico in 1916, and killed a number of Americans. American Immigrant U.S. families from all other parts of the world must wait 5 to 10 years to allow a son or daughter to join their U.S. citizen parents. With world wide immigration, the U.S, will remain a "melting pot" english speaking culture. With mostly Mexican immigration, U.S. will become a cultural mixture of the two nations in all possible ways over the next 100 years. So goes the arguement of the out-spoken anti-illegal community on Mexico-U.S. Irridentism. In balance, it should be noted that Mexico sees the massive illegal entry from Central America in "irridentist" terms from their own perspective. "Illegals" are treated with little compassion, and are promply ejected by authorities." 2 January 2006 Nativeborncal
This information is pejorative and misleading, not to mention unsourced. In future please discuss major changes on the talk page prior to making them. Natgoo 12:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the global article. We already have Illegal immigration to the United States. If you see particular parts of the article that are excessively U.S.-centric then please fix them or mention them here. Thanks, -Will Beback 07:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal 

message: "Crossing the border without papers is not a felony but only a misdemeanor (that is, a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment not to exceed one year). Mexicans who are caught illegally crossing the border are fingerprinted and immediately returned, unless they are a repeat offender, in which case they may be criminally prosecuted. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) made the hiring of an illegal alien an offense for the first time. American businesses have hired well over 10 million illegal aliens per year. (There is always heavy turnover in low-skilled jobs.) Enforcement has been very lax due to the efforts of powerful lobbyists such as the Chamber of Commerce, which argues the labor is needed by the American economy. Some major companies have occasionally been found to use undocumented workers. Tyson Foods was accused of actively importing illegal labor for its chicken packing plants, but a jury in Chattanooga, Tennessee resoundingly acquitted the company after evidence was presented that it went beyond mandated government requirements in demanding documentation for its employees. And Wal-Mart was accused of using illegal janitorial workers, though it claimed they were hired by a subcontractor without company knowledge. Philippe Kahn, who wanted to stay in the United States, created the successful computer software company Borland International without proper legal status. During his 2003 campaign for California governor, it was alleged that Arnold Schwarzenegger had violated his visa by working without a permit in the 1970s; he vehemently denied the charge and produced his documents. The employment by prominent individuals of persons without work permits has been an occasional issue in politics. Linda Chavez, Zoe Baird, and Tom Tancredo are among those accused of hiring illegal aliens, the resulting scandals sometimes being dubbed "Nannygate". Many or most illegals, of course, commit other federal offenses by accepting wages without withholding on "day laborer jobs" with millions of such transactions occuring annually, or by purchasing fake documents such as Social Security cards, birth certificates and driver's licenses, and many use fake social security numbers (knowing they will never see the money that they extra-legally pay into Social Security.) In addition to supplying cheap labor to American businesses, and day laborer services to individuals and families, illegal aliens also supply a significant quantity of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and, of course, marijuana, to the illegal American drug trade. Many experts estimate that over 25% of all major narcotics traffickers in the United States are illegal aliens." 18:40, 1 January 2006 67.124.195.107
"Irridentism, the operative "poly-sci" word, related to U.S. - Mexico Border Issues, is almost unknown by press,& public
Most nations located on a border between one cultural region and another quite different cultural region, tend to see illegal immigrants from that culturally different country to be among the least welcome, should they come in very large numbers. If they come illegally, and outnumber all other immigrants 2 to 1, this threatens by their very presence, the cultural identity of the counrty entered. This is usually seen as a "non-combat" form of invasion. Mexico's revolutionary hero, Pancho Villa, did in fact, invade the State of New Mexico in 1916, and killed a number of Americans. American Immigrant U.S. families from all other parts of the world must wait 5 to 10 years to allow a son or daughter to join their U.S. citizen parents. With world wide immigration, the U.S, will remain a "melting pot" english speaking culture. With mostly Mexican immigration, U.S. will become a cultural mixture of the two nations in all possible ways over the next 100 years. So goes the arguement of the out-spoken anti-illegal community on Mexico-U.S. Irridentism. In balance, it should be noted that Mexico sees the massive illegal entry from Central America in "irridentist" terms from their own perspective. "Illegals" are treated with little compassion, and are promply ejected by authorities." 2 January 2006 Nativeborncal
This information is pejorative and misleading, not to mention unsourced. In future please discuss major changes on the talk page prior to making them. Natgoo 12:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have removed the following chunks of text 

message: I removed the statement at the end of the paragraph about illegal immigration in the US, ", as well as covering those who are left undeported due to the citizenship of their children.". It is blatantly wrong and unsupported either by examples or legal cites. I am a clerk at a California Immigration Court of the Executive Office of Immigration Review and, although it is definitely not to my liking, my office orders the removal (deportation) of illegal aliens with US Citizen children almost every day. Very often the children are removed with their parents. There are cases even where a single alien parent does not have a sole custody over the child(ren) and since the US Citizen parent is nowhere to be found to take care of or to allow the departure of his/her minor children, the children are placed in foster care for an indefinite period of time. 
--Emcho 10:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the global article. We already have Illegal immigration to the United States. If you see particular parts of the article that are excessively U.S.-centric then please fix them or mention them here. Thanks, -Will Beback 07:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illegal immigration in the US 

message: * "Those 'undocumented' are actually highly documented with fraudulent documents our government readily accepts."
"Calling an illegal alien an undocumented immigrant is like calling a burglar an uninvited house guest."
( Illegal Aliens.US)
What part of "illegal immigrant" is derogatory? It is fairly accurate and unbiased term to describe somebody who has crossed any national border illegally. Honestly, the term "illegal alien" makes them sound as though they are from another species, and should be considered derogatory! The term "undocumented immigrant" can be used to describe an immigrant who has forgotten to renew their legal documentation, and as previously stated, is indirect and broad.
Of course, the term of "illegal immigration" is simply an opinion, as is the monicker "undocumented immigrant", just as racial issues come in opinions (it might not appeal to all audiences).
Also, to more directly refute the term "illegal alien", if you look up the word "alien", you'll find a description such as "a person from another nation, territory, or governized landscape". Well, it's evident that they're not from here, so in a sense, it's redundant, while the expression "undocumented immigrant" and "illegal immigrant" are oxymorons, because an immigrant particularly describes one who has come from another country to legally reside in another, and is synonymous with terms such as "renewed citizen" (whatever that means). So again, it's all about definition of words.
:: the word "illegal" strongly suggests the person is a criminal-- However in America you are presumed innocent and not "illegal" until a court finds you guilty--which is rarely the case for these folks. They have been found guilt by a judge and jury on talk radio. Rjensen 01:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: let's remember that this article is international in scope. I'm going to remove the stray mentions of the U.S. As for the other points, I'm not aware of where the definition of immigrant necessarily implies "legal". -Will Beback 04:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: my point is that when we say "illegal" people think of heroin not speeding--just look at the above discussion! that means it's a heavily loaded POV term used in very HOT political debates. It's not a Wiki-neutral term  Rjensen 07:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that there is nothing POV about the term illegal in this context—it is completely neutral.  Immigration is not heroin and it is not speeding, so thinking of either of these is of little use, and I doubt a serious concern.  The terms "illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien" are less concise as it is the act not the person that is illegal.  The euphemisms "undocumented immigrant" and "undocumented worker" are neither concise nor accurately descriptive.  If you have to pick one of these terms as NPOV, illegal immigration is the clear choice. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 08:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: But it is indeed a serious concern in the US and other countries and the choice of "illegal" is deliberately designed to inflame the debate. The term is red-hot POV and has to be flagged as such. Rjensen 08:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully disagree.  The term "illegal immigration" was a simple statement of fact used for a long time—the terminology did not become an issue until people with a clear POV attempted to replace the simple descriptive term with undescriptive euphemisms such as "undocumented" intended to obscure the fact that the activity was against the law and thereby legitimize it.  Only at that point did the term become "red hot", but it is the euphemistic terms that carry the POV. Illegal immigration is the most neutral and accurate term, and only "red hot" if viewed through a non-neutral POV. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 08:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are we discussing here? The title of the article? If so I think "Illegal immigration" is the best title possible, and it's been discused at length previously. As for the content, we discuss each of the commonly-used terms, which is the NPOV thing to do. But we're not a dictionary.  As for what term we use throughout the article, it may depend on what aspect of the subject is being discussed. For example, much of the issue with employment concerns documentation, so "undocumented aliens" might be appropriate there. So might "migrant workers". OTOH, "illegal immigrant" clearly applies to someone who breaks the law while crossing the border with the intent to migrate permanently. "Visa overstayers" is what we can use when talking about the 40% (in the U.S.) whom we rarely talk about. And so on. There are many terms because none fits all uses.  -Will Beback 08:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of Words 

message: The section on Mexico says "It has also received those who are fleeing their native areas for religious persecution such as the Russian Molokai and Christian Lebanese and Mennonites".  Since the word "Molokai" contains a link to the Hawaiian island of that name, which has no connection with Russia, there is obviously an error of some kind.  Could somebody with the necessary knowledge fix it? -- DPJ, 2006-02-27 05:37 UTC
This was fixed on 2006-03-10.
mexicans should stay where they are....IN MEXICO....... we don't want you here
: We don't want you here... illegally. Vizierde 18:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mexico 

message: Illegal alien refers to the person crossing the border without authorization, and is the preferred US government term for unpermitted crossers (see Google unclesam link. Compare with undocumented immigrant, illegal immigrant, undocumented worker). While we should not be US centric I think this is an argument why the two should not be merged. Calwatch 09:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What content should be in "Illegal alien" that is different from this content? The articles appear to be near-copies of each other, which is a bad idea. -Will Beback 21:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I read it further, and yes, it does appear to be a fork. Illegal immigration should encompass all terms, from illegal alien, undocumented alien, undocumented worker, etc. Calwatch 04:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger (again)

message: "while others follow underground routes, such as the movement of African-Americans into free northern states and Canada through the Underground Railroad during the 19th century" is a big violation and so I've deleted that clause. Joncnunn 20:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, any line that starts "Ironically" does not belong in an encyclopedia. -Will Beback 03:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 'NPOV violation'

message: This morning, an editor removed the following passages from the article:"It is said that the U.S. is pressuring Mexico and paying for the deportation of Central American origin.""Restricting immigration in the United States has often been driven by the fear that the immigrants will bring alien political values that will disrupt or dilute American values, by nativism or general fear of strangers, by fear of wage and benefit reduction, by concerns of adverse impact on public services and the environment, or by security interests regarding criminals or terrorists (such as the anarchists of the late 19th century)."and"The first laws creating a quota for immigrants were passed in the 1920s, in response to a sense that the country could no longer absorb large numbers of unskilled workers, despite pleas by big business that it wanted the new workers." 
He or she also added the text of several articles of the Mexican Constitution to the section on Mexico.
I restored the removed passages and removed the passages from the Mexican constitution, since, in addition to being placed into the article without any context and out of any order, many of them did not pertain to illegal immigration into Mexico even indirectly. In fact, they seemed to be added to create the impression that "Mexico is hostile to foreigners".
I restored the removed passages because they were removed without discussion with edit summaries such as "removed vague claim", the enigmatic "legal", and "need source". The "unsourced" passages appeared to cite the Ngai text and contain crucial information about the topic. Having read about the U.S. pressuring Mexico and other countries to enforce their own borders more strictly, a tactic referred to as "surrogate enforcement", I restored that passage as well.
The editor in question then restored his or her edits (once with the summary "Rockero if you delete again without reason you will be cited as a vandel[sic]."), this time providing some context for the inclusion of the Mexican constitutional articles, and then left an unsigned but polite comment on my talkpage asking me to explain my edits. Hence this post.
While I agree that the article is not in the best condition (could use more information, citations, and global and historical perspective), it seems to me that the removal of information it more "vandal-like" then my restoration of the information. At this point, I am willing to concede to leaving out the bit about surrogate enforcement out until more research can be done since I couldn't immediately recall where I had read it. I would even concede to leaving in certain articles of the Mexican constitution provided that they are germane to the discussion at hand.
But the other passages are well-documented by numerous sources and ought to remain in. I won't edit--I don't want to get involved in any edit wars or even skirmishes-- and therefore leave it in the hands of the rest of the community to decide what should and should not be included based on these comments.--Rockero 21:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes and reversions 

message: "Undocumented aliens" and "overstays" defeat the legal U.S. immigration system and punish law-abiding, foreign nationals who successfully complete the immmigration process, but then are forced to wait many years before being permitted to live or work in the U.S.  The extended waiting period is a direct result of the "undocumented aliens" that are occupying jobs of the prospective immigrants in the U.S. without adhering to the established immigration process.
I didn't go back and to see who added this, but it is questionable to say the least.--Rockero 07:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from main article space 

message: * Initially, children born to non-citizens were not granted automatic U.S. citizenship. This was first challenged before the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins, in which the Supreme Court upheld that the Fourteenth Amendment does not grant citizenship to the domestically born children of non-citizens. The amendment was subsequently interpreted, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, to provide citizenship to all children born to resident aliens within the country (see jus soli) who are fully under the jurisdiction of the United States. At no point has the Supreme Court actually interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to apply to domestically born children of visiting aliens and illegal entrants, however; there is a widely held presumption that anyone born in the United States is granted citizenship (except for the children of diplomats and invaders). From Senate records of the debate on the Amendment, the wording of the Fourteenth Amendment was carefully chosen to exclude the children of foreign nationals. Obviously, the U.S. Constitution is a living document (see Judicial Activism).
This material does not appear to be based on normal legal interpretations. Please provide sources which show that citizenship was not granted to the children of foreign nationals. -Will Beback 00:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 14th Amendment

message: Does anyone have a reference for the Approximately 60% of illegal immigrants in the U.S. entered without a valid passport and visa by illegally crossing the border. statement? How do we know this?--Herda05 03:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the government tells us so. -Will Beback 04:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Methods Section

message: I have started this section. It contains lots of stuff from the article. I have not at this stage removed anything form this article that maybe should be in the new article, until things settle down. Please please correct/edit/add nice things to the new article. Thank you very much. Wallie 10:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks good; we've been needing to split out a U.S.-specific article for a while. Pleas4e also check the POV-forked article Illegal alien for any worthwhile material. That article needs to be merged back, as it is mostly the same material as here. -Will Beback 23:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: UPDATE. Hi Will, OK. I have now moved everything, unaltered, out of Illegal alien. There are quite a few duplications, which I removed. There was some worthwhile material there. However, if you think anything is POV, have a look at the artciles Illegal immigration and Illegal immigration to the United States, and see what I have added from Illegal alien. I would appreciate it if you could also check what I have done. Thank you. Wallie 19:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you. I have merely copied text across, put in some more section headings and rearranged the order. If you want to bring in material from other articles, or change anything, please do. Eventually I (or someone else) will start removing or summarizing material from the higher level articles, as there is now duplication. I left the original articles in tact at the moment, as I did not want to disrupt things too much. Wallie 05:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New section - Illegal immigration to the United States

message: Copied over much material, while removing the completely duplicated sections. Have also copied the text (unduplicated) word for word. There could bve still some duplication! So please check what I have done. Thanks, everyone.Wallie 19:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving day

message: I added the POV tag to this section as I am concerned that it seems to be written from a non-neutral point of view. Specifically, it seems biased towards the 'anti-immigration' side of the argument, and parts of it read like an argument written to support that point of view rather than an encyclopedia entry. For example:
"Additionally, it is not only unfair, but also inherently racist for protestors to say that these illegal aliens come to America to do work that Americans refuse to do. The 18 million unemployed Americans, in addition to the millions of US citizens already working in these industries, would surely work in construction, landscaping, and the restaurant business, assuming that businesses were willing to pay more than the sub-living wages frequently paid to illegal aliens."
This is not fact, it is opinion, and something which is still very much debated in the US at the moment. I have neither the time nor the accurate knowledge of the subject to properly improve this section, but I'm making a note of the problems with it here to see if anyone else can in future. Terraxos 02:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When this section started, it was just the first poaragraph that you see in the section, but has blossomed to the level it was before we split up the article.  Detailed discussion of illegal immigration in the US should be moved in the sub-article. Calwatch 01:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV dispute: illegal immigration to the United States

message: Usage within this article and in Wikipedia generally is inconsistent between undocumented immigrant, illegal immigrant, and illegal alien.  A central guideline should be adopted.  A proposed one, with different versions recommending "illegal" and "undocumented," is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (immigration). Kalkin 18:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  terminology 

message: It is clear from the discussion and the edits that there is an "invasion" of this page by one point of view. I propose that we allow all points of view instead.
Morlesg 23:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tags are not there to make a point. You need to explain what do you mean by "invasion" and "unbalanced", and propose ways to move forward. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 00:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced tag added 

message: This comment on forced prostitution seems out of place, and it's not sourced. Should it be deleted? 
Quote: "====Methods====
The so-called "white slave trade" referred to the smuggling of women, almost always under duress or fraud, for the purposes of forced prostitution. Now more generically called "sexual slavery" it continues to be a problem, particularly in Europe and the Middle East, though there have been increasing cases in the U.S." Unquote.    I put a {fact} on it hoping for someone to tie it to immigration. Thank you. Morlesg 16:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The women are smuggled over borders, hence the connection to illegal immigration. I'll check through the past versions, there may have been more on this in the past. -Will Beback 21:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's a source for modern smuggling of women for sex trade,  Unfortunately it's just a Google cache, as the original article has been taken down. I'm going to restore the text while we look for better sources. I don't think that anyone contests that smuggling women into a country for forced prostitution is a part of illegal immigration. -Will Beback 22:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No this seems out of place as does the slave trade. I don't think that prostitution and slavery is in any way considered equal to illegal immigration. It is one reason related to it, but either needs its own heading and should be reworded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 156.34.222.235 (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No this seems out of place as does the slave trade. I don't think that prostitution and slavery is in any way considered equal to illegal immigration. It is one reason related to it, but either needs its own heading and should be reworded.--156.34.222.235 16:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  forced prostitution belongs here? 

message: In the section on “Legal and political status” the following affirmation is unsourced:
Agriculture, construction, domestic service, restaurants, resorts, and prostitution are the leading legal and illegal jobs that undocumented workers are most likely to fill. So I added the tag .
(well i know you wont be seen at the next fourth of july parade,you unpatriotic person you)
: No coments or citations. Deleted today. 74.225.89.228 09:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal and Political Status 

message: *According to the United States 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.” . Since an “immigrant” is defined as a person who is legally residing in the United States, the phrases “illegal immigrant” and “undocumented immigrant” have no meaning under law.
This text appears to make an original argument that is not appropriate, and which doesn't help the article. I've remvoed it previously but an anon user keeps re-inserting it. Any other opinions? -Will Beback 21:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the United States, 60% of illegal aliens are estimated to be illegal border crossers, while 40% are visa overstayers.
3. Added “neo-conservative historian” to describe Victor David Hanson (got those adjective from the Wiki article on him)
4. Added “proponent of immigration reduction” to describe Fair.
5. On these last two I have no opinion, but if we take the descriptions out of these two we should also take “linguist and progressive strategist” from the George Lakoff description.
Morlesg 03:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It appears that you deleted several sections, with the comment "page cut off". Was that intentional? -Will Beback 04:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: For example, there was a "methodology" section. -Will Beback 05:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Whew. -Will Beback 07:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. definition of "immigrant" 

message: The terminology section appears to be very American-centric. Some of it may apply internationally but it at least needs more international citations... While it does make it clear it's talking largely from an American POV (which is good), we still need to expand it do include more POVs (I wasn't the one who included the expansion template however) Nil Einne 17:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: With the recent passage of the detainee bill I came to Wikipedia to look up "legal alien" since now these people have been stripped of their rights of habeas corpus, but there is no Wikipedia entry. Perhaps someone would be interested in making an entry explaining the definition of a "legal alien".
:Perhaps it is an individual who has become a legal citizen, and then abandoned their country? That's a very interesting question. Vizierde 18:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  legal alien 

message: Thank you Will Beback!  I am new to the Wiki process and I thought my sig would appear automatically and close my entry.  I'll have another go at it...
Gandydancer 22:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  gandydancer "legal alien" entry 

message: *According to the United States government, “illegal alien”, not "illegal immigrant", is the correct term for a person who has entered the United States illegally or is residing in the United States illegally after entering legally (for example, using a tourist visa and remaining after the visa expires). [text in question is underlined]
I don't see the necessity of detailing what terms the U.S. Government does not use to describe a set of people, or why we only list one item. They don't use "undocumented worker" either, so far as we know. Why do we need to point out to readers why this one particular term does not have is not used in U.S. law? Let's recall that this is not "Illegal immigration to the United States". Also, per WP:MOS, it is not appropriate to bold random terms. The only routinely bolded text is the title of the article when it appears initially in the text, and also major variant terms that redirect to the article. -Will Beback 10:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of Wikipedia is to inform.  One common misconception is that these people are immigrants and that 'illegal immigrant' is a legitimate term.  That misconception needs to be specifically addressed.  Further, the 'not' is not a random term, it is bolded to emphasize a fact.-Psychohistorian 11:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the bolding, it does not follow WP:MOS. Otherwise we could all bold those bits we wanted to accentuate. As for the main point, the people are immigrants if they take up residency, legally or illegally. The U.S. Government does not call them "undocumented workers", but no one disputes that some of them work without documents. There is no good reason for including this little aside, which is only based on your own deduction. This article is global in scope, so we shouldn't dwell upon the details of one country's government's legal nomenclature. Indeed, most of the material in that section belongs in the U.S. article instead of this article.   -Will Beback 11:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "As for the bolding, it does not follow WP:MOS. "  I just finished reading that policy and there appears to be nothing which prevents the use of bold to emphasize a point.  "As for the main point, the people are immigrants if they take up residency, legally or illegally."  No, they aren't and I'm confident that you cannot find a reliable, NPOV source which supports you on that (and I really doubt you'll find any such source which is reliable, NPOV, -and- as authoritative as the U.S. Government).  "There is no good reason for including this little aside, which is only based on your own deduction."  No, it isn't.  It is based solidly on the official definition used by the U.S. Government.  "This article is global in scope.."  Obviously, and by 'global', we need to include the U.S.  What the disputed content does not do is state what words are used in other countries.  Anyone who wants to add content regarding what terms are used in other countries is free to do so.  "Indeed, most of the material in that section belongs in the U.S. article instead of this article."  The point of what is here is to act as an overview and provide a link to that other article.  It does that. -Psychohistorian 11:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The U.S. government is no more an authoritative source than the Chinese or Uzbekistani government.  It's terminological decisions do not decide Wikipedia's. Kalkin 14:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a legal issue and, in the United States (the disputed content specifically states "In the United States.."), the U.S. government absolutely is more authoritative on legal issues than the other governments.  It is perfectly legitimate (and noone has contested doing it) to add, in addition to it, "In China.." and "In Uzbekistan..".  I welcome your addition to the article if you want to do this.-Psychohistorian 16:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the delayed reply, but it's certainly not just a legal issue.  The objections to "alien" and "illegal" are not legal objections, but are real nevertheless. Kalkin 14:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand your point.  I was asked what makes the U.S. Government's definition authoritative.  I answered, it is authoritative because immigration is a legal issue.  You aren't disputing that it is a legal issue.  You are saying that other people object to the U.S. Government's definition.  So, let me turn it around.  Just as I was asked what makes the U.S. Government's definition authoritative, I ask you what makes these other peoples' definitions  authoritative on any level equivalent on legal issues to the U.S. Government? -Psychohistorian 14:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what's so confusing.  Immigration is plainly not just a legal issue, any more than any other issue sometimes covered by law.  I am very much disputing your assertion regarding that.  What makes other people's definitions authoritative?  Well, if they are authorities like a dictionary, a journalists assocation, or a highly respected nonprofit, then theirs might be.  Not more so than the government, necessarily; only enough to take the controversy into account and try to find a neutral alternative. Kalkin 06:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I moved the "In the United States.." content to the end of the section to make it clearer that it is an individual example. -Will Beback 19:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that makes sense and I finished the move by moving the rest of the content which is U.S. specific (in that it is either 1.) only sourced for the U.S., or 2.) unsourced and only undisputed in the U.S.) to the end as well. -Psychohistorian 13:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure every country uses the equivalent of "immigrant", etc, so it makes no sense to split the list into two parts. If we want to treat U.S. specially we should move them to the U.S. article. -Will Beback 00:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you know quite well that "I'm sure" is not a valid source for Wiki policy.  The only country for which that list is undisputedly accurate is the U.S.
A source which shows that these terms are used -globally- (that is, not in a few countries, but all around the world) needs to be added, or these terms need to be put back with the U.S. section, or they need to be removed.  Because they are used in the U.S., I'm going to put them back there until a source is provided which shows that they are used globally. -Psychohistorian 11:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminoloy 

message: The citation that is given for immigration lowering crime gives a link to a site with a defunct permalink to the article cited. The citation needs to be updated or removed. -Brenden 04:17, 6 October 2006
: In fact, there is a link in the comment section of the page where someone directly challenges that assertion  (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/060312_sampson.htm). Otterboy 11:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Crime

message: The following was deleted, "n addition, illegal immigration has been linked to issues of border security and protecting the country against terrorists, although thus far there is no proof or evidence of such events occuring and is very unlikely, because most illegal aliens emigrate to the U.S. to increase their earning power.  They do so by working the same jobs for less money than legal immigrants or U.S. citizens require, thereby deflating wages for unskilled legal laborers in U.S.  This has enabled management and shareholders of corporate America to reap greater profits at the expense of the American working class.  Hence, politicians are split over the controversy created by the illegal immigration crisis.  Those politicians that are beholden to corporate America tend to side with the pro-illegal immigration movement and those politicians in favor of a living wage for working Americans tend to side with advocates of border security and legal immigration.       
 As crossing has been pushed into more desolate areas of the Arizona desert, the journey to find work in the United States has become much more hazardous for illegal immigrants. 
Each year, numerous immigrants illegally flooding into the country become heat casualties of the arid Sonoran Desert. In 2005, the US Border Patrol reported finding 463 dead bodies of illegal immigrants. On behalf of a request made by Senator Jon Kyl, the Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association calculated the cost of providing health services to illegal immigrants to approximately 31 million dollars in just one year.  However, this does not take into account the millions of dollars that the illegal immigrants pay in sales taxes.  The figure was given as a "bare minimum number", said the Association's John Rivers. The difficulty of the journey has prompted many immigrants who come for seasonal or temporary work to stay in the United States rather than face the difficult crossing to return home.
The Mexican government places the blame for these deaths largely on the numerous "coyotes" who abandon their passengers along the way. (In this context, a coyote is intended to mean one who, for a steep price, agrees to ferry illegal immigrants from Mexico into the heart of the state; see people smuggling).  In an attempt to minimize the number of illegal immigrant deaths, t
Many proponents of illegal immigration see the flood of undocumented aliens as a benefit to Arizona's economy and workforce. Some see Mexico as a poor country that sends its tired, weak, and hungry to the United States for work. Mexico is ranked 87th by gross domestic product per capita.
While some people argue that the flood of illegal aliens has also accompanied a surge in crime, and has subsequently seen the prisons become even more overpopulated.
Many illegal immigrants are members of Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations (DTO) operating in the U.S.  Mexican DTO's dominate the drug trade in the U.S.  
Approximately one third of the prison population is comprised of non-citizens; 
The Federation for American Immigration Reform, an immigration reductionist group, estimates that illegal immigration costs Arizona taxpayers approximately 1.3 billion dollars every year. However the study didn't take into account the billions paid in sales taxes by illegal immigrants. Current reports estimate the population of illegal aliens in Arizona to be nearly half a million. The U.S. Border Patrol reports stopping that many criminals crossing the border in just one year, highlighting the extremity of the problem at hand.
According to California Republican Michael D. Antonovich, a member of the Board of Supervisors for Los Angeles County, the county loses $1 billion a year due to the costs of illegal immigration. 
According to the Urban Institute, there are several myths associated with illegal immigration. One of them is that undocumented immigrants come to the United States to get welfare when, in fact, their undocumented status renders them ineligible for any form of government-issued benefits, including welfare, MedicAid and MediCare, and food stamps. Another myth is that undocumented immigrants do not pay taxes, when in fact they pay sales and property taxes (even when renting). Furthermore, the U.S. Social Security Administration has estimated that three quarters of undocumented immigrants pay income taxes, and that they contribute $6-7 billion in Social Security funds that they will be unable to claim due to their undocumented status. However, the validity of this was disputed greatly upon it's release." due to multiple problems including lack of source, verbiage, POV, and inability to provide a balanced perspective without giving undue weight to the U.S. (the material is better handled in the Illegal immigration in the U.S. article). -Psychohistorian 19:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletions in U.S. material

message: Op-eds cannot be used to make assertions of fact, and are not considered a reliable source for generic statements, such as the ones recently added . ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I added recently were not Op-Eds.  They were Borjas, a Harvard researcher, clarifying research he has done (and his source research is available on the web).  They weren't opinions and the content in them is readily available. -Psychohistorian 22:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it is an op-ed published in the New York times and should not be used to assert facts. These may be used as colateral material, if properly attributed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An Op-Ed is a statement of opinion, not a description of one's research.  This is a description of one's research.-Psychohistorian 23:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The Borjas articles are clearly written as op-ed pieces and one is even labelled as such.  -Will Beback 23:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "one is even labelled as such" that link has been removed and replaced with a link to a paper on the harvard.edu web server  -Psychohistorian 00:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the others are not Op-Ed pieces then what are they? They are not regular reporting. At best they are essays. -Will Beback 00:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "If the others are not Op-Ed pieces then what are they?"  I answered this question already.  I quote, "An Op-Ed is a statement of opinion, not a description of one's research.  This is a description of one's research." -Psychohistorian 00:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: There's no sense in attributing it as an Op-Ed when it isn't an Op-Ed.  An Op-Ed, by definition, is an opinion.  This isn't an opinion. -Psychohistorian 00:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pardon me? An op-ed is the opinion  of the author, and needs to be described as such. Read Op-ed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even by that definition, its not an Op-Ed.  Op-Eds are defined there as, "An editorial or op-ed is a statement or article by a news organization (generally a newspaper) that expresses the opinion of the news organization or one of its members. "  Borjas is not a member of the newspaper, he's a Harvard professor. -Psychohistorian 00:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: .... that wrote a an op-ed piece in the New York Times... There are thousands of professors. If Borjas published a paper, article in a peer reviewed journal, or a book, that would be different. But if the material is from an op-ed, it is an opinion and needs to be described as such.  ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: So, your argument now is that it is an Op-ed because it was written by a Harvard professor who wrote an op-ed to the paper?  You do know that that's a ludicrous argument, right? -Psychohistorian 00:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have explained myself quite clearly, and do not intend to repeat myself. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, you have explained yourself quite clearly.  You have presented your position as wanting to ignore how Wikipedia defines Op-Ed, wanting to ignore how it is defined in dictionaries (e.g., "Of or being a newspaper page, usually opposite the editorial page, that features signed articles expressing personal viewpoints. - American Heritage Dictionary), and wanting to create an entirely new definition out of original research so that you can label the writing of a Harvard professor clarifying years of his research as just an Op-Ed. -Psychohistorian 11:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is presented as an opinion piece and was published on the NYT's opinion page.  -Will Beback 01:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  It was published by the NYT.  That's all that it is presented as.   Its not presented as an opinion piece. -Psychohistorian 11:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only peices that the NYT runs from non-reporters are opinion pieces. Are you contending that Borjas was acting as a reporter for the NYT? -Will Beback 20:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Op-eds 

message: This is a summary article, meaning that each section which has a main article, needs to summarize the main article. The current version of the United Section, is just a bunch of POVs and does not represent a summary of the main article in illegale immigration to the US. These POVs cn be move to that article, if relevant. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have specifically made an attempt to prevent any POV from being presented without an oppossing POV to balance it and to keep both brief (which is why my original edit of this section was along the lines of "its a contentious issue, some (such as John Doe) say 'X', others, such as Jane Doe, say 'Y'" .  The only time more content has been added in this regard is when you, yourself, demanded it by contesting content.  I'd be quite happy to comment out substantiating material if you are going to stop demanding it be included.  That would shorten the subsection. -Psychohistorian 14:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have trimmed down some content.  The section is now no longer than the section on the Economic Union or the section on Mexico.-Psychohistorian 14:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It is not about shortening the section. It is about summarizing the main article. As it stands it does  work, as it is a bunch of opinions. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Princeton, an opinion is defined as 'a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty; "my opinion differs from yours"; "what are your thoughts on Haiti?"'  I object to your labelling things in this summary as opinions when they don't meet that definition (such as the Borjas quotes).  You are attempting to denigrate or brush over the years of research he's spent on the subject as 'not founded on proof or certainty'. -Psychohistorian 14:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: While we're at it, let's discuss what a summary is.  The content you keep putting back in the article is a discussion of what terms are used.  That belongs in the terminology section of this article.  The content I keep restoring is a brief discussion of the economic, criminal, and medical impacts of illegal immigration as well as a discussion of why it is such a contentious issue in the context of history.  Now, look at the main article and what is it?  Is it a lengthy discussion on what terms should be used?  No.  It is an exploration of the economic, criminal, and medical impacts of illegal immigration and a discussion of why it is such a contentious issue in the context of history.  What you keep putting in this article is not only redundant with the terminology section and out of place (as it belongs in the terminology section), it is not a summary of the main article. -Psychohistorian 15:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That's what I'm telling you!  What you are putting in the section is not a summary.  It does not provide a brief review of the content in the main article.  It simply repeats content that belongs in the terminology section.  To move this discussion forward, how about you provide in this discussion section (so that I have a better idea of what you are talking about) an example of an alternative POV to the -specific- parts of the subsection which you claim are anti-immigration POV?  While you're at it, discuss the specific sections of the summary article guideline and in what -specific- way you think I'm violating it - not the vague accusations you are currently making. -Psychohistorian 16:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Dude, it takes two to edit war and we're both guilty.  There is no burden on me as I have no idea what your problem is.  The content I've provided is a summary and you aren't able to explain specifically why its not.
Let's review history.  I added content which disagrees with your politics.  You deleted it as unsourced.  I provided a source.  You claimed it was an Op-Ed.  I pointed out that doesn't fit the definiton of an Op-Ed and we reviewed several definitions for Op-Ed.  It doesn't fit them.  So, you created your own definition.  Rather than continue pointing out what you were doing, I linked to the author's original research.  You claimed it was just an opinion.  I pointed out that a Harvard professor discussing years of his research is hardly just an opinion.  You claimed that the section was too long.  I pointed out that the reason it was so long was because you kept demanding more content and I commented out the content.  You claimed it wasn't a summary.  I pointed out that it describes, in brief, the economic, criminal, and medical issues of illegal immigration and why it is such a contentious subject just as the main article does.  You replaced it with a discussion on terminology, despite the fact that the article already has a discusson on terminology.  You claimed that it adds new terms, but are unable to tell me what terms you think it is adding that are new.  You claim that it violates the description for summaries, but are unable to tell me specifically how it does so, you claim that it is anti-immigration POV because you are unable to provide a counter position to some of its points.  Now you claim that, rather than telling me specifically how it is a violation of policy or POV, it is my responsibilty to read your mind and figure out why you think it is.  Finally, you tell me not to use edit summaries as a weapon despite the fact that you have consistently made spurious claims in your edit summaries.  In short, you are trying every possible tactic you can think of to have content removed from this article because it disagrees with your politics.  Well, whether or not it agrees with your politics is the determiner for whether content belongs or doesn't belong in this article. -Psychohistorian 17:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Asserting that you know an editor's personal politics, and then saying that they made edits due to those personal biases, is very close to a personal attack. Please focus on the edits, not the editors. -Will Beback 20:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  summary article 

message: This article lacks references and attributon to reliable sources. Most sections are written as an essay and are not encyclopedic in tone and in content, in violation of WP:OR. Some sections are clearly POV minefields and read as such. I have added the  tag, accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's another attempt to remove content which doesn't agree with your politics.
The standard approach here is to mark content with the  tag and give people a chance to provide sources, then, if they don't do so (typically within a week), the content is removed. -Psychohistorian 17:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before you accuse anyone about their politics, look in the mirror. The approach of  is useful when the article has a few sentences that require citations. But when the whole article, or large portions of it is unattributed to reliable sources, the article needs to be tagged. Any article in Wikipedia that is misused to advance a position, that is not properly sourced, whose language and tone is not encyclopedic, deserves such a tag. As you can see, the article is now protected, as requested by me a few hours ago. This is an opportunity for reflection, and an opportunity to discuss and agree on how to resolve the issues I have stated. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not accusing you for your politics.  We've all got politics.  I want the best for the poor (both American and Mexican) and am convinced that, in the long run, illegal immigraton hurts both.  But while I've, regretfully, let my politics get in the way of writing a good article from time to time, the kind of dedicated and ongoing effort you've made in this article to make it confirm to your politics is something that should be avoided.  And I'm still waiting for you to tell us what specifically is unreferenced in this article.  Instead, you keep making vague criticisms so noone can respond.  That's not productive.  Saying that the U.S. section is unsourced, but not telling us what specfically about it is unsourced is a weak argument, Jossi.  There are sources all through it.-Psychohistorian 20:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "I want the best for the poor" -- That is the problem: Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place for advocating any viewpoints, as noble as you may think these viewpoints are. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" then stop trying to use it as one.  My point earlier was that noone is perfect and we will fail and politics will slip in.  The fact that your politics have slipped into your edits ("you" meaning you, Jossi) is only a problem because you are intent on having your politics continue to do so.-Psychohistorian 10:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to be civil it'd be best if you didn't accuse your fellow editors of political bias. Let's focus on the edits, not the editors. Thanks, -Will Beback 11:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-compliant 

message: It is my hope that this section will contain only references to Wiki policy so that we can have some basic framework on which to build our resolution of our dispute.
*Summary style is based on the premise that information about a topic should not all be contained in a single article since different readers have different needs;[Wikipedia:Summary style]
*When articles grow too long, longer sections should be spun off into their own articles and a several paragraph summary should be left in its place.[Wikipedia:Summary style]
*An article can be written in neutral language and yet omit important points of view. Such an article should be considered an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda. Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it.[Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial]
*The NPOV way of splitting articles is explained in Wikipedia:Content forking: every main section of the article is reduced in size, keeping to the "space and balance" principle as explained above, and an equal number of sub-pages is created using a technique as explained in Wikipedia:Summary style.[]
*Many groups would prefer that certain facts be stated euphemistically, or only in their own terminology, or suppressed outright; such desires need not be deferred to. [Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial] -Psychohistorian 14:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of that is good, but the dispute is not about that, but about the lack of attribution to reliable sources to large portions of this article.  As fo the references to summary article, we are in agreement: Several paragraphs summarizing the main article are needed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The relevant policies are WP:V, that reads Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable sources.. The summary article issue is not a policy but a guideline, based on common sense: summary articles can be created and these should contain a summary of the main article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevant policies

message: Please discuss the article and not the subject. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I've said my dos centavos and will shut up. Tubezone 15:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me.  As long as people don't come in here and try to pass off unverifiable content which directly contradicts  verifiable claims by experts, I see no need to reply to them. -Psychohistorian 15:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk-page discipline 

message: Legality is a property of acts, not of people, just as much as moisture level is a property of objects, not of ideas.
Thus:
* unauthorized acts, such as crossing a border in a manner not permitted by law, may be illegal acts, and even crimes; but
* people cannot be ilegal
In other words, the phenomenon we refer to as illegal immigration can definitely be called "illegal immigration", because it's immigration and it's illegal.  But extending those words to label people who commit illegal immigration "illegal aliens" is not, I think, even a "feature" supported by the English language.  It's a perversion of concept.
Even if you're breaking 25 laws at the same time, that doesn't make you an "illegal" whatever, it just makes you a criminal, felon, or trespasser.  Not illegal.
This, I think, is a distinction that goes a long way toward helping this article being NPOV.
A burglar is a person who has committed an illegal act so do you propose calling him or her an uninvited house guest?  The analogy is exactly the same as opposition to "illegal person."  The basis for no person being illegal is merely the tenuous fact that presence of an illegal alien is a civil, not criminal, act.  Law may well change in the near future to criminalize illegal presence.  The 'no illegal person' argument is a tremendous overreach.  Should our police policy be "You are free to go Mr. Bank Robber because the police only saw you in the bank vault at 2 AM, they did not see you break in."  It's goofy, of course, but that is the analogy as it relates to immigration law. To base the controversy over illegal immigration terminology on such a distinctive overreach is a huge injustice to the English language. 
I also want to make two small (and politically biased) contributions here:
* A similar perversion of concepts happens in the domain of ideas: It's just the same when interested parties equate "downloading MP3" with "robbing".  No matter how much information monopolists would want us to believe that copying music is robbing, it just will never be, because for a robbery to take place, the original owner of the property must no longer have it in his possession.
* The compound term "illegal alien" most definitely exists and was invented to promote hatred and fear of foreigners (xenophobia).  Anyone who disagrees is freely welcome to disagree with me -- just leave it as a comment.  But, if you think I'm wrong, that I already think you live in la-la-land, so you better make sure to write up a knowledgeable response.
::Please focus on the article, not on your uninformed opinion of law and history.  What is important here is what is verifiable, not what you think the law is or what you think the English language should be.-Psychohistorian 11:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am glad you are learning the ropes, Psychohistorian. Just remember that civility is also expected from editors. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, by all means, likewise you should just remember that "Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another" is an example of what not to do. -Psychohistorian 14:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On illegal immigration and illegal immigrants 

message: The article just came of of protection and you are already edit warring. The US section needs to be a summary of the main article. Go fix that article first and then come back and write a summary for this article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It just came out of protection and you immediately edited it to a disputed version.  If you want to argue that anyone is violating the WP:OWN, I can make a suggestion where the finger should be pointed.  The content which has been on this page for weeks is a summary and you've never been able to argue coherently for why it isn't.-Psychohistorian 16:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Ther is no agreed status quo. Go fix the US article and then summarize it here. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is 'what is wrong with the summary of the US in this article?'
We can discuss the US article in its own discussion page.-Psychohistorian 17:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:OWN]]? 

message: I've just done extensive copy editing, you may want to look at the page to determine whether the copy edit tag should come off.  I suspect there are still problems that I didn't catch, though.  Thanks, delldot | talk 07:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find a number of issues with your copy edit.  I haven't reviewed your entire copy edit in detail, but what follows are my first impressions.  One, the first part seems to focus on immigrants instead of illegal aliens.  Immigrants are a much broader scope and what is true for immigrants may not be true for illegal aliens.  The article needs to be refocused onto illegal aliens.  Two, several times in the US section you mark something with  when the source is right there.  Three, "Third world countries also have higher incidences of various serious communicable diseases" and "illegal aliens do not undergo health screenings before entering the U.S" are these statements really in question?-Psychohistorian 20:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I noticed that about how that section mainly talks about plain old immigration too.  I didn't add that material, I was mainly just copy editing.  Though i did add a sentence or two into that section.  Maybe that material needs to be changed or removed and merged into immigration.  About the  templates, any edits I made that you don't like feel free to change, and then we can discuss it if there's some serious disagreement about what should be done.  I'd tend to err on the side of finding a source for something though, rather than just assuming it's common knowledge.  But it's up to you and other interested folks.  Peace, delldot | talk 00:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rm copy edit tag?

message: I remove the material attributed to Borjas. That is better suited for the main article. This section needs to provide a concise summary of that article, and not advance a specific viewpoint of one person or another. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that they need to be readded as the statements by the two economists whom you removed did a good job of succinctly describing the heart of the debate (which is "who benefits/who is harmed").  I'll wait until tomorrow to readd them as I'd like to see some feedback from others.-Psychohistorian 17:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to have a specifc viewpoint in the summary. List the controvery and let the main article explore the different viewpoints. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These two quotes succinctly describe the controversy without pushing a viewpoint -Psychohistorian 17:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They certainly push the POV of Mr. Borjas. The summary needs to be a summary. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jossi. We shouldn't have any direct quotes or attributed viewpoints in a summary. All we need to indicate is the range of opinion and the principle issues. -Will Beback 11:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "We shouldn't have any direct quotes or attributed viewpoints in a summary."  There's no policy which states that.  It would have been more accurate for you to say "I don't like that quote".  And, again, there's no viewpoint being expressed.  Borjas is describing why the issue is so socially charged, that's all. -Psychohistorian 12:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There are no polices for every detail, but we have some good guidelines such as Wikipedia:Content forking. Borjas is describing his viewpoint, and this is a summary of the main article, in which the viewpoints on many people and institutions are described. This summary needs to be an overview, and not the space to assert one viewpoint or another. You may want to consult other editors, if you wish, but that is the expected approach on a section that summarizes a main article, in particuar one such as this. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Show me an opinion/viewpoint of a highly respected authority (it doesn't have to be a Harvard economist, but something like that) which contradicts Borjas' viewpoint.  That will help me identify what you think Borjas' viewpoint is and, thereby, help me see your point.-Psychohistorian 15:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are missing the poin (pun not intended). I am not judging Borjas' viewpoint to be this or that. Simply, given that we have a pretty substantial main article, the summary contained in this  article should be simply that: a summary, that does not assert any specific viewpoint, or any one formulation of these viewpoints. Just a good summary. Summary: "a brief statement that presents the main points in a concise form."  See what Will is saying above.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are the one missing the point.  The point is that these quotes succinctly summarize the debate in society wrt illegal immigration.  As its better, in the interest of avoiding OR, to use quotes, quotes which succinctly summarize the issue are good for a summary to have. Since noone is able to provide a contrasting POV from an equally notable source, POV isn't even an issue.-Psychohistorian 16:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It -has- been done.  It has been done by a couple of highly respected economists one of whom has the name Borjas.  But you seem to prefer original research to using a quote from a noted authority on the issue. -Psychohistorian 19:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said before, the issue we are discussing is not the reputability of Mr. Borjas. What we are discussing is how to summarize the controversy surrounding Illegal immigration to the United States. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: In writing an encyclopedia, our job is to summarize information, not to cut and paste quotations. Summaries are not original research, they are the opposite. The need to summarize is particularly accute in sections which summarize another article. -Will Beback 22:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In writing an encyclopedia, especially Wikipedia, our number one job is to abide by the three core policies.  Quotes abide by those three core policies.  The further we move from quotes, the more we are using original research.  That's against the three core policies.  And, Jossi, I consider you and Will to be compromised in your ability to write NPOV on this subject.  That's why I'm hammering this issue. -Psychohistorian 12:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you considered the possibility that you may be compromised as much as anyone elase? We all have our points of view. But that is not what is being discussed here (and I would kindly suggest you drop discussing your assessemnt of editors POVs). The issue here is that you are not listening. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, I've considered it.  The difference is, I actually provide reasons for my position which are grounded in policy.  You two don't.-Psychohistorian 15:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to read Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. That may be what you are doing here. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you aren't intentially trying to violate NOR and NPOV.  Maybe you are just ignorant of those policies.  You may want to read them.-Psychohistorian 18:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What violations of NOR and NPOV have occurred, specifically? -Will Beback 22:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am not ignorant of policies. I know these policies almost by heart, afer 2 1/2 years in Wikipedia and and tens of thousands of edits. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, then, do you insinuate that anyone who points out that you aren't abiding by policy may be wikilawyering or does it have to be in an article that you are biased about?-Psychohistorian 01:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Then you aren't reading the discussion above (no surprise, really).  I know I have a bias.  I've mentioned my bias in other discussion pages.  The difference between you and I is that when its pointed out that I'm not abiding by policy, I correct it.  When its pointed out to you that you aren't abiding by policy, you bring up wikilawyering.  And I will listen to well presented arguments, you just have never presented one.  In fact, you seem to refuse to present one.  Repeating your point, Jossi, isn't the same as presenting it well.-Psychohistorian 21:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Borjas removed 

message: Somthing needs to be said about the difference between the "coyotes" who take people across the Mexican-US border for a fee and the Mexicans who come over to make money. There is a bit of dirt in the whole coyote business since it's both difficult and dangerous. Many Mexicans die even before they see the Rio Grande. The desert kills them by the lack of water and food. They usually hire a guide (the coyote is an experienced Mexican who knows tricks of survival) who will help them across the border into the US. I guess its a lot like the people who helped the slaves escape were vilified by the law. In some sense this is almost the same thing, this persecution of those who help the Mexicans cross the border. One thing is still true:Not every chicano is an illegal and not every chicano is legal resident. Keep this in mind.
:Please see the Chicano article.  Chicano or Chicana is a term one uses to self-identify, not a label that can be placed on a person by someone else.  In the United States, most of those who self identify as Chicano or Chicana are U.S. Citizens.  The term has a different meaning in Mexico. - Chicaneo 17:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Somthing to Remember

message: This account of illegal migration is quite frankly so inadequate that I think it should be deleted. It is predominantly ethnocentric [i.e. USA + Western European opinion] and full of false information -- suich as Spain has 1m African illegal immigrants. Furthermore, the causes of illegal immigration into the developed woirld are not linked with malfunctioning labour markets and other issues of global capitalism. Most illegal immigrants find work, which is why they risk their lives sometimes, as in crossing seas and rivers. However, the majority of illegal immigrants are actually legal immigrants, who work illegally. In other words, they are technically tourists. All of the major scientific research concludes this: where is your discussion of tourism as  a problem?? --62.103.147.55 13:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I respect your opinion and agree with almost all of what you posted, but the goal here is to transition the article into a "NPOV", not deleted. This topic has been a "hot" one. --Moreau36 22:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FALSE "FACTS" AND POOR ANALYSIS IN THIS ARTICLE 

message: I though that is has been cleary explained: that the section on the US needs o be a summary of the main article. Instead, editors are adding specific viewpoints. That is not acceptable for all the reasons already discussed. We can have a paragraph that says "the controversy about illegal immigration to the US include assertions that such immigration has hidden medical consequences, which some sources describe as serious" and leave it at that. then, in the main article, explore  all viewpoints related to illegal immigration and health. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you can provide a reliable source which says something counter to the provided article, the "controversy" doesn't exist.  The attempt to say it does is an attempt to add a "specific viewpoint" (mainly, that such a controvery exists) and, what's more, a specific viewpoint which seems to be based on original research.  Editors need to not be doing that.-Psychohistorian 19:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That can be explored in the main article. We need to avoid maing a specif case in this summary. We could say: "Issues related to illegal immigration to the US include assertionsthat such immigration has hidden medical consequences, which somesources describe as serious". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with "Issues related to illegal immigration to the US include research showing that such immigration has hidden medical consequences including diseases such as polio, the plague, and drug-resistant tb, which some sources describe as serious".  That statement is precise, backed by reseach (instead of just an assertion - the guy sitting next to you at a bar can make an assertion, there's a difference between him and several researchers stating similar findings in peer reviewed medical journal), and most importantly does not obfuscate verifiable facts.-Psychohistorian 12:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health consequences / US section 

message: Psychohistorian, from reviewing the history tab, it appears that you are currently the primary editor of the illegal immigration article.  So in light of this observation I want to discuss a few things before I make corrections.  
(1) Why is "Rule of Law" a link?  What relevance does it have to this article?
(2) Why is "Filibuster (military)" a link?  What relevance does it have to this article?
(3) Why is "Mexico" a link in this section?  There is already a link to Mexico in the text of the article, and the link is probably more appropriate in the text anyway.
If there aren't good reasons for these links to be in the "See Also" Section, then they are unsuitable, and for the sake of this article's integrity, they should be removed.  Agree?
(4) Regarding my Elvira Arellano edit, I stand corrected.  
-- Chicaneo 20:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't add any of those links and I hadn't looked at them until you just brought them up.  I think they're problematic (in the sense that I can kinda see a reason for them being there and see a reason for them not to be there - not that I necessarily agree with either side).  I think the problem with linking every possible article, no matter how tenuous, to the article is that you end up with a very long list of articles and the ones which are more tightly relevant get lost in the weeds.  As such, I believe that all three links can be removed from that section as their respective content is already referenced in the body of the article and their respective links should more properly be there as well (the filibuster topic doesn't have its own subheading, but probably should).  But that's just my opinion.  While I'm flattered by you directing that question to me, this article is a collaborative work grounded on policy and collective opinion.  Mine is only one such opinion. -Psychohistorian 12:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well then, I'll remove the discussed links from this collaborative effort.  — Chicaneo 14:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also Section 

message: My questions is if there is a solution to Illegal Immigration. I know it can be viewed in many ways, but should there be a way for illegal Immigrants to become legal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonyleomargiotta (talk • contribs) 
:This page is here for the purposes of discussing the Illegal immigration article, not for our general musings.  Please move your question to your own talk page, as I have done in the post before.  Chicaneo 13:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ways for illegal immigrants to become legal already exist (for example, they may return to their country of origin and apply for legal immigration) and discussion of them might be a good thing to include in this article.-Psychohistorian 14:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Please maintain  talk-page discipline. For discussions about immigration join one of the many discussion forums off wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The original question was a general musing about what should be or could be.  This is not the place for such discussions.  Edits are always welcomed and encouraged.  New users are encouraged to "be bold"  If either of you wish to add a relevant section to the article, then by all means, go for it.  You do not need anyone's permission to make edits.  It would also help if edits or discussusions about about potential edits were stated in positive terms, such as: Legalization of illegal immigrants is relevant to this topic and should be included in this article.  This is just a suggestion, not a mandate, but it would help to avoid misunderstandings. Thank you for your contributions. Chicaneo 13:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Solution. 

message: You all need to make up your minds.  Jossi insisted on sources being removed from that section.  Now, Chicana is insisting that they be added.-Psychohistorian 18:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did I ever asked for sources being removed? Very unlikely. What I asked is not to use specific citations to summarize the article in that section. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't want "specific citations", but do want sources?  Whats a "citation that isn't specific" - a statement saying that the source is available in english somewhere??  Citations, by their very nature, are specific.  A "non specific citation" is a contradiction in terms.  So, when you are pushing to remove specific citations in that section, you are pushing to remove all sources in that section.  You two need to reach some sort of consensus.  I have sources available for every statement in that section that needs to stay.   I just need a consensus as to whether or not they should go back in.-Psychohistorian 18:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I, Chicaneo (not "Chicana"), haven't "insisted" on anything.  I read the talk page history before making edits and I did not notice anything about citing sources.  Chicaneo 18:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: A summary of the main article, can simply describe the controversy without getting into specifics. The problem is, that Psychohistorian, wants to add sepecific material. If we do so, we need citations, but if  as requested ad nauseum already, we simply summarize in general terms the controversy around  illegal immigration to the US and link to the main article on the subject, then we do not need citations. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see.  Then what I did, which was to add  tags would be consistent with the way the article is currently written.       Chicaneo 21:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current summary does summarize.  Any more vague and the subsection will be something like, "Illegal immigration in the United States - link here".  What Jossi has failed to do, despite being asked ad nauseum already, is state what specifically he feels is wrong with this subsection in a consistent manner.  Okay, Jossi, show us, here in the talk pages, what your ideal version of the subsection would look like, specifically, and why, specifically, you think it would be better than what is already in the article.-Psychohistorian 21:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that is very simple: Step (1) go and fix Illegal immigration to the United States so that it is an article that complies with WP:NPOV and other content policies; Step (2)  write a good  lead for that article as per WP:LEAD; Step (3) use the lead or a variation of the lead as needed to create a summary for the section about the US. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my god, Jossi!  You've finally answered the question.  I'm excited for you.  Now, having said that, the fact that you focus so much of your energy on this article rather than on building that lead for the other article raises some doubt as to whether that is, in fact, the approach you desire.-Psychohistorian 22:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before you can do that lead, the article itself needs to be NPOVed. Why don't we start there? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, but are you going to be able to state specifically in what ways the article isn't NPOV this time or are we going to go through an endless repeat of you cutting and pasting some vague comments?  In any event, as we are now discussing Illegal immigration in the United States, we should be doing so in that article's talk page.-Psychohistorian 12:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's stay focused on the tasks at hand.  How much time Jossi spends on an article is none of our business.  Who builds the lead is not important as long as it gets done.  Questioning whether Jossi really desires the changes he just described is non-productive.  Let's just get this thing done.  Surely we can re-focus our energies toward a positive outcome.  Chicaneo 00:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation requests in the U.S. section

message: Are white supremacist websites acceptable a sources on wikipedia? I just noticed a citation that references www.vdare.com --Ramsey2006 02:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly is a highly-biased, even "fringe" source. WP:RS and WP:ATT strongly discourage using sources of that type. -Will Beback · † · 05:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  White supremacist websites as sources? 

message: The last 23 edits have either been vandalism or reverts of vandalism.  Are we going to have to start looking at possibly protecting this page?-Psychohistorian 17:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to do it preemptively, but the pattern, such as it is, looks like an attack. The problem is that much of the vandalism isn't coming from anon IPs, but from registered accounts. Maybe directing fire specifically towards those registered vandals, warning and blocking them might be more effective. If that fails, I'm in favor of full protection, at least temporarily. -- weirdoactor t|c -- 17:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: For the  Repairing link to disambiguation page - You can help! project, I changed the link to Quota in that section.
Should the link point to quota share or Emergency Quota Act?
Feel free to change it if you like.
FirefoxRocks 22:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal and Political Status 

message: This page was recently added as a reference: http://www.vdare.com/sailer/060312_sampson.htm.  I have doubts about whether it counts as a reliable source, since it doesn't have a references section and seems to state opinion as fact.  However, I'm probably not a good judge of whether it should stay in, since I find the opinions in it to be highly offensive.  Therefore, I'm leaving it up to you all to decide whether it should stay and what to do.  delldot | talk 23:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. VDARE is considered a fringe source, and so should only be used as a source for their own viewpoints, not for objective facts. -Will Beback · † · 03:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the redundant post, thanks for fixing this.  delldot | talk 22:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this a reliable source?