Talk:Anchor baby/Archive 2

Pejorative redux

Since there seems to be some dispute over the use of pejorative (and since there doesn't seem to have been Talk: on it for a few months): Wikipedia defines "pejorative" as connoting contempt or disapproval. Can anyone point to an instance in which the term "anchor baby" was used (non-sardonically, say, and not by way of quoting or explaining), by an author who does not disapprove of chain migration? If not -- if most who use the term "anchor baby" have, at a minimum, a certain level of disapproval (not to say contempt) for the immigrants they describe, the term isn't POV so much as accurate.

By the way, my revert of removing "pejorative" got me a friendly note from User:Save Our Country. Save Our Country, your account looks new; is it your first? --Rocketfairy 11:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The word 'perjorative' is unecessary. Let the article explain that by its usage. Using such a term is a violation of NPOV, and should not be used as the reader by reading the context of the article can make up their own minds by HOW the term is used. Such descriptive terms are not helpful to Wikipedia or any information source - it gives an air of argument or op-ed where I am sure none is intended. --Northmeister 15:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You'll see that our article on the word "nigger" also makes the point that it's a pejorative term. Should we remove the word "pejorative" from all equivalent terms? There are ample sources to show that "anchor baby" is considered a pejorative term. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Then provide the sources and quite wasting our time with banter. What sources, say it is a perjorative, provide them here? Further the article itself in its context can help the reader understand and make up their own mind whether it is perjorative or not. But sources for our perusal to better understand where your coming from? --Northmeister 20:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The sources that call the term pejorative are:

• http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20060402-9999-1n2tide.html
• http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/06/23/news/top_stories/22_30_156_22_06.txt
• Congressman Mark Souder (R. IN) "An anchor baby is a pejorative term used to describe a child born in the U.S. to a non-citizen.[1]

They were in the article before they were deleted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Anchor Baby usage

We are getting off point. Let me state clearly: Wikipedia should be neutral on a term not clearly used as a pejorative by all. To classify "Anchor Baby" as pejorative and in the same league as the N word is highly misleading. A simple google of the term brings up very few cases where the term is being used against persons so much as to describe a phenomenon of illegal aliens crossing the border and having children who "anchor" them to the United States as those children are automatically citizens by the Supreme Courts interpretation of the 14th amendment. Such examples of this usage which is more widespread and the common usage are below:

• Anchor babies tie illegal immigrants to US
• Berthing anchor babies
• Should Anchor Babies be granted automatic citizenship?

Rather than being used to discredit an individual or to describe an individual in a negative context as a SLUR this term is used to describe a phenomenon that is occurring in America.

The above said, I don't use the term nor do I endorse the term being used. However, what I think or the next editor THINKS of the term is irrelevant. It certainly does not have the history that the N word has - to suggest this is outrageous and a disservice to the Civil Rights movement and the memory of men like RFK and Martin Luther King.

Lastly and first in my judgment, this article should simply state the facts, backed with reliable sources. It should describe the usage in its negative sense where sources indicate and in its other sense as a descriptive term (which it is used by mainstream Media and others most often) and let the reader make up his/her own mind. It is not for Wikipedia to decide its context. That would be mind reading and we are not mind readers. Let's just leave it out, write the article in NPOV and let the facts emerge to weigh its usage one way or another based on those sourced facts. As you can see above it is NOT clear the term is used pejoratively most of the time - although I am sure rather negative groups do use it as such and the article can show this. --Northmeister 23:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The term "nigger" is not always used pejoratively. Should we not say that it is a "pejorative term" in our article about it? Should we just allow our readers to decide for themselves? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, this source that you provided, "Should Anchor Babies be granted automatic citizenship?", appears to use the term pejoratively. Were you intending to present it as using the term positively? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

My only intention is to address the usage of a term 'pejorative' on a phrase 'Anchor Baby" not entirely used as such when the article itself can show both usages without the term being applied in the opening paragraph as the common usage - which it is not. You seemed to be concerned with interpreting what a writer's motivations were. What I or you feel about the term (and we may agree who knows) is irrelevant. Wikipedia should report and let the reader decide based upon the facts without descriptive terms that are NOT commonly held as the mainstream view. --Northmeister 00:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't have to interpret anything, we have sources which tell us that it's a pejorative term. Why do you want to remove sourced information? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

And there are sources, that use the term in a non-pejorative manner as a descriptive of a phenomenon occuring - one of the sources you provide above is an opinion of the term - you then provide two other sources from obscure newspapers to prove your point. I want definitive, reliable sources from stating there is a consensus for the term as pejorative as the three sources I provide do NOT use the term to discredit individuals but to describe conditions. Why use the term in the opening paragraph as definitive? Why not simply state the facts, and let the reader decide, what do you have against this? What other sources do you have that this is agreed standard usage? --Northmeister 00:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any source that say it isn't a pejorative term. It's only your opinion that the sources you have provided use it non-pejoratively, and I'd disagree with your assessment on the last one. We do provide sources that call it a pejorative term. Readers can check our sources. Again I ask, do you think we should remove the characterization of "nigger" as a pejorative? If not, why should we use that characterization for some terms but not for others, even when we have sources for both? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep the N word out of it. I clearly state - providing this term in both its contexts is more appropriate as you've only provide two credible sources using the term. I've provided two sources using the term as a 'descriptive' without pejorative context within the descriptive. The third source is 'unknown' as to the context - you have YOUR interpretation; I mine and neither should matter. My point made. Since sources do NOT agree - then we should leave pejorative out of the opening paragraphs and simply cover the pejorative use within the article - my point all along. You on the other hand want to read the author's mind to establish context. Let's stick to the discussion here. What do you have against my proposal to keep the term as definitive out of the article and simply provide room within the article for both usages? Do you discredit my first source? If they are meaning to be pejorative - How? --Northmeister 00:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no disagreement among the sources because no one says it isn't a pejorative term.

There are dozens of derogatory and pejorative terms.

• Masshole is a portmanteau of the words Massachusetts and asshole, used to express a derogatory view of residents of that U.S. state.
• Kulaks is a pejorative term extensively used in Soviet political language to define better-off peasants who are considered class enemy in the village
• Quackery is a derogatory term used to describe questionable medical practices.
• Peckerwood... is a pejorative slang term coined in the 19th century by southern Black Americans to describe poor whites.

See also category:Pejorative terms for people. And most of those don't even have sources for the designation. Wikipedia has many articles on pejorative terms, we don't feel it necessary to allow the read "let the reader decide" in those articles. I don't see why we should treat this term differntly from the others. Are we going to go on a campaign to designate "pejorative" as a "word to avoid"? As a compromise we could move it to the second sentence. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, maybe I was not clear. What do you have against my proposal to keep the term as definitive out of the article and simply provide room within the article for both usages? Do you discredit my first source? If they are meaning to be pejorative - How? There is obvious disagreement in the media - not so with other examples you bring up. How does it help Wikipedia to take a side in determining a pejorative term when the media doesn't agree? How is a descriptive term for an illegal act similar to a slur for an ethnicity or locality? How is your suggestion not facetious? --Northmeister 04:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Northmeister, Will has cited sources which claim the term is pejorative. Can you cite any sources claiming the term is not pejorative? All you've given us are articles using the term. Oddly, 2 or the 3 articles clearly use the term negatively, to connote disapproval of "anchor babies" and their parents: One accuses immigrant parents of lacking family values, the other argues for a judicial edit of the 14th Amendment. The third article uses the term in a more-or-less neutral sense, but doesn't actually claim the term is non-pejorative. If that's the best there is in the 8.7bn pages google indexes, I don't think there's a "debate." One side ("term is pejorative") has cited sources, the other doesn't, and wikipedia doesn't need to give equal time to unreasonable, uncitable propositions to fit the political scruples of every editor out there. Best, Rocketfairy 13:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

User Rocketfairy, I can understand where you are coming from in the matter of it seeming that the term possibly being pejorative has been proven through the matter of uses that have been sited. However, for the benifit of others who like yourself may have been mislead I feel it necessary to point out that the cited sources are flawed. They do not come from dictionary, thesaurus, or any other manner of encyclopedic documentation. Nor do they come from what has been established as a universal accepted use of the term. The cited sources come from the subjective use of adjective whether via political quote, or newspaper article. Simply put, the persons who composed the footnoted articles have noted that the term is pejorative of their own valition. While they may have been reporting on events, they reported on events as they saw it. (Discussion of the this failure is best left for another time). Furthermore, I think it prudent in the interests of maintaining wikipedia's integrity that this article eliminate the inclusion of the word pejorative until a certain timetable, my own suggestion is for three weeks, has passed. Thus giving time for those who feel passionatly about this being a misuse of the term and who wish to seek out sources that do not use the term in a derrogatory fashion, ample time to do the research into it. I can only speak for myself, but I am sure that countless others are in the same situation, when I say that the editing of wikipedia is not my life, and as such other things (such as family, school, and work) must necessarily come first. My further suggestion would be that if such a deadline is posted and not met, that the word perjorative be moved to it's own sub-section of this article where the quote and footnoted material would be more prudently included. As it is now, the use of the word pejorative has quite obviously offended people and inorder to maintain NPOV it must be removed. I leave that editing in the hands of the administrators as I do not wish to further seem to engage in what has been called a "revert war".Rocdahut 16:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Northmeister is saying that this term "pejorative" isn't pejorative because not every source calls it that. That's an illogical conclusion, equivalent to concluding that if three article say the "Earth is round" while three other articles on the Earth don't mention its shape, the Earth's shape is disputed. Regarding the three sources that Northmeister has provided, they don't say anything either way so they're irrelevant. Northmeister hasn't explained why we should treat this term differently from the dozens of other terms that Wikipedia calls "pejorative" or "derogatory". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Leaving personal comments out of it are we? Explanations are above - you should read them. --Northmeister 14:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thre are no personal comments in my post. I used your name because I was addresing your points. I don't see any explanations above for the issues I raised here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Being bold and moving forward

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

I resent your implication that I am editing this article with a political bias. Please leave personal comments out of content disputes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I am going to revert your boldness pending the outcome of this RfC. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Is "anchor baby" pejorative?

I'm requesting an RFC here because users are having difficulty reaching a consensus about whether labeling the term "anchor baby" as pejorative is POV — or, alternatively, whether failing to label it as pejorative is POV. Please read WP:RFC for more info about how the RFC process works. Richwales 17:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

See my comments above. --Northmeister 17:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Before this article was once again reverted to the state which has proven to raise the ire of others, I found myself thinking that the version where the word pejorative was used later, when the article said something to the effect of "this term is considered a perjorative by some", was more appropriate. As it stands this article seems to have degenerated into a battle ground for a revert war, and thus the aritcle has arguably fallen into bias. I once again state my suggestion of changing it to simply say "terms" to start, then include a later line that some consider it a perjorative; and leave it this way for a period of no less then three weeks while more thorough research is conducted. If the Oxford English Dictionary took well over several decades to complete, how can we expect a simple "fix" to take place overnight?Rocdahut 06:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I reiterate my earlier point: Two cited sources say the term is pejorative. Northmeister dug up three sources for his claims, but two of them actually *used* the term as pejorative (that is, to connote disapproval of chain migration). One neutral use of the term does not make it neutral, it is slang targeted to evoke disapproval, and thus a pejorative. Rocketfairy 10:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

My understanding was that this section was to make argument for either the inclusion or exclusion or different usage of the word "Perjorative". Thus far it seems that user Northmeister has made a clearer case for it being used in a later sentence so as to not violate the NPOV. If there is voting on this word usage, then my vote is for later use. Northmeister has made what appears to be "a decent case" to borrow the phrase. He has questioned the referenced articles, and having perused them, it is my contention that he has a valid claim that the citing of the two articles does not make it so that the word can be considered pejorative, but that with the inclusion of other footnotes one can say "some consider it a pejorative". As it stands, I will no longer contribute to this discussion until such a change has been made. The thinly veild personal attacks on user Northmeister do not really make the case for inclusion of the word "pejorative" anymore appetizing to me then it did on its original merits, now even less so. Rocdahut 17:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"When a foreigner or illegal alien (non-US citizen) comes to the USA to have a baby for the purpose of making the baby a US citizen. The baby becomes a US citizen giving the illegal alien/foreign parent and their family grounds to come to and stay in the US and become eligible for government benefits. Also called a "jackpot baby"."[2]

Rocketferry stated that two of the sources use the term in a pejorative way? How so? More importantly - says who? What source indicates that assumption or is it your own opinion of the matter? Which is my point. Our opinions shouldn't matter for NPOV standard. The three sources above indicate there is no agreement on the word's use - if there were like the N word then politicians and media reporters across the country would not use the term as often. That is the reality of the situation as it stands. The term more often describes an ACTION of another. As the baby anchors the family to the United States under present immigration law. That's the intention I see used over and over again. My opinion of the term is clear above, but you misrepresent (as does Willbeback) what my intentions themselves are. I am not arguing over whether the term is pejorative or not - I am presenting a case that to be NPOV and neutral with a current events matter and term - then one has to consider ALL reliable sources and uses of that term. Many do not use the term in a pejorative manner but rather as a DESCRIPTIVE of an action taking place illegally in the USA. Not just political types (like one source above given to support the word being pejorative) but media reporters and newspapers who use the term without any explanation (thus by endorsement they consider the word simply descriptive). Here are more sources, with original three:

• The Eagle Tribune does not qualify the term as pejorative
• Catoosa County News does not qualify the term
• Washington Times does not qualify the term
• NBC affiliate uses term without qualifier only as a descriptive <NBC> is national network
• Used again without qualifier
• Again used as normal descriptive term

Is it standard practice to call the term pejorative? Clearly it is not. --Northmeister 14:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I started out here feeling that "anchor baby" should indeed, obviously, be labelled as unquestionably derogatory. After reading the sources which Northmeister posted above, however, I'm tending now toward the view that "anchor baby" might not in fact always be used with pejorative intent after all.

The first four of Northmeister's sources use "anchor baby" in the context of news stories that, to me, appear to be trying to report a story without passing judgment on it.

I would discount the last two sources. They do seem to be reasoned arguments (even if I personally happen to disagree with their reasoning), and they don't cross the line into xenophobic, nativist diatribe — but, at the same time, they are clearly of an editorial / columnist / opinion-piece character, and the last one (from the Sierra Times) could arguably be classified as a blog posting and not a conventional news article — so, on balance, I don't feel their use of "anchor baby" sheds any real light on the pejorativeness issue, one way or the other.

Since the first four of these sources appear (to me at least) to be legitimate and NPOV, I believe I would currently favor wording along the lines of what Northmeister has proposed — namely, that mention should be made at the end of the introductory section saying that some people consider the term "anchor baby" to be pejorative (with suitable references), though others have taken to using it as a neutral slang expression (with the first four of Northmeister's references, but not the last two).

My own personal bias, FWIW, is that I strongly support US birthright citizenship and agree with the commonly accepted interpretation of the 14th Amendment which says that children born in the US to foreigners — even to illegal aliens — are US citizens. So the position I'm now taking here may seem to run counter to my own prejudices. But it does appear, in fact, that "anchor baby" is being adopted by some mainstream sources as a slang term without any builtin bias, so, in fairness, I think acknowledging that there are two legitimate opposing positions on the pejorativeness question is our best NPOV solution here. Richwales 18:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I can also find hundreds of articles that don't call the Earth "round". Yet we don't say that those sources actually dispute the Earth's roundness, they just assume it. Here are the previously listed sources:

• An anchor baby is a pejorative term used to describe a child born in the U.S. to a non-citizen.[3]
• ...Donnelly dismissed teens marching in Los Angeles as “probably part of the anchor baby-boom of the late 1980s and 1990s,” using a pejorative term for the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants.[4]
• Eichler also decried the problem of "anchor babies," a pejorative term used to describe children born to illegal immigrant parents. [5]

Testimony from a Arizona legislator:

• [Representative Ben Miranda] said many times on the floor he has heard people make reference to children born to immigrant families as anchor babies. He said he is an anchor baby, and he could easily take offense to the term, but he does not take it personally.[6]

While I wouldn't propose them for sources for this article, there are numerous blogged articles that describe the term as pejroative or derogatory:

• I don't much care for the term 'anchor baby'. I find it offensive and pejorative. [7]
• He constantly uses derogatory terms like "anchor baby", "illegal alien". [8]
• "anchor baby" is the pejorative label that conservatives love to use to describe these children...[9]
• I think it's fair to call it like it is - calling someone an "anchor baby" is a form of hate speech. The term is used in an effort to dehumanize a whole class of American citizens....Because I believe the term is offensive and demeaning, I intend to delete posts that use it in a derogatory way).[10]
• I only received two complaints about my use of the term "anchor baby" in Wednesday's blog / Thursday's column to refer to the American-born son of illegal immigrant Elvira Arellano...However, Rivlin said, it's a "politically charged term" originated and favored by those who are opposed to liberalized immigration laws. And a quick check through various sources confirms this. "They use it to spark resentment against immigrants," Rivlin said of his ideological foes. "They use it to make these children sound non-human." To me, that's good enough reason to regret having used it and to decide not to use it in the future. Sound arguments don't need loaded language. [11]
• An anchor baby is a derogatory term for a child born to illegal immigrants to the United States as a means for the parents to attain citizenship or residency rights.[12]
• anchor baby: a derogatory term for a child born in the United States to an immigrant. [13]
• She had a son here in the States, an act anti-immigration activists deride as an ‘anchor baby’ (as if the baby weren’t a precious gift, as conservatives usually describe babies, but was instead a mere tool to weigh a family down in this country).[14]

I think it's clear that the term in question is frequently described as "pejorative" or "derogatory". Wikipedia labels many terms as "pejorative" or "derogatory". If the characterizations applies, and it appears to, then we should assert the verifable fact that "anchor baby" is a pejorative term. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

All you've provided are blogs. I specifically ignored blogs because they do not match the reliable source definition as I understand it. My proposal and action by 'being bold' is simple enough and an attempt to include all views. Compromise proposal once again: Do not include the word 'pejorative' in opening sentences as that is in violation of NPOV on a term not agreed to by mainstream or other media as my sources and your sources indicate. Instead indicate that the term is considered 'pejorative' by some while others use it as a 'descriptive' term for a phenomenon occurring. In doing so we cover both arguments with reliable sourcing (already provided above) and avoid taking a stand on an issue unresolved in the mainstream media or culture. I don't see where this does any harm to either side and allows the reader to peruse the source-links for further definition to make up their own mind about the term. I don't understand why there is this incessant push to label the term in spite of reliable source disagreement. Bringing up 'Earth is Flat' or accepted 'pejoratives' does not help and seems meant to deflect the discussion away from the sources. --Northmeister 11:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this source that you provided is a blog. [15] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

While ordinary blogs may not be usable as sources, they buttress the sources we do have and show that it is a common perception. I'd be happy to compromise. When we find some source which say, directly, that the term is used as a neutral description then we can include that viewpoint too. So far I haven't seen any source that says so. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The first four references which Northmeister offered use the term "anchor baby" in an overall neutral context. They don't explicitly, directly say that "anchor baby" is not a pejorative, but I really doubt we're likely to see an ordinary news story do that. I still feel that these four references satisfy the criterion for inclusion — if not as an explicit indication that some people do not consider "anchor baby" pejorative, then as examples showing that some people do use the expression in a purely descriptive fashion without any obvious intent to malign the people involved. Richwales 20:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

But should we be relying on our own assessments of the usage in those four sources? How would we convey this? "The term has been labelled a pejorative but, in the opinion of some Wikipedia editors, it is sometimes used neutrally." That'd be accurate, but I don't know if it's the best way to report the matter. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you're saying you won't accept any source as evidence for non-pejorativeness unless it explicitly says, in so many words, something like "'anchor baby' is not a pejorative". I'm honestly not sure what sort of sources we can ever realistically hope for here that would meet this criterion. As I see it now, there are likely to be three kinds of sources: (1) those that use the term in an apparently neutral context; (2) those that use the term in a clearly derisive sense, such as in the context of a general condemnation of illegal immigration and/or birthright citizenship; and (3) those that say something like "I feel the term 'anchor baby' is offensive and object to its use". I really can't imagine we're ever going to find any credible source explicitly saying that the term is not derogatory; people who don't perceive the term as pejorative (and who aren't expressing a strong opinion one way or the other on the general topic) are extremely unlikely to go out of their way to point out that they consider the expression to be neutral. I think the best we can hope to find will be neutral sources that use "anchor baby" in a purely descriptive, non-maligning way — such as the first four of Northmeister's sources — and I think it's perfectly appropriate to accept such sources as evidence that the term is not universally thought of as being pejorative. To say that we aren't competent to conclude whether any such source is neutral or not seems unrealistic. Richwales 21:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:OR and WP:V, we can't use a document as a primary source and interpret what it means. If one editor says the term is used neutrall and another editor says it isn't, there's no way of settling that dispute because it's just a matter of interpreting the usage. Looking over the six links provded by Northmesiter above I'm not sure that they provide s sufficiently obvious standard of usage. One of them is a blog, which of course we can't use. One is on an extremist webst, sierratimes.com, and shouldn't be used either. In some of the links the term is used by people who want to revoke the constitutional amendment that creates the situation, so those can hardly be called neutral uses of the term. Do we see it being used by officials of the Census Bureau or the ICE? Do we see it being used by immigration proponents? It seems like it's only used by opponents, which further indicates it's not a neutral term. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, then, I'm confused, because to me right now, it doesn't sound like there is any real-world documentation which could possibly be acceptable to you as valid evidence that anyone thinks "anchor baby" is a neutral, non-pejorative term. Could you please clear up my confusion by describing, in detail, exactly what kind of sources you want to see, why you believe it's reasonable to assume such sources exist, and where you suggest that such sources are reasonably likely to be found? Richwales 04:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that some topics are hard to source. That doesn't mean we should lower our standards. The standards for this article shouldn't be either higher or lower than other articles. I said above that if the term were used in official documents, or by those on all sides of the political debate, then that would help establish it as a neutral term. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What do others think about this? Are we any closer to a consensus here, or (as I fear) are people on both sides still convinced that their position is the only one that makes sense and which is consistent with Wikipedia's standards? Richwales 06:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe that there is even a question that the term is blatantly offensive and pejoritive. Can anybody here even imagine going to visit a new mother in the hospital who is a friend or family member and telling her "Oh, what a cute little anchor baby you have!" We all know how it is used in the real world. (Would anybody here actually admit to using the word in real life? No? I didn't think so.) The only question is whether or not there exist reliable sources by wikipedia standards to justify the claim of something that we all already know to be true by common sense OR. I believe that the sources cited in the article do in fact meet that standard, and as such, the statement should stand. --Ramsey2006 13:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

All the above is your opinion of the term - which I actually share. But our opinions do not matter and are not what Wikipedia is about. What matters is reliable sources which indicate the term is used both as a pejorative and as a simple descriptive term. If we are to be neutral and NPOV in our articles then we must uphold this standard of Wikipedia until national consensus on the matter is reached - thus allowing for both definitions as I have proposed. --Northmeister 13:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The opinion that an editor must come up with a specific statement indicating it is not negative is not wikipedian nor is it reasonable considering those who use the term with qualifiers are defacto indicating like other words that the word is acceptable usage and thus not pejorative or they would qualify it as a pejorative like only two sources provided do. As it stands I see consensus for the change back to compromise and away from the lone argument for taking a stand on the word despite evidence to the contrary that the expression is not considered by all as pejorative. Further, per Wilbeback's sources - they are not dictionary's nor encyclopedias nor per reviewed journals nor from academia nor from official government documents, say from the justice department, nor from books published on the subject per the term - they show only two news sites which qualify the term - nothing else, hence no definitive source - hence we should not be definitive until national consensus on the term is reached. Here are some more sources for perusal:

NEWS SOURCES not qualifing the term:

• No Qualifier given.
• NY TIMES DOES NOT QUALIFY -Newspaper of record.
• FOX news opinion not qualify the term except as a descriptive.0

ON OPPOSITE SIDES of the FENCE not qualifing the term:

• Those on the opposite side of the issue than the minutemen or other anti-illegal immigration groups interestingly. Such as Aztlan, rather extreme group from perusal.
• Group for immigration reform uses the term as descriptive.

A former Congressman quote not qualifying the term, CANADIAN FREE PRESS:

• Congressman Mac Collins, Ret. R-GA on the phenomenon., CANADIAN FREE PRESS

Considering present consensus for a compromise to include both definitions in their own paragraph to be NPOV, reliable, and apolitical in a current event dispute on a modern expression (despite my own opinion on the term itself) - I again call upon Wilbeback to compromise and resolution. --Northmeister 13:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC) -Amended: With the arrival of Ramsey, I guess there is not presently a consensus. Although I do call for one to be formed by all parties to the dispute. --Northmeister 14:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

(From RFC) Of course, "anchor baby" is obviously a pejorative term. Look at the sources using it! Italia^vivi 15:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to the New York Times or NBC? Another source not referring to the term as explicitly pejorative or using qualifier:

• Dictionary definition.

--Northmeister 16:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The latest sources you've found help confirm that it is not a neutral term. The "NY Times" article does not use the term directly. Instead it is used in a quote from the spokesman for an anti-immigration group CAIR. FAIR is another anti-immigration group. The "Canada Free Press" source is laughable - the online "press" is extremely right-wing. The article you cite uses the white separatist American Renaissance website as its source for the definition of "anchor baby". The online dictionary is also illustrative. Check the citations it uses for its definition. Regarding the Voz de Aztlan, they're another radical group. Using the phrase "Anchor Baby Power" appears to me to be a case of adopting the pejorative to lessen it's power, just as many gays use the pejorative "queer". As for the estimation of consensus, I see three who believe it isn't always pejorative and four who believe it isn't neutral. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

All the above is proof of my point - once again - there is no agreement for the word being pejorative as the SOURCES (well over six now) indicate. It is simply a descriptive term to most, regardless as to whether they are right, left, center, media, radical, racist or anti-racist - Wikipedia is not a political blog for POV pushing. You've provide only two sources indicating otherwise. Your letting your bias get in the way of our job here at Wikipedia to provide a NPOV article on a subject - maintaining neutrality. Your rhetoric is demeaning when I've attempted to provide room for both sides of the argument - my own opinion aside. Despite your obvious dislike for CAIR or FAIR groups, they are legitimate advocacy groups on the opposite side of the political spectrum - which you have obvious disdain for - alright, take that to your blog. That's not suitable for Wikipedia. The numerous sources including from NBC and the New York Times (which DO NOT QUALIFY THE TERM) are acceptable sources countering your two - period and therefore both observations must be included in this article unless you have a reliable source indicating why both should not be that explicitly states this? --Northmeister 19:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not biased and I certainly haven't intended for my comments to be demeaning. I don't see any neutral use of "anchor baby" in the cited NY Times article - can you quote the usage you're referring to? The only use I see is from someone who'd like to outlaw birthright citizenship, which is clearly not a neutral use. Likewise the entire NBC piece is apparently an editorial against birthright citizenship. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the page for you guys. You're welcome. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.153.238.12 (talk) 19:11, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest some alternative language to overcome this dispute:

• The term has been characterized as a "pejorative".

That is neutral and verifiable. Any objection? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the sentence - but where would you place it? Re-do the article or show below how it would be included. --Northmeister 20:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Good. I've added it to the end of the first paragraph. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Although I approve of the wording, I don't think neutrality is maintained so I propose this addition "sometimes" and "which depends on its usage". Thus it would read with proper citations: Anchor baby is somtimes characterized as a pejorative term, which depends on its usage. --Northmeister 20:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC) -Amended statement: Changed the article in light of your example, and proposed change to: "Depending on it's usage, Anchor baby can be characterized as a pejorative term." to allow for perusal within context. --Northmeister 20:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, if we can find a source which says that the meaning "depends on usage" then we can add that. But it is only our interpretation that the listed sources use the term in a non-pejorative manner. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, if we can find a source that the term is only defined as a 'pejorative' and not as a 'descriptive term' then we can have it your way. As it stands, no such source has been given. We should therefore include both usages - neutral and descriptive term (numerous sources well over 6 or more) and the 'two' instances of calling it 'pejorative'. If the two sources you use consider it pejorative because they say it is - then the six or more credible sources I use by not qualifying it as such - would do what? Think it was pejorative? Would the NBC affiliate use such a title if they considered it pejorative? The facts indicate that the term is not considered pejorative by all sources -simply descriptive as other terms are. Hence, we need a sentence like I amended above indicating what the sources actually provide - not anyones POV on the matter. Let's work with this sentence: "Depending on it's usage, Anchor baby can be characterized as a pejorative term." --Northmeister 21:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

We have three sources that call it "pejorative", so saying it has been called "pejorative" is entirely verifiable and neutral. Most of the sources you keep adding are either highly partisan or contains quotes from partisans, and so they don't show neutral usage. If we find a source that says "depending on it's usage," then I'd endorse using that phrase. Until then it's originla research. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

OR: Not true, your assumptions are illogical and full of twists and turns, leading me to believe your not here to work with others. Your 'compromise' was no compromise at all - but a POV push - which is not in line with Wikipedia standards. Again: "Depending on it's usage, Anchor baby can be characterized as a pejorative term." includes both points from your starting sentence and looks fine to me. Lets work from here. If you are here to helpout and work with other editors then start being civil and stop moving this discussion in circles. --Northmeister 21:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Why did you write, "I have no problem with the sentence", if it was a "POV push"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I original AGF towards your gesture. My response was for you to show how it would be used - there was no consensus formed or anything like that. You made it look like there was. Your sentence was a good move forward. My amendment to it, was to include both sourced views. We can work from there to shorten or reword your statement - but you then bring up stuff already covered - thus leading to my conclusion above. Work with me for resolution and compromise and see if we can't come up with something the other editors will support. That equals consensus. --Northmeister 21:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with Will Beback that Northmeister's latest batch of sources — with the possible exception of the first one — are really not neutral. And I'll certainly concede that few, if any, people would use "anchor baby" in a positive, endearing sense. But it does seem that at least some of the sources previously cited are arguably neutral, and I still feel that the standard being proposed (under which these sources would be discounted) is so unrealistic and so unattainable in practice that it can't possibly reflect a proper interpretation of Wikipedia's ideals. Richwales 23:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

RW, what's your take on this:

• "Anchor baby has been characterized as a pejorative term."

That seems neutral and verifiable. It does not say or imply that it is always a pejorative, or even that it's ever a pejorative. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That's possible. We would, presumably, accompany the above statement with a few sources to back it up, right?

I think maybe we would need to qualify the statement a bit, such as by saying it "has been characterized by many" as pejorative. Saying simply that it "has been characterized" could be (mis?)interpreted as meaning some authority has made a definitive statement on the topic, which is not what we want to say. Richwales 00:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I would support "has been characterized by some" or something to that affect. The sources do not indicate "many" although I could go along with "many" with the qualifier before or after "depending on usage" with those sources you'd endorse as indicating this. I feel by adding the word "some" would be more neutral and verifiable per the sources. --Northmeister 00:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

How about:

• Anchor baby has been characterized by some as a pejorative term.

Which could be extended to:

• Anchor baby has been characterized by some as a pejorative term and has been used by those favoring immigration restrictions.[16][17][18]

I think the shorter version may be better though. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll support either above. Looks like we had the same thought within seconds. Although unsure how my comments came first. --Northmeister 00:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused, at 00:06, on 2 February 2007 Will Beback wrote: "rewrite text to indicate that not everyone feels it's pejorative"; essentially backing up everything I've stated here. Yet all this discussion otherwise as if he was opposed to the idea and then agrees to compromise. What was all this opposition if he originally changed the article in the same way I've always insisted it should read for NPOV? This is the diff in question: [19]. Of course he's entitled to change his opinion, but we should not be lead on like this. This issue could of been resolved long ago as then most editors would agree and we could honorably move on. It was actually Ramsey2006 who made the change to the article insisting on the definitive: ""anchor baby" and "jackpot baby" is pejorative" [20]. Will again makes changes in the same light as myself for NPOV [21]. Why then all this contentious nature when we essentially agreed all along. Ramsey2006 is easy to understand as he was the one who made the initial "is" statement with a unilateral change as shown. --Northmeister 16:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not spend too much time worrying over issues like this. People are entitled to change their opinions. The really important thing, I think, is to come up with a phrasing that as many people as possible will support (or will at least accept as a compromise). My biggest concern, at this point, is that at some future time, someone else may come alone who wasn't a party to the current round of discussions, and who will insist on repudiating our current compromise and demand that the article be revised back to an earlier version, and we'll be back to Square One. I hope there's some Wikipedia protocol for dealing with that sort of thing, but I'm not sure yet what that might be. Any thoughts? Richwales 16:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The diffs above don't seem to reflect the editing history of this article, but that's not important. Regarding RW's concern, there's not much we can do. The decisions of past editors do not constrain the opportunities of future editors. Next year or even next week a new group of editors could decide to re-write the article entirely. But if we find compromises that are truly neutral then future editors are less likely to feel the need to change what we've done. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The first sentence of Wills sounds best to me. I also agree with Richwales, that it would be helpful to have a protocal for such things. What do you think Richwales? The first sentence look ok "Anchor baby has been characterized by some as a pejorative term." --Northmeister 19:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would go along with "'Anchor baby' has been characterized by some as a pejorative term", with some sources, at the end of the introductory section. I would also suggest that a comment be inserted at the beginning of the page source, mentioning that a discussion of the pejorative nature of the term took place during August 2007, and that the language used here on the page is a result of that discussion, and please don't anyone just go ahead and unilaterally change this part of the text without further discussion on the talk page. Richwales 21:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine. Although I am unsure it will do what you want it to do - per other editors as they have the right to make changes boldy if need be. But, it would work to establish precedent for what took place and confirm the consensus reached for the edit. --Northmeister 21:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I realize a comment of this sort can't stop anyone who is bound and determined, but it's probably the best we can do, so we might as well at least try it. Richwales 03:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"has been characterized" I suppose that I can live with, but I'm not sure what the purpose of the word "some" is. What exactly does the word convey, and how does it distinguish this expression from other pejorative terms that don't have the word "some" in their article? Every pejoritive term has been characterized as pejoritive by "some". Is there anybody who characterizes it as non-pejorative? If so, such sources should be cited, provided that they are reliable sources. --Ramsey2006 04:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Would the longer version above be better, the one that summarizes the common users of the term? We need more sources that discuss, rather than merely use, the term. I wonder if Safire ever wrote on article about it in his column on words. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Safire may not have, but the New York Times did include the term in a year-end list of new words in 2006:

• Here are just a few of the terms that became prominent or first appeared last year. anchor baby: a derogatory term for a child born in the United States to an immigrant. Since these children automatically qualify... "BUZZWORDS; GLOSSARY" December 24, 2006 - By GRANT BARRETT - Week in Review

That's a very clear definition, published in "the newspaper of record". Would "derogatory" be a better word for us to use than "pejorative"? I think it is slightly milder than "pejorative". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy with either "pejorative" or "derogatory". I don't really think the longer version of the sentence helps much; I think it's obvious from the article itself that the kind of people who would use it as a pejorative are opponents of immigration, so there's no real point in saying it. Richwales 05:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll second your thoughts above. --Northmeister 09:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, then, if there are no objections, I'll go ahead and use Northmeister's first proposed sentence, with "derogatory" substituted in place of "pejorative". Richwales 01:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Brimba tossed our compromise and reverted to the previous wording; see the article history. So it looks like we're back to Square One again — and the fact that a speedy reversion was done by someone who didn't participate in the past week's discussion doesn't bode well for an ultimate resolution. Any thoughts? Richwales 04:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Just got back from a wikibreak. I do not see any source here for the “characterized by some” versus general usage. Does anyone have a source? Sorry, tonight is the first time that I have looked at my watchlist in maybe a month. If I had been aware of the discussion I would have been a participant. I have looked over Northmeister’s sources, and fail to see anything that directly supports his contention. That the word “pejorative” is not explicitly stated every time the phrase “Anchor Baby” is used, means?? Sorry for being/playing the Ogre, but we have pretty clear policies on sourcing. Brimba 04:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Several sources were cited (see earlier in this section of the talk page) which, in the opinion of some of us, seemed to show "anchor baby" being used as a convenient, neutral colloquialism. However, an objection was raised that none of these allegedly neutral sources mattered because none of them explicitly, literally said "'anchor baby' is not pejorative" or words to that effect, and any attempt to infer such a conclusion would be an impermissible process of interpretation on our part. Others tried to argue that this was an unreasonable, impossibly high standard to expect any source to meet, but to no avail.

If we could all, somehow, manage to come up with some sort of compromise under which both sets of sources — those that clearly show the term as being pejorative and those that appear to treat it as neutral — could be cited and recognized, I think that's probably our best (and maybe our only) hope of achieving a result that won't keep on giving rise to an endless stream of edit wars.

My impression, from reviewing your past contributions to this article in its history — please correct me if I'm wrong — is that you're one of the people who feels strongly that "anchor baby" is unquestionably pejorative. Can you, perhaps, help us think of some way that we could edit this article so as to recognize that both the "indisputably pejorative" and "considered pejorative by some, but not all" viewpoints can be acknowledged and given even-handed treatment?

Richwales 19:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Brimba, where does it ever state that pejorative is unquestionably pejorative to all who use it? What source indicates this? We worked out a compromise to include both usages as it is presently associated. I fall on the side of those who believe tha the term is more often pejorative than not and would not use the phrase myself. However, individuals and organizations including the NBC affiliate I provide do use the term descriptive and in a neutral tone, thus pointing to the phenomenon occuring where mothers who are illegally here, give birth, the child is automatically an American citizen by present interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and thus 'anchors' the mother to the United States until the child is grown. The term is quite crude but it describes a process occuring and the results. Again, where does it ever state that pejorative is unquestionably pejorative to all who use it? --Northmeister 22:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

From the edit summary: Rv removal of sourced material. An editor’s opinion does not overturn consensus formed around reliable sources indicating both usages. “What sources? All that’s being presented is an opinion. For the moment, as I am coming into this discussion late, I have simply added a {{Fact}}, please feel free to replace that tag with a source.

WP:V States: “Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.” What is the source? Again, it’s a simple question. I looked at the NBC story. It does not say what is being said here. Two sources are provided stating in plain language that the term is pejorative. All I am asking for is a reliable source to the contrary.

The change is clearly original research, and will remain so until a source is provided. (Its an either or situation; I.e. either it is original research or it’s backed by a source, it can not be both at the same time.)

The first two paragraphs from WP:OR

Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.

And I will repeat that last sentence: the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say. Brimba 03:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW: Northmeister stated “There are five references indicating its usage - two describe the term as pejorative (their opinion) and three use it without description of the term (media standard now) as a descriptive itself to describe a phenomenon occuring in recent American history.” “media standard now”? If anyone has a source for this, that would satisfy my objections. Brimba 03:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It is incorrect to say that there are only two sources which describe the term as "pejorative" or "derogatory". There are at least four, including the definition in the NY Times posted above. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Brimba, there are reliable sources directly related to this article entitled "Anchor Baby" one of which is [22], which does not describe the term as pejorative and uses it in the title of the article. Clearly if the term was considered pejorative by this news affiliate then the term would of be qualified with the word 'pejorative' as other sources indicate. Beacause there is a reliable source indicating that the term is not clearly defined in all situations as pejorative but only by some or many then we should include both circumstances for NPOV and neutrality. That said, I wish to allay your concerns with this proposal: "Anchor Baby or Jackpot Baby, considered pejorative but not used as such by all,...." - after 'pejorative' (the sources indicating this statement) after 'all' {the sources for this qualifier}. I am also willing to use the term 'many' instead of 'some' in the current version to try to address your concerns. --Northmeister 17:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I like Northmeister's latest source (from www.nbc-2.com) because it doesn't quote or mention anyone challenging the concept of US birthright citizenship. To me, this omission reinforces the non-pejorative character of the way this article uses the term "anchor baby". As for Northmeister's proposed compromise language, I would feel better if this were inserted later on in the introduction (as we had earlier thought to do), rather than in the first sentence. The phrases "by many" (or "by some") and "not by all" should both have references immediately after them. Richwales 18:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how we could consider the www.nbc-2.com article to be neutral. It is strongly opposed to birthright citizenship. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What in the article leads you to conclude this? The closest I can come up with is the part about "why you're paying their bills" or "gives the parents the right to apply for FEMA aid" — and I think that even this would require a fair amount of interpretation (original research?) to lead one to the conclusion that the expression "anchor baby" is being used pejoratively. You would be on as firm (or shaky) ground citing the comment that "We need all those folks who come to our country" as indicating the article supported immigration, illegal or otherwise. If the article had gone on to mention even one person or organization that didn't like illegal immigration and/or was trying to abolish birthright citizenship, then I might agree with you, but no such comments appear. Richwales 19:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the parts you cite are the parts that lead me to believe it's not neutral. Regarding our use of it as a source, calling it "neutral" requires interpretation (AKA original research). Do we have a reliable source that calls it "neutral". Of course not. We're attempting to use the article as a primary source, and attempting to interpret the author's usage of this term. That's not a viable solution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

We have a reliable source that indicates in it's title and in the entire article (which is a balanced and neutral considering the person interviewed is not opposed to illegal immigration) - the article defines the term 'Anchor Baby' at the beginning excluding calling it pejorative and further defines it several paragraphs below without qualifier. There is no need to interpret this article. This article is not a primary source of anything. It is a news source like those provided for backing up the term as 'pejorative' (except the blogs). I would consider this source as even more reliable and directly related than other sources I've seen since it clearly defines the term at the outset and within the article. To me it is NPOV and neutral to include both definitions of the term and not just one as the definitive definition - the sources do not indicate this. --Northmeister 20:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Saying that the article is clearly "anti" is, in my view, just as much a case of interpretation / original research as you apparently view my saying that the article is clearly neutral. If I were to say that the quote "We need all those folks to come to our country" proves the article is pro-immigration, would you buy that? (Probably not — not any more than I would buy your claim that the other two quotes prove the article is anti-immigration.) I still believe the article is written neutrally, and that inferring either an anti- or a pro-immigration view would be equally improper. Richwales 21:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

We can't say it's neutral or non-neutral without interpeting it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not whether the 'article' is neutral on the topic or not, that is moot. Under consideration here is whether they use the term pejorative as a qualifier or not. They do not. They instead use the term in their headline, give a definition of the term without using pejorative, give further definition in one line without using pejorative, and provide data and interviews regarding the topics impact including the postive impact on filling jobs not filled. Thus not all reliable sources indicate a qualifier that the term 'anchor baby' is pejorative. It is not more complicated than that; and despite my own personal opinions on the term I must therefore side with my belief in the ideals of Wikipedia and its NPOV standard and favor the inclusion in some form of both usages which the compromise earlier and my attempt to address Brimba's concerns later are written to do. What source says that the term is used 'exclusively' or "definitively" as a pejorative by all? I see no source that is reliable that indicates this. Instead I see numerous sources that indicates both usages. --Northmeister 22:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Not every reference on the planet Earth says that it is round. Does NPOV require that we say that The Earth has been called "round" by some? No, I don't think it does. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether the Earth is round or not is scientific puzzle that has been answered by reputable scientists, astronomers, and our own NASA Astronauts and video footage from the very surface of the moon. Whether the phrase 'anchor baby' is pejorative is a matter of opinion that we as editors should not try to discern. Rather, it is our obligation to remain neutral reporting what reliable sources tell us the use of this 'modern' term indicates. It is analogous to a Scientific Theory, which until proven by repeatable evidence, is not Scientific fact. That is true in this case in regards to the fact that when tested against the sources whether the qualifier 'pejorative' is used exclusively for the term (and thus we should use it as such) it fails in the case of the NBC article in particular. Thus, we can not in your scientific argument, reasonable include a 'definitive' "Anchor baby is a pejorative" without violating the clear method of Science. On the contrary, including both, would allow room for a NPOV article to emerge based on the sources provided, allowing the reader to follow the links and make up their own mind, as you and I already have and in this I suppose we agree. --Northmeister 01:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm worried here that we may be returning to an earlier impasse we had between the two opposing views that (1) a source can be neutral without literally, explicitly stating that it is neutral, vs. (2) if some sources take a position, that position cannot be countered by any other source that does not explicitly, literally articulate a different position, because any attempt to infer that a source is neutral if it doesn't literally say so is interpretation / OR. I feel this second view defies common sense and can't possibly reflect the true intent of WP:OR. Should we, perhaps, try to get a third opinion as to how WP:OR really ought to be applied to this situation? Richwales 23:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

More input is always good, but the Wikipedia:third opinion mechanism isn't ideal seeing as how this dispute involves more than two editors. Since we've already filed an RfC the next step in dispute resolution might be mediation. Can we define what's in dispute? Is it simply whether that NBC article is usable as a source to show that this term isn't always used in a pejorative or derogatory manner? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

We all agree, I believe, that "anchor baby" is at least sometimes a derogatory, pejorative term. Where we disagree is whether or not it is always pejorative, or whether there is a valid basis for saying that some people out there are using it as a neutral colloquialism.

We've come across several articles — the Florida NBC article being one — that some editors feel are clearly neutral. However, other editors either claim these articles really are pejorative in tone, or else they insist we simply can't tell if they're neutral or not (and thus can't use them as sources). Each side seems to feel their position is obvious and based on common sense, and is accusing the other side of engaging in subjective interpretation of sources and asserting that this interpretive process constitutes "original research" in violation of Wikipedia policies.

What I would like to get from a mediation process is some guidance as to how we can determine if a source is truly neutral or simply uselessly vague, and where the dividing line sits between exercising common sense and engaging in private interpretation.

Richwales 00:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable basis for mediation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Although I am confused by Will Bebacks opinion on the matter whereas he accepts the compromise and did so in the past and now does not? Could I get a clear read on this editors stand? Does he support the compromise or not? Second, I'll support whatever steps are necessary to resolve this issue. My main concern is Wikipedia's standards on NPOV when a source is offered that does not use the term pejorative in its description of 'anchor baby' and when other sources indicate similar usage albeit in a context against the phenomenon. It is not my intention to interpret anything. Presenting the facts from reliable sources is clear enough. If the NBC article did not exist and there were no sources indicating the term is not always used pejoratively or with the qualifier 'pejorative' before the expression of the term - then I would support the definitive position that the term is pejorative. But, I can't reasonably do this considering our duty to follow the sources and what they say. It would be misleading to all who read the article if we did not indicate there are sources which do not qualify the term as some editors wish to do exclusively of as if no other reasonable use exists. That said - lets go forth with whatever will clear up this present debate and gain consensus view with well founded sources for this article. I will support whatever consensus arrives at here. --Northmeister 01:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

“Anchor Baby” is a term used to demonize and marginalize a particular class of US Citizens; those who use it almost always do so as a means of verbally stripping certain individuals of their US citizenship, often to the point of dehumanizing them.

It’s use implies either that such children do not deserve US citizenship because they received it illegitimately. I.e. their citizenship is not based upon US law, or the United States Constitution, but is a product of the erroneous actions of an activist US Supreme Court. In this view had the US Supreme Court acted responsibly, and not irresponsibly, these children could be deported as they should be. The speaker implies that while the government might be temporarily obligated to accept the citizenship of these children (until more fair-minded individuals prevail) the speaker as a person has no obligation to condone the Courts actions by accepting that such children are really US citizens, they are simply quasi-citizens until the law can be changed.

Or alternately, the term is used to imply that the parents are running a scam to gain welfare and other social services that should only be available to “real” Americans, and thus robbing/displacing “real” or “legitimate” Americans, and that the children themselves are simply a tool immorally created by the parents to facilitate their criminal activity.

In either or case “Anchor Baby” is used to strip whatever human qualities or personality the children possess and transform them, for the purposes of debate, into objects; and those who would refer to them as “children” as are largly deemed co-collaborators.

Northmeister has in my opinion attempted to cherry pick sources. Webster defines pejorative in this manner:
Function: adjective

having negative connotations; especially : tending to disparage or belittle.

A simple review of the first ten hits returned on either Google or Google news for anchor baby shows that almost every result (independent of Wikipedia) uses or describes the term in a manner that would meet Webster’s definition. Thus the very sentence “Anchor baby has been characterized by some as a derogatory term.” is incorrect and biased as it implies a minority viewpoint.

I too would support mediation in this case. Brimba 16:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Brimba that "anchor baby" clearly originated as a derogatory term, invented by people who blame the Supreme Court of a century ago (see the Wong Kim Ark ruling interpreting the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause) for causing our nation's woes. (BTW and FWIW, I made major contributions to the Wong Kim Ark article and strongly support the stance taken by the Supreme Court in that case.)

My impression of the current situation is that although the term "anchor baby" was certainly originally pejorative — and the majority usage of the expression is still derogatory — some people have started to use "anchor baby" as an innocent neutral colloquialism, without any reference to (or perhaps without any knowledge of) its origins.

I don't think "anchor baby" is even close to being divorced from its derogatory roots yet — unlike, for example, the slang phrase "out of [his/her/your] cotton-pickin' mind", which most people no longer think of as the racial slur it originally was — but I do believe we have reached a point where someone who says "anchor baby" can not indisputably be assumed to be a nativist or an anti-Hispanic bigot. Thus, I would feel better if we would acknowledge both the pejorative and the non-pejorative usages of the term — albeit stating that it is more often used as a pejorative than not. Richwales 17:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I too believe the term is not only wrong but hold your hats - pejorative. I am not arguing from my viewpoint though. I share the same opinion as Richwales above about the topic itself. However, I feel as editors it is our obligation to step back from our preferences (even if they are the mainstream or majority view) and allow the sources to indicate for us what we should include or not. I would propose changing the location of the word 'some', as a compromise resolution here. Thus, "Anchor baby is considered pejorative, although some are beginning to use the term without that meaning." I think this indicates both sources and backs up what we 'all' agree on - that the term is held by the majority as pejorative. --Northmeister 20:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a slightly better phrasing would be: "Anchor baby" is generally considered pejorative [insert references], although some are beginning to use the term without this connotation [insert references]. Remember, though, that we still have an open question here of whether certain sources really are neutral, or whether they're hopelessly vague and can't be classifed as neutral without engaging in an unacceptable amount of interpretation / WP:OR. Richwales 21:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Are there any sources at all (even unreliable sources and/or blogs) that actually claim a change in usage? Over what time period has this change occured? Has the notion of an actual change in usage of this term ever been expressed anywhere by anybody outside of this talk page? --Ramsey2006 22:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Rather than assert a "beginning" of a change in usage — which, on further reflection, I doubt we can get away with without a source that literally, explicitly says as much — it might be better to say something like this: "Anchor baby" is generally considered pejorative [insert references], although some sources use the term without a clearly pejorative connotation [insert references].

If we really can't agree on whether allegedly neutral sources are relevant, perhaps saying something like "without a clearly pejorative connotation" might be a way of letting readers know that such sources exist, give them references to these sources, and let the readers decide for themselves what they think of the bias (or lack of bias) in those sources.

I would again point out that we need to be sure to resolve the question of whether sources such as the Florida NBC-2 story are acceptable as examples of neutral (or, perhaps, not clearly derogatory) usage before we can have any hope of an overall agreement on wording. Richwales 23:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Northmeister gives the following link to support his case that “anchor baby” can be used in a non-pejorative manner. His title is “NY TIMES DOES NOT QUALIFY -Newspaper of record” (Chicago Woman’s Stand Stirs Immigration Debate)The term is used one time in the NYTimes article :

Critics say illegal immigrants have children with the hope that they will be allowed to stay in the United States. “She had an anchor baby, that’s what she did,” said Mike McGarry, acting director of the Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform. “If she was so concerned about her child, she’d take him with her.”

First I would not call that neutral, the speaker is treating the child as an object “She had an anchor baby, that’s what she did”; however, that is not the point I am making here. If you google Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform, you find a reprinted article titled “Illegal Aliens and American Medicine” By Madeleine Pelner Cosman, Ph.D., Esq., Spring, 2005 The Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 10 Number 1 - Spring 2005 [23] with a subsection titled “Anchor Baby”. In it you have statements about Anchor babies bankrupting the US health system, a complaint about the Latino population increasing in Stockton, California, so forth and so on, with the last part being an indictment of illegal immigrants for bring tuberculosis, chagas disease, leprosy, dengue fever, and of all things polio into the US. Please see the controversy section on Lou Dobbs for a short discussion of Madeleine Cosman and her work. Concerning polio, the CDC states “The last case of indigenous polio in the Americas was reported from Peru in 1991.”

In short this is why we do not do our own research. Northmeister’s neutral source is an individual who clearly hold non-neutral views (this is further backed up by the overall content of the Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform web site). If we cite his statement in the NYTimes’ as an example the term “anchor baby” being used in a non-pejorative manner, it would clearly damage Wikipedia’s credibility. Brimba 00:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Northmeister's neutral source? Do our own research? All I ever stated and I will repeat it again, is that the sources I provide (regardless of their political bias) indicate that the term is being used descriptively and not being used in such a manner clear pejoratives like "nigger" (which was brought up earlier by another editor). In no way do my sources indicate that the term is being used to slur the children themselves, rather that it is being used in a descriptive manner. The political opinions of the users are obviously going to be for immigration reform - as those opposed will not use the term (analogous to 'illegal immigrant' and 'undocumented worker') - an thus you can object from here to kingdom come to their political views but we at Wikipedia must always be careful to provide the facts as they exist, not interpret those facts as anything but what they show and let the reader decide for themselves. What I see occurring with the sources here is a game of interpretation - where if the article does not use the term 'pejorative' then it must consider the term pejorative. Nonesense. WE DON'T KNOW - and because there are numerous examples (and I will list more below from the halls of Congress) - and therefore we can not accurately state that the term is pejorative on the basis of two sources (The Souder source is questionable and I state so why below as I do for Websters as I could not verify the source as accurate) when there are sources that DO NOT USE THE TERM PEJORATIVE - hence at the very least I must insist that if we continue to have no give from your side of the issue that the article state clearly that not all use the term PEJORATIVE in their article and that clearly indicates the the term is used by Congressman and other high officials of government - see the next statement for more. --Northmeister 01:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the official proceedings of the United States Congress are of note and the testimony of United States Congressmen are also of note and that pejorative terms used in such testimony would be frowned upon and not considered helpful to any Congressman's cause and public image - I'll present these sources:

• "Testimony before the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, & Claims - "Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak before this committee. It is estimated that in the year 2000 there were 228,000 illegal aliens in the State of Georgia... The average annual cost per child k-12 is $7,161.00 and exceeds $109 billion annually for anchor babies. ...I strongly believe any immigration reform proposal to be considered this fall must contain language which addresses birthright citizenship, such as that proposed in H.R. 698, the "Citizenship Reform Act."...Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to share the problems that Georgia is experiencing with illegal immigration with your committee. I look forward to working with you towards immigration reform in the coming months as this issue is definitely a priority for my constituents in the first district of Georgia."[24]
• "Anchor Babies (H.R. 1567): Denies automatic citizenship to American born infants of illegal immigrants. Some illegal immigrants use the birth of their child to “anchor” them in the US – hoping that the baby’s automatic U.S. citizenship will help them stay in the country permanently. (Rep. Brady a co-sponsor)"[25]
• "The plan would grant an immediate amnesty for nearly all 12 – 20 million illegal aliens who will get legal status for residence and jobs (with assurance of green cards no later than 13 years); Tripling of the rate of chain migration of extended family from around 250,000 a year to around 750,000 a year for about a decade; and New flows of 400,000 temporary foreign workers each year, bringing their families and having anchor babies who will be given U.S. citizenship."[26]
• "“This is one of the biggest issues facing America today, because what we do now will impact the security of our children and grandchildren,” said King. “It’s clear any immigration reform passed by this Congress must include internal enforcement, and not only secure our borders but remove the job and anchor baby magnets that draw four million illegal aliens to break our laws to get into this country every year.”[27]
• "Hundreds of Northern Californians have contacted me to express their grave concerns with the measure, and I share their concerns. ...Among other concerns, the bill also does not address the problem of "anchor babies," or children born to illegal immigrants. ...We are the only major nation in the world that grants birthright citizenship. Failure to reform this policy virtually guarantees that we will face these problems again in the future."

[28]

• "5.Fails to Address Anchor Babies -- For a so-called 'comprehensive' fix, this legislation fails to address the major problem of illegal immigrants crossing our borders to have children that become automatic U.S. citizens."[29]
• Congressman Miller Cosponsors Bill to Deny Citizenship to Anchor Babies Currently, babies born on U.S. soil to illegal aliens automatically become U.S. citizens. Congressman Miller has joined more than 40 of his colleagues in again cosponsoring the Birthright Citizenship Act, which would deny citizenship at birth to children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or legal permanent resident aliens. Specifically, this bill requires a child to have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen, a legal permanent resident alien, or an alien performing active service in our armed forces in order to gain birthright citizenship. [30]
• LINK to Congress Mark Souder (its a recording) - where he uses the term without qualifier [31] - Nowhere that I can find does he qualify the term. This source is therefore wrong or needs clarification with and exact link to the source.

The two newspapers (San Diego) and (North Country Times) use the term pejorative as a qualifier through their staff writers. Are we to assume that because two newspapers indicate the term is pejorative as qualifier - that it is therefore pejorative? Are these two sources quantifiable in regards to the entire usage of the term 'anchor baby' as opposed to the NBC source that did not feel it necessary to use the term 'pejorative' at all. For what reason? Anyone knows. Is it because they feel the term is pejorative and therefore decided to title their article with it (getting through copyediters), then define Anchor Baby itself without the qualifier 'pejorative' (getting through copy editors perusal)? The entirety of the Congressman above using the term as descriptive, without qualifier, and in the course in one case of an actual government hearing - can be reasonably inferred (like the NBC article) that the term is common among many, that it is not being used pejoratively by all, that it is used most often by those opposed to illegal immigration and wishing immigration reform (again reason would indicate this as well) and that it is not considered by those Congressman or the committee as a pejorative in use considering the context of the expression. What we have is a phrase 'anchor baby' that has no history beyond two sources and many blogs (that are against immigration reform as vehemently as those who favor it). Whereas we have a plethora of example shown above, in the sources provided earlier in this page, in the NBC piece that not only defines 'anchor baby' itself but uses the phrase in its title - that use the term as if it had no connotation beyond its descriptive use to describe a phenomenon occurring which some wish to address with legislation as in the Congressman's case. I can't imagine that similar treatment would be given to the word 'nigger' which is clearly pejorative and demeaning due to its use in history - in a congressional hearing, as a congressional press release; as a title of news article et. al. I find the term pejorative (at odds with the Congressman and the NBC editors who let that article pass without change - knowing something of the editorial process myself); but again my allegiance to Wikipedia standards means I have to weigh all the sources side with them on the matter. They clearly and reasonably say in no uncertain terms that those who use the term do not consider it pejorative and those opposed to the term consider it pejorative and will describe it as such. Thus, I again implore this community to consider all the evidence and sources provided and compromise to include both definitions in the article for WP:NPOV and accuracy as to the articles title itself - mediation or no. --Northmeister 01:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that quoting the words of Iowa's Steve "we do this with livestock all the time" [32] King to show that the term "anchor baby" is not pejorative and dehumanizing passes the laugh test. --Ramsey2006 04:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Section break

OK, I think we may be in danger of straying off the topic again. Let me put forth the following to everyone again, in a way that I think will focus us on what I think is the real point at issue. Consider the following potential wording:

"Anchor baby" is generally considered pejorative [insert references], although some sources use the term without a clearly pejorative connotation [insert references].

Assuming for the moment, for the sake of discussion, that at least one source can be identified which we can agree is not clearly pejorative in its use of the term "anchor baby", would you be willing to accept the above? If not, what do you find unacceptable in this sentence? Again, assume for the moment that at least one source can in fact be found which is not clearly pejorative — i.e., a source which either uses "anchor baby" in an obviously neutral way, or which is vague enough in the way it uses the term that common sense isn't enough to make plain what the intent of the writer (or of the person or group being reported on) really is.

If we can all agree that this sentence is OK under these conditions, then we can and should continue on to look at each of the allegedly neutral references and decide whether each of them is (1) clearly pejorative after all, (2) clearly neutral, or (3) too unclear to allow a reasonable person to say which it is. If we can identify at least one artic le that does not fall into the "clearly pejorative" classification, we can (and should) proceed to add the above sentence to the article, citing the reference(s) in question in the second half of the sentence.

How does that sound? Richwales 06:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the formulation:

• ...although some sources use the term without a clearly pejorative connotation...

I don't see how that's different from:

• ...although some Wikipedia editors interpret some sources to use the term without a clearly pejorative connotation...

I'd accept language like:

• ...although it is also used in official documents
• ...although it is used as the standard term by parties on all sides of the immigration debate
• ...although it is also characterized as a neutral term

Those are the only ways that I can see to avoid original research. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would agree (with Richwales using Will Beback's wording), but not if it’s a single case, say if we took a wide sample (using Google) and it showed 20% of the usage was neutral, then it would be fine by me. My reasoning being, if I have $1.00 and I spend .95 or .97 out of that dollar, I have as a practical matter spent a dollar. If someone confronts me and says “did you spent that dollar?” I would be disingenuous to reply “No, I only spent some of it.” Besides, relying upon a single source would violate NPOV, see WP:NPOV#Undue weight.

Northmeister said he could not find Webster’s online, so here is the link [33] #1 is noun: a pejorative word or phrase, #2 adjective: having negative connotations; especially : tending to disparage or belittle. Does anyone have an objection to using this definition for the purposes of our own discussion, the discussion we are having here on this page amongst the editors? It should be noted that under it the N-word would be an extreme example, and not representative of pejorative usage in most cases. Brimba 07:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

(RFC): Let me add another voice to those sayingn that it should be listed as perjorative. I'm not going to weigh in on the wording, but I think it needs to go in there. -- Rei 17:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think there is any dispute here over the fact that "anchor baby" is, at the very least, usually (or perhaps even almost always) pejorative. I believe the disagreement we're having right now is over whether the term is ever used by anyone as an ordinary, neutral slang expression. (Not whether you would ever use it that way, but whether any other people are using it that way.) Some sources appear (at least in the eyes of some of us) to be using the expression neutrally, but others disagree and insist on saying that "anchor baby" is pejorative, period, end of discussion. You might be able to help us if you could look at the discussion we've been having up to this point, read the various references which some people have posted, and let us know which — if any — of these sources could, in your view, reasonably be understood as using "anchor baby" as a matter-of-fact, neutral shorthand way of describing the fact that some children are born in the US to illegal immigrants, but without any implication on the part of the speaker or reporter that it's wrong for the parents to have had their children born in the US or for the law to grant the children automatic citizenship at birth. Richwales 17:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I did look through the discussion, and that was largely why I didn't want to get involved on the issue of wording  ;) I simply wanted to reinforce that it should be labeled as pejorative. As to whether it is ever used as a neutral expression, I think that's a red herring. Essentially any common pejorative will have sometimes been used as a neutral expression, even in the media. I don't see how that's relevant to the article. If it were common to use it in a different manner, then that would be a different story. -- Rei 18:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"Anchor baby" is generally considered pejorative [insert references], although some sources use the term without a clearly pejorative connotation [insert references]. - I'll support this sentence. Rei, there is no red herring in this dish - its simple - the sources do not use the term 'pejorative' to describe the phrase 'anchor baby' - There are ONLY two that do - talk about undue weight. Many do not. Its that simple - requiring no interpretation beyond observing that fact. Someone saying the article is for or against immigration gets into the territory of OR. --Northmeister 19:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of things that any given source doesn't say, and lots of words that any given source doesn't use. Focussing on one of them gives it undue weight. --Ramsey2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramsey2006 (talk • contribs) 13:13, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Which is why interpreting a page is OR territory. We observe, don't see Pejorative used, see the 'anchor baby' phrase used and described without pejorative. So we report this, without opinion. It's that simple. That's NPOV. The overwhelming amount of sources do not use pejorative, and neither should Wikipedia in the definitive, which is why Is support the present or compromise langauge now under consideration. --Northmeister 23:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's stick to what reliable sources actually say, and not attempt to report on what they don't say. --Ramsey2006 03:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Your arguing that 'pejorative' is absolutely the way the term 'anchor baby' is described. You want Wikipedia to do the same. I've checked the sources and can only find (besides blogs) a couple rare instances where they use 'pejorative' to describe the phrase 'anchor baby' - all others do not. You then argue that the articles are biased - says who and if we are to interpret articles that would be by definition OR as you say. Hence, if the articles listed do not use 'pejorative' neither should Wikipedia in the absolute. That's being factual and NPOV. Giving both sides is the right thing to do. This isn't a blog. --Northmeister 18:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I move that we close this RFC and simply vote on the options laid out. I will support the consensus view, regardless of the outcome. I've already stated my opinon several times and would support the present or presntly proposed sentence. This discussion seems to be going in circles. Lets try to move forward with this. --Northmeister 18:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Much as I'd love to do that, I honestly don't think we can. We still seem to have a significant disagreement over which (if any) proposed sources could be used to back up a claim that "anchor baby" is sometimes used without a clear pejorative intent. Taking action without clearing up some fundamental disagreements over how to interpret and apply key WP core values could very likely be a waste of time. We've already seen how a single editor — who, for whatever reason (or even for no reason at all), didn't participate in the discussion — can just jump in and blow away a carefully crafted consensus, asserting that some fundamental Wikipedia principle has been overlooked (something no group of editors, however large, have any right to agree to do).

I personally think the best (and maybe the only) thing we can do right now is to go carefully through each of the proposed "non-pejorative" or "neutral" sources that have been presented so far and see which (if any) of these sources we can get a consensus on. In order to use the compromise wording, after all, we're going to need at least one — and preferably more than one — source that we can honestly say isn't clearly derogatory. And if we really, truly cannot come up with even one source that some reasonable people might accept as possibly neutral, then maybe this really does mean we need to say the term is unquestionably derogatory across the board after all.

Richwales 20:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. How shall we do this? I've stated my opinion often enough as have others. There are many sources provided above - including the Congressman using the term in the hearing. The NBC article is the clearest in my opinion in defining the term, quoting a proponent of 'immigration rights', and keeping to a reporting style rather than op-ed. There are others. Some are for immigration reform and against the 'anchor baby' phenomenon occuring or what not. My main concern is and will be this: Will Wikipedia simply report the facts - without bias to either side - allowing the reader to make up their own mind - thus staying NPOV or will we resort to achieving bias (whether I agree or not or anyone else) by selecting words like 'pejorative' to alter the article from neutrality to negativity regarding the term that some if not many on the immigration reform side use in a descriptive setting. I personally don't like the phrase, but that doesn't matter. In moving this along, I will go with the consensus here - even if that consensus is opposed to my observations and opinion on the matter. I see this going in circles - we reach a consensus and then another editor jumps in (that you pointed out) and then we have the same questions over and over again. So, I'll go along with what you propose as to how we will discuss these sources, so we can resolve this matter. I'm afraid that the opposing side to this discussion (those opposed to compromise to include both definitions) is absolute in their opinion and will not truly engage in discussion - thus my observations. I've tried several times to accomodate their view (see above) and to no affect. Not sure what else to do. --Northmeister 23:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Another possible solution, though rather clumsy, would be:

• Anchor baby has been characterized as a derogatory term, although it has also been used without being so characterized.

That's verifiable and neutral, and doesn't require any original research. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not - I think your on to something. If we can work with the awkward sentence above - that might work to show what the sources show and be NPOV. --Northmeister 05:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That would work for me too, as long as the page opened with that and it was not buried down in the text somewhere.

The central questions that we are contending over is: has the term “anchor baby” taken on a new, less pejorative/derogatory meaning -has it left its roots and gone mainstream as simply a descriptive term? Secondly, to what degree can we describe it as such?

My contention still is that its meaning has not changed. That as with any rule, there are scattered exception, but they are few and far between, and do not constitute any morphing of the meaning. It is just as pejorative/derogatory today as it ever was or has been. Brimba 05:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with it being at the beginning. Although we might improve the sentence or put it into two for readability. Richwales, Ramsey, or others what do you think? --Northmeister 15:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

How about something like this in the opening sentence (I'm underlining my proposed additions or changes for clarity here):

Anchor baby or jackpot baby are terms (generally considered pejorative) used to refer to a child born in the United States to illegal aliens or other non-citizens. . . .

and then the following later in the introduction (possibly as the second paragraph of the intro):

Although anchor baby has generally been characterized as a derogatory term [include references here], it has also been used without being so characterized [include references here].

Richwales 15:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. --Northmeister 20:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I've never met a Hispanic-American who has not viewed the term as anything other than pejorative.--Jersey Devil 15:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyway the suggestion by RichWales of "Anchor baby or jackpot baby are terms (generally considered pejorative) used to refer to a child born in the United States to illegal aliens or other non-citizens..." sounds fine to me only that I don't think that "generally considered pejorative" should be closed by brackets.--Jersey Devil 18:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that although I think pretty much everyone agrees that "anchor baby" is at least usually pejorative, we've found a few sources (news reports and such) that appear (at least in the opinion of some of us) to have adopted the term as a neutral colloquialism. We've been having an intense discussion for the past couple of weeks — and a tireless "edit war" before that — between those who demand that "anchor baby" be labelled as always pejorative, period, without reservation, and those who insist that at least some degree of neutral usage of the term exists and must be acknowledged in the interests of WP:NPOV. I personally doubt we're likely to see an end to the debate (or the edit war) unless we can come up with some sort of formula that recognizes both the dominant pejorative usage and the admittedly limited (though not non-existent) neutral usage. You could help us out here, if you have the time and the inclination, by going back over the discussion we've been having here on the talk page, checking out the various news sources that have been proposed as neutral (or at least not clearly pejorative), and commenting on whether you believe any of these sources are in fact using "anchor baby" in a non-confrontational, non-derogatory fashion (regardless of whether you, personally, are pleased by the term being used in this way or not). Richwales 18:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reworked the lead to align more or less with Richwales’ proposal. I have moved the references up to the fist usage so as to comply with WP:V (All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.) as this is where the reader would expect the citations. I reworded the first sentence, thus eliminating the need for brackets. The sentence “Although anchor baby has generally been characterized as a derogatory term it has also been used without being so characterized.” does not yet end with any citations, as I am not aware of which ones we are currently planning on including. Hope this helps in moving things along. Brimba 04:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I also flipped the second and third paragraphs as the sentence “Although anchor baby has generally been characterized as a derogatory term it has also been used without being so characterized.” Seemed to fit better that way. Brimba 04:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I rearranged that first sentence a bit, because it sounded to me like "generally considered pejorative" was being applied to the child's parents (!!) instead of to the term "anchor baby". Also, I reworded the sentence that included the phrase "resident alien", since that term is sometimes used in the US to refer to lawful permanent residents ("green card" holders) rather than temporary or illegal residents.

My wife pointed out something to me today that might be useful to consider here. When we evaluate the sources that some of us think might not characterize the term "anchor baby" as pejorative, we should keep the source's intent in mind. Although many people will certainly insist on taking offence at the term "anchor baby", there may be other people who honestly aren't thinking this way — and have picked up the expression as a convenient shorthand without realizing that others might be offended by it — and who, not surprisingly, won't bother to state explicitly that they consider the term to be neutral because it honestly hasn't occurred to them (yet) that it's offensive to some. I know some will insist that we have no right to try to figure out a source's intent without crossing the line into original research, and if we get terminally hung up on that point again, it might be worth our while to seek opinions on this issue from other, more seasoned Wikipedia editors. Richwales 06:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)