Talk:Elvira Arellano/Archive 1

message: I think this is an important entry; thank you to whoever started it.  I also think that for such a volatile issue, it is fair and presents the facts.  Some people might take offense to the terms "illegal immigrant" and "convicted criminal", but that's exactly what she is.  She is an immigrant who is here illegally and she was convicted of the crime of falsifying a Social Security number to obtain work. 69.211.109.153 06:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be an important entry on a volatile issue, but it is still subject to the same rules and guidelines as other WikiPedia articles.  References must be cited, and the article must be neutral (i.e., no POV).  Entries and links to the Op/Ed (Editorial) article in the Chicago Tribune have been deleted.  —Chicaneo 00:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance 

message: These are articles that can be integrated into the article. 
* "Looking ahead ; Groundbreaking on King memorial;" [FINAL Edition]Paul Leavitt,  Mark Memmott. USA TODAY. McLean, Va.: Nov 13, 2006. pg. A.3 (talks about the son's departure for Mexico to plead case).
* "PEOPLE," Anonymous. National Catholic Reporter. Kansas City: Oct 13, 2006.Vol.42, Iss. 44;  pg. 4 (son delivered an appeal to the White House)
*  "Mary Schmich column." Mary Schmich. The Chicago Tribune, distributed by Knight Ridder Tribune Business News. Washington: Oct 4, 2006. p. 1 (7th week of sanctuary. Supporters gather outside church.)
* "She Won't Go Quietly,"  Wren Abbott,  Jacqueline Lee. Ms. Arlington: Fall 2006.Vol.16, Iss. 4;  pg. 19. (Her case has raised awareness nationally of the plight of native born US citizens whose parents are undocumented immigrants.) 
* "Ernesto Portillo Jr. column: Chicago church no sanctuary from stalemate on immigration." The Arizona Daily Star, Tucson, Ernesto Portillo Jr.. distributed by Knight Ridder Tribune Business News. Washington: Aug 20, 2006. pg. 1
* "Chicago Woman's Stand Stirs Immigration Debate." Gretchen Ruethling. New York Times (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Aug 19, 2006. p. A.10  
* "SEN. DURBIN ISSUES STATEMENT REGARDING ELVIRA ARELLANO," US Fed News Service, Including US State News. Washington, D.C.: Aug 15, 2006. p. n/a (refused to introduce a private bill for her benefit, since comprehensive immigration reform is neede to help all such people)
* "Hunger strikers in Pilsen seek halt to deportations," Oscar Avila. Chicago Tribune, distributed by Knight Ridder Tribune Business News. Washington: May 25, 2006. pg. 1. ("one of the area's most prominent voices for illegal immigrants")
They should integrated into the article as footnootes.
--evrik (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I can't even figure out who's participating here in this discussion and who is saying what. Anonymous users are not signing their comments. 
On the article page, there are 3 anonymous user IP's:
: 68.166.88.10 who made a series of edits almost two weeks ago on Nov 15.
: 70.113.7.17 who made several series of edits on the evening of Nov 24 and around 1:00am on the morning of Nov 26.
: 70.246.89.177 who made several edits on the evening of Nov 26, last night.
On the talk page, I just realized that the latest anonymous user 70.246.89.177 from last night (Nov 26) has not even posted to this discussion. Instead, late last night and early this morning there have been two anonymous user IP's who have been posting without signing their posts. Those IP's are:
: 70.113.7.17 
: 67.153.30.227 
Now, I have no way of knowing if any of these anonymous users are the same poster or not, and if so, which ones. I also cannot easily identify who is saying what.
The anonymous users need to let everybody here know which IP's they have posted under, and need to start signing their comments before I can continue participating in this discussion. Are 70.113.7.17 and 70.246.89.177 the same person? --Ramsey2006 09:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just spent some time fixing the order of posts and levels of sections as well as signing for people.  What a mess!  Let's post at the bottom of the page as is customary and let's sign our posts with ~~~~ —Wknight94 (talk) 12:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. It is alot easier to follow now. --Ramsey2006 18:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That's easy to fix.  Create a user ID!  :)  —Wknight94 (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who's who here? 

message: There still hasn't been any published reason not to list her as an "illegal alien".  I provided multiple reasons for why illegal alien should be included, to jump from lets use "undocumented worker", no wait, lets use "undocumented immigrant" (which, still hasn't even been defined) avoids the issue we are debating.  Let me phrase it as clearly as possible:
After reading the definitions, checking Google and checking multiple news articles, it is apparent that wikipedia is outside the norm by not sighting Elvira Arellano as an illegal alien, if we are not to list her as an "illegal alien", it must be proven she is not an illegal alien.
An acceptable answer would be Here is evidence (with sources) she is in the US legally and it is all an misunderstanding.
An unacceptable answer would be How about we use this PC phrase or this PC phrase instead. 
I have been very patient in this lopsided debate.  I have answered every request given to me.  No one has addressed my request.  I have been subjected to various avoidance tactics, so unless it can be proven she is not an illegal alien, I intend to make this change and not have it reverted out.  I previously posted under 70.113.7.17 and 70.246.89.177, but have since gotten a user ID as requested.
--Jackspenn 15:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said in my previous post, I tend to agree with you - but to a limited extent.  A mention of the illegality of her actions is totally warranted IMHO but, let's be honest, some of your edits have completely overwhelmed the article with that aspect.  Look at the diff for this set of your edits and tell me there's no POV in there.  You even removed the link to the Human rights Portal at the bottom!  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I have said, I am new to wikipedia.  Look at the progess in my postings, I have learned to comment on history, use talk, use signatures, got an account to avoid confusion with other IP comments, am accepting of content that I do not agree with and all in an incredibly short period of time. I completely revamped my entire methodology.  I have decided to fight for the inclusion of relevant facts rather then the exclusion of questionable facts or unrelated items.  I make no excuses for missteps I made earlier, it was not in the best interest of open source projects, I simply have done my best not to repeat them.    --Jackspenn 19:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  And it sounds like Ramsey2006 is agreeable above.  Compromise reached?  —Wknight94 (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: So what if the media refer to her by using a certain term? A WP article should not engage in such groupthink and should focus on the facts.  The fact is that the term "illegal alien" can not be proven to be an "official" term.  Your argument that we are debating whether it is acceptable to refer to Ms. Arellano as an illegal alien but that we are not debating which terms to use is a contradictory statement.  If we are debating whether the term is acceptable for reference (i.e., use) then we are debating what term to use.  Yes, there is proof that she is here illegally.  I don't think anyone is disputing that.  And no the debate is not simply one of whether she is an illegal alien or not.  Wasn't it you who stated just sentences before that we are debating whether the term is acceptable for reference?  Again, unless a term can be found in federal legislation or official policy, then as far as I'm concerned it's POV. Chicaneo 06:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lets finish this debate  

message: I thought that we were going to try to come to some sort of consensus before starting up another edit war. --Ramsey2006 01:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Last one was interesting.  Uses illegal alien in one place and undocumented worker in another.  I still think we should combine and say something like "she entered the U.S. illegally as an undocumented worker".  —Wknight94 (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever is done, whether that or replacing with "undocumented worker/illegal immigrant" or something totally different, should be done in the first sentence, and not littered throughout the entire section. The History section should be a neutral description of the historical sequence of events that actually occurred, and not a running commentary of labels that folks wish to apply to the protagonist. The emphasis needs to be on events and not on labels. --Ramsey2006 02:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  All I ask is that the illegal alien reference remain, the undocumented worker was placed in a section related to her employment for Ramsey2006, if you look at the two terms and their placement, I would hope it is not construed as random littering (Both terms relate to the surrounding material).  If Ramsey2006 prefers not to have the undocumented worker link, that works for me as again it was done in an effort at compromise.  For me the main thing is to not to omit the fact that she is an illegal alien, be it outright or by substitution of a different term.  If we are to work towards a compromise, everybody needs to think first about what they really care about, secondly about what they can give ground on and finally they need to be honest.  You need post in a clear statement what is most important to you.  If everybody keeps changing their stated goal it creates a moving target and doesn't enable resolution.  People generally end up creating moving targets for two reasons, 1). They themselves have not thought it through or 2). They are not stating their true objective and instead commit to proxy arguments in an effort to reach that hidden goal, if proxy argument is solved without achieving the hidden goal, new proxy argument is issued, and so on.  If either of those is present the result is not a constructive debate, since what we end up debating is ever changing.  I have been very clear with my request to include illegal alien.  The support of this position was already posted in response to requests by others for definitions and information.  It can be referenced from this discussion and worked into a solution.  I am going to step back from this debate, unless the term illegal alien is completely removed, in which case I will have to interject my concerns at that time.  --Jackspenn 04:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you specifically want the word "illegal" or the term "illegal alien"?  My preference is the former - the latter is immaterial to me.  —Wknight94 (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Jackspenn, have you seen wknight94's suggestion and my elaboration placing it in a complete initial sentence at the end of the your Proposed compromise: let's use both terms heading above? (posted before your last edit of the article) Would this be acceptable to you? Chicaneo and evrik haven't signed off on it, but perhaps you, whnight94 and I could come to some tenative agreement between the three of us on a concrete compromise to present to the two of them for consideration.--Ramsey2006 06:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I just noticed that Chicaneo and wknight94 have agreed (at the bottom of the heading Requesting addition of Illegal Alien in place of Undocumented Worker above) to another formulation of the initial sentence that totally avoids the need to label her altogether. Would this wording be agreeable to you?--Ramsey2006 06:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "In 1997 Arellano illegally entered the United States, was apprehended, and deported back to Mexico by the United States government." works. --Jackspenn 16:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So why isn't it done?  :)  —Wknight94 (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just did it. In fact, I added not ONE "illegal", but TWO "illegals", not as labels, but rather as facts, as we best guess them now until the case is actually adjudicated. --Ramsey2006 03:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I should point out that Evrik has not yet weighed in on the discussion, and so my edit (especially in the first sentence of the article, where I express our gratuitous best guess as to the legal guilt of the protagonist without benifit of a judge nor jury, in a case that has yet to be decided) is still rather provisional. I made the edit with the full knoweledge that I am prejudging a not yet decided case, in the spirit of wikicompromise. Mainly, I'm just tired, and want to get back to mathematics. There are non-existent articles that I'd like to create when I get the time. --Ramsey2006 03:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unilateral editing decisions