Talk:Anchor baby/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

New changes

These edits by me remove most of the contentious material discussed above, and all primary sources except in cases where they are also backed up by reliable secondary sources. I left in the Malkin quote due to Richwales' comments above. I also rewrote some of the material previously in the "Controversy" section, with additional sources. It now explains in some detail what benefits having a citizen child have, as well as the interpretation of the data provided by PolitiFact. All of it is attributed. I'm happy to discuss the changes, as well as any others that should be made.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to discuss the changes, but Richmondian's edit surreptitiously inserted his own bias as well as material challenged by three different editors. In the very least the pre-edit war version will have to be restored, as his changes are unacceptable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the lead sentence back into conformance with info in the cited supporting source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I made some improvements (at least, I think they're improvements) to the lede paragraph. I expanded on the last sentence so that it doesn't just say that family reunification is hard (implying that the whole "anchor baby" idea is bogus). I changed a couple parts of the "Statistics" section where the phrase "anchor babies" was being used without justification based on the cited sources. I still seriously question whether the "Statistics" section belongs at all, since this article is about the expression "anchor baby" and not about the pros and cons of illegal immigration or birthright citizenship. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll say that even more strongly. I do not see any proper place in this article for the "Statistics" section. This material would probably fit somewhere in the article about illegal immigration to the United States, but it doesn't belong in an article dealing with the expression "anchor baby" — any more than statistics about birth, welfare, or crime rates amongst African-Americans would belong in the article about the "N-word". If anyone else decides to be bold at this point and remove this section entirely, I will wholeheartedly support them. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Your objection to statistics was that the sources didn't use the words "anchor baby", wasn't it? The article is about Anchor Babies. This isn't about the term Anchor Babies. We're not wiktionary or doubletongued dictionary.... Richmondian (talk) 06:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

As the article currently stands, it is not a general discussion about "anchor babies" — it's about the origins and use of the term "anchor baby". Just as the existing article "Nigger" is about that particular word and not about the people referred to (pejoratively or otherwise) thereby. Material (such as the statistics under discussion) which deals with the phenomenon of illegal immigrants to the US having children born in the US, and the social / economic / legal implications of this phenomenon, should go somewhere else, such as Illegal immigration to the United States, Birthright citizenship in the United States, and/or Birth tourism. To be sure, if there really were a consensus to broaden the scope of this article to include an in-depth discussion of the phenomenon, then yes, the statistics would probably have a proper place here — but IMO, such a change of scope would be no more appropriate than if the article on the N-word were to be broadened into a general treatment of social attitudes in the US towards people of African origin. Richwales (talk · contribs) 15:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I made some possibly controversial changes to the first couple of sentences in the lede paragraph, in an attempt to find a middle ground between those who do and don't insist that "anchor baby" is indisputably derogatory, while still remaining true to the cited sources. I would urge people on both sides to at least make a good-faith effort to see if they can live with something like this, since the alternative could be a protracted edit war. I also removed the "See also" links to Asylum shopping and Canadians of convenience; even if people think some of the "See also" links are sufficiently relevant to the general subject, these two (IMO) certainly are not. Richwales (talk · contribs) 16:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Great start, Rich. You are certainly right on about the article's scope, and was determined above, Richmondian's statistics are inappropriate. I made some changes to your wording; I removed the mention of jus soli as it doesn't appear in the source, and also removed the phrase "it has been alleged" as this is a bit weasely. I don't see any real reason to remove the phrase "derogatory", as it's in the cited sources, but in the spirit of compromise I think this settles the issue. What do you think about the material I had added from PolitiFact? This was removed by Richmondian without comment.Cúchullain ^t/c 23:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I see that the prior assertion, "via jus soli, can facilitate ...", and the current assertion, "supposedly can facilitate ...", are both supported by a cited source which says, "... who will later sponsor citizenship for family members who are still abroad." Both article assertion versions appear to fail verification in the cited supporting source. How about saying, "can later facilitate immigration", instead? That would better reflect the cited supporting source. 01:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The source does include the material you quote for "anchor child". It also says "anchor babies" are "said to be a device by which a family can find legal foothold in the US, since those children are automatically allowed to choose American citizenship." The "supposedly" was intended to reflect "said to be", the point being that there's a big gap between what these babies are said to be able to do, versus the real benefits.Cúchullain ^t/c 21:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I also removed the challenged statistics section per the various discussion above yet again. At this point the continued replacement of challenged material is simply edit warring and tendentious editing.Cúchullain ^t/c 21:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Richmondian revert-warred the material back again. This needs to stop, it's becoming very disruptive. To reiterate what has been said repeatedly by various editors above, the issue with the material is that it's not relevant to an article on the term "anchor baby", as it's just a bunch of random statistics about illegal immigration in general. The burden of evidence is on the one adding the challenged material to defend it and find consensus for it. The claim that the change has been agreed to "per talk" is disingenuous, as no one else has agreed to it, while several have objected to it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Statistics about anchor babies

Guys, the concern raised by Cuchu Richwales and Will BeBack was that the statistics section did not have links to articles using the term "anchor baby". Seemed like shaky logic to me but that's what he wanted so to reach concensus, I did some work, which took some time:

• I located other material in the article that should be removed on the same grounds.
• I did the legwork to gather sources for statistics about anchor babies that used the term.

So the concern has been dealt with. I did my part here and I'd appreciate if others would cease edit-warring once the concern has been handled. Richmondian (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

No, the concern with your additions was that they were not relevant to the subject, they're just a bunch of statistics about illegal immigration, not about the term "anchor baby". Your most recent edit was almost exactly the same as the version that was challenged by several different editors above, and was inappropriate for the exact same reasons. If you revert it back in again it's very likely you will be blocked from editing.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Rich and Will seem to think the issue is the term being used, Cuchu. Read discussion above pls. Richmondian (talk) 00:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

What all three of us said, pretty clearly, was that your statistics section wasn't relevant to the article as the sources you used didn't discuss the article topic, which is the term "anchor baby". Your most recent version was virtually identical to the version you initially added two months ago, and no one has agreed with adding it in the intervening time. You're just bludgeoning the conversation now, it's time to move on.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I could easily go along with secondary sources that talk about how the magnitude and cost of illegal immigration (as supported by statistics) contributes toward public resentment against "anchor babies". But the key point, in my view, is that the material that goes into this article needs to specifically discuss (not simply use in passing) the term "anchor baby", and/or clarify why the overall situation has created an atmosphere of frustration and ill will which has made this expression popular amongst some segment of the public. Merely citing statistics about illegal immigration (even if the term "anchor baby" is mentioned in the sources along with the statistics) fails to clarify the connection between the statistics and the perceived problem, and/or would be putting Wikipedia in the position of arguing the case against "anchor babies" (and that would violate WP:NPOV, and probably also WP:SYNTH and other policies). Can you, perhaps, find some source reporting a politician or commentator who has said something along the general lines of "such-and-so study reveals X-number-of children born to illegals last year — which, according to this-and-that other study, cost hard-working American people $Y zillion dollars in medical care and welfare payments; this is an outrage; we need to change our laws and deport all these illegal aliens along with their anchor babies"? Richwales (talk · contribs) 16:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

How is including statistics POV? This is probably the most POV article I've ever read -- "derogatory" and "assumed" and a bunch of quotes from people calling other people racists mereley for uttering the word "anchor baby". In contrast statistics don't impose any POV at all. They are simple facts about anchor babies as described by reliable sources. Richmondian (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC).

No, they're simple facts about illegal immigration you're trying to bring together randomly to advance a point of view. And it's the sources that call the term "derogatory", we're just reporting what they say as accurately as possible.Cúchullain ^t/c 23:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Randomly? These are by no means random statistics, Cuchu. And I don't see how the stats push a point-of-view. If they were different numbers would they push a different point-of-view? They're just numbers. Cold hard facts. Richmondian (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

"Synthesis by juxtaposition" has come into play a number of times recently as being an implicit part of WP:SYNTH. As I understand it, a reliable secondary source tying factoids together is needed in order to justify placing them in close proximity to one another in an article (particularly if one of the factoids is raw uninterpreted info like, e.g., a quotation from a primary source or, possibly, raw statistical information). In the absence of such a source tying the factoids together, placing them in proximity to one another can be regarded as combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Personally, I think that this ought to be covered more explicitly in the relevant policy page, and have said so here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what we have -- articles about anchor babies including the statistics Richmondian (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

proposal

Seems half the trouble here is whether this is about "the term" or "the babies". I propose we move this article to U.S. Born Children of Illegal Immigrants "Terminology" (e.g. Anchor baby could be a section in the new article.

Richmondian (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. This existing page is (IMO) already mostly on point and should not be renamed. The new material you want to add should fit very properly in other existing pages, such as Illegal immigration to the United States, Birthright citizenship in the United States, and/or Birth tourism. Richwales (talk · contribs) 18:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. The "trouble" seems to be coming from only one corner in particular. An article of the proposed title would have an entirely different scope, and the term "anchor baby" is notable enough to be worth discussing on its own. Additionally, an article of the proposed title would be little more than a COATRACK for information that would be better dealt with at already existing pages such as the ones mentioned by Richwales.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support . Solves multiple issues in one go. There's no article that captures this topic. Richmondian (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support. A list of notable people would both be verifiable and encyclopedic on it's own merit. It could also improve the quality of discussion here by illustrating whether the criteria / definition of an anchor baby in this article are based in reality as well as theoretical. Despite the potential for it being a hornet's nest if someone notable wasn't enthusiastic about being identified as such, there are existing policies and frameworks to deal with that problem should it arise. I strongly support this whether it's called Notable Anchor Babies or U.S. Born Children of Illegal Immigrants Bmike8 (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Bloomberg/NumbersUSA reference

This reference does not support the related text in the article. IMO, a reference "verifying" a statement made twice, in an article on a controversial topic, ought to verify. Otherwise the statement or reference should be replaced, or both removed. Overjive (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Plato's Republic reference

I have searched the citation in Pakauff's recent entry and I find no significant support for the added material. I would revert it myself except that I want it to be done in a welcoming fashion and Pakauff appears to be a new editor, so he has no talk page. Anyone a pro at this? Overjive (talk) 06:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

It was a bunch of made up nonsense. Thanks for pointing it out.Cúchullain ^t/c 20:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected again

I've semi-protected this article for a month, after obvious vandalism from four different IP's within the last 12 hours (starting shortly after an earlier semi-protection expired). The disruptive editing in this case was plain and simple vandalism, and not anything even looking like a content dispute, so I have no qualms about taking admin action in this case despite my already-established involvement with this article. Any admin who does believe I acted inappropriately is, of course, welcome to undo my action without fear of my taking umbrage. — Richwales (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I support semi-protection here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Colbert

This WP article was reference in last night's episode of Colbert Report--should this be noted somehow on the talk page? --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

There's template:online source for media mentions.   Will Beback  talk  20:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

See e.g., http://mediamatters.org/blog/201112130023 Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That seems pretty trivial.   Will Beback  talk  00:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Dispute again over whether the term is derogatory/pejorative?

There has been another effort made to remove material from the lead section which asserts the term in question is derogatory and pejorative. My first impulse was to revert, but I'd feel more comfortable if we could get more editors involved and discuss the matter. I am inclined to revert if a true discussion does not happen quickly. I am also a bit concerned about the deletion of an inline citation to a source, but since the deleted source is material from the US government (basically a primary source), I'd feel better if a good secondary source can be found; I assume there ought to be plenty of good secondary sources out there discussing the issue of how much having a US-born child does (or does not) help an alien parent get legal residency. Thoughts, anybody? Richwales (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I was tempted to jump in and revert per WP:BRD, but stayed my hand and comment here without reverting. The edit changed "The term is generally used as a derogatory reference to the supposed role of the child" to "The term is sometimes used to refer to the fact that the child", despite a cited source (a New York times article) which is quoted in the citing footnote as saying, "anchor baby: a derogatory term for a child born in the United States to an immigrant. Since these children automatically qualify as American citizens, they can later act as a sponsor for other family members." The edit also removed the characterization of the term as pejorative from the lead sentence. Given the cited quote mentioned above, I'd say that the characterization should stay unless there is differing opinion from a cited source with similar weight to the NY Times article cited and quoted in the article. Perhaps common usage has changed in the last six years. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the undiscussed change on the grounds of altering cited material. I agree with both of your comments on the issue. Rich, on the primary source issue, there were formerly multiple sources discussing that, but they were all reverted out by this same editor here. Perhaps it's time to replace them.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for anything that fulfils the letter and the spirit of NPOV. Since (as I understand it) the long-standing consensus is that this term really is intentionally (or uncaringly) derogatory ­— as substantiated by numerous reliable sources — my assumption is that the article should read accordingly. Obviously, if there is a significant view (backed up with reliable sources) that denies the term is derogatory and put it forth as being neutral, NPOV says that should be acknowledged as well. Richwales (talk) 00:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like this has come back up again. By way of trying to head off an edit war, I reiterate what was said above that the fact that the term is pejorative is clearly sourced, and removing mention of that contradicts what the sources say. I'm happy to discuss this further, but edit warring is not acceptable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If this person continues to remove the word in question and refuses to discuss the matter, I would support a block for edit-warring, and/or a semi-protection of the article. I'm hesitant to take such action on my own, though, lest I be accused of violating WP:INVOLVED. — Richwales (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Not everybody considers 'anchor baby' to be pejorative and that should be mentioned. That might help stave off an edit-war. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources which document this claim, then we may have something to work with. As it stands, the sources currently cited in the article clearly indicate the term is derogatory, and I'm not comfortable with removing this from the opening sentence without additional sources (in which case we'll need to rework the text to explain that some people consider "anchor baby" derogatory or pejorative, while others do not). — Richwales (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in the article. I got here by way of something else and saw your comment about blocking, etc. I was just making a suggestion to offset an edit war. There are sources out there, though. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

also, the term applies to the children of illegal immigrants and there are plenty of reliable sources that confirm that.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-04-28/politics/anchor.baby_1_immigration-fight-illegal-immigrants-anchor-babies?_s=PM:POLITICS

The parents are illegal and the child is the anchor. Very often the children don't think the term is pejorative. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/08/opinion/la-oe-lee-anchor-baby-20100908/2

They think it's a good thing. They're saving their parents. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The reliable sources included in the article specifically confirm that (1) the term is used for the child of any immigrant, legal or illegal and (2) it is pejorative. These are important points. Perhaps some people restrict the slur only to the children of illegal immigrants, or don't intend it to be derogatory, but others do. It looks like this article may have become the victim of sockpuppetry; at any rate the edit warring is inappropriate. It might be worth bringing this to WP:RFPP.Cúchullain ^t/c 04:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

People who are here legally don't need anchor babies. Also the article should reflect the underlying problem that causes the need to produce a child on American soil. These people are trying to get a better life. Their governments encourage emigration to the U.S. because the governments don't want to provide necessary services to the poor. So they help make it easier by providing identity cards that the U.S. banks will accept to open an account. Also, many state DMV's take them now. The U.S. politicians of both parties get contributions from corporations, farming conglomerates, chicken farming congloms, etc. and the politicians make these illegals eligible for government services so the "employer" can skip paying social security tax and workman's compensation. So when Juan gets his hand cut off on the chicken chopping production line, the employer takes Juan to the local ER where the taxpayer picks up the bill. The whole system is corrupt. The only saving grace is the anchor baby. It's the only chance an illegal immigrant has to provide a better life for not just themselves but for the anchor baby. Calling it pejorative is just a political move to shut down the conversation that might be used to improve the lives of the anchor baby's parents by holding the politicians and employers liable for their exploitation of Juan. Both left and right wingers want to keep Juan coming here and dropping anchor babies because the promise of the baby's citizenship helps keep Juan going to work everyday. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, it doesn't matter in the slightest what you think, it only matters what the sources say. As we've pointed out several times now, the current wording accurately reflects what the sources say. Additionally, this talk page is for discussion improvements to the article; it's not a forum for you to air your personal grievances with the immigration system "here".Cúchullain ^t/c 16:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The page has been temporarily semi-protected as a result of the IP/new account edit warring and POV pushing. If (when) this happens again in the future I suggest taking it back to WP:RFPP.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• New source: Anchor Baby: A Term Redefined as a Slur By JULIA PRESTON Published: December 8, 2011 The New York Times   Will Beback  talk  20:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The above article is interesting — and perhaps also problematic, since it suggests that at least some presumably educated and informed people do not in fact understand or agree that "anchor baby" is flatly offensive / derogatory / pejorative. What I think we really need to find is a source which specifically discusses the various public reactions to the term. — Richwales (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't strike me as problematic - the point of the article is that once the issue was raised to the editors, the dictionary update its definition to make it clear the term is disparaging and offensive. That fact only becomes clearer the more sources turn up. Btw here's the AHD entry[1] Both should be worked into the article, as should some of the above-mentioned material that was unilaterally reverted out. I'll work on this when I get the chance.Cúchullain ^t/c 04:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

"People who are here legally don't need anchor babies. Also the article should reflect the underlying problem that causes the need to produce a child on American soil." This actually misses what I believe is (or is supposed to be) the point of this article. This is not a general article on the politics of illegal immigration in the US. Rather, it is an article about the phrase "anchor baby". Discussion of the pros/cons of illegal immigration, or the reasons why it happens — or, more precisely, discussion of what reliable secondary sources say about illegal immigration — should go in articles such as Illegal immigration to the United States, Birth tourism, and possibly Birthright citizenship in the United States. Material in general about illegal immigration (or opposition thereto) doesn't belong in an article about the phrase "anchor baby", any more than general discussion about the history of slavery or the civil rights movement in the US would belong in the article about the N-word. A limited amount of material explaining public irritation over illegal immigration and related issues, as a background for understanding the origin of this and other pejorative expressions for the people involved, may be in order here, as long as it is solidly backed up by citations to reliable sources tying said concerns to the use of the phrase and is not simply original research, synthesis, or blog material. — Richwales (talk) 07:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The term is not always pejorative. Maybe a separate section on the "pejorativeness" of the term should be utilized. 71.255.83.222 (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The sources are clear that the term is pejorative. Your source doesn't dispute that.Cúchullain ^t/c 03:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the controversy itself should be noted instead. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/12/define-anchor-baby-american-heritage-dictionary/1 71.255.83.222 (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

We can add that to the article body, but the sources are clear that the term is pejorative. As such so should we.Cúchullain ^t/c 07:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources say that there is controversy about whether or not the term is derogatory. I put that in the article, but you removed it. 71.255.83.222 (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The reliable sources are entirely clear that the term is derogatory. The controversy, such as it is, is over people using a derogatory term.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Named individuals

I have removed an unsourced assertion that a named living person is "ironically" an anchor baby. Per WP:BLP such claims should never be inserted without clear support from reliable sources. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Definition

"An anchor baby is defined as an offspring of an illegal immigrant or other non-citizen, who under current legal interpretation becomes a United States citizen at birth."http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16535&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1007 I believe this definition is more accurate than the one in the beginning of the article and is the definition of the most common and notable usages of the term. 71.255.83.222 (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

"a child born to a noncitizen in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, especially when the child’s birthplace is thought to have been chosen in order to improve the mother’s or other relatives’ chances of securing eventual citizenship" This definition from the American Heritage Dictionary is even better because the term can also be applied to children who are born in non-U.S. countries. 71.255.83.222 (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that first source, from the anti-immigrant group Federation for American Immigration Reform is not a reliable source. Its definition is also demonstrably not the "most common and notable", considering that it condraticts the reliable sources already included in the article on key points. It's probably time to update the article based on the AHD cite, though we should discuss here how best to do that.Cúchullain ^t/c 03:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The first definition says illegal or non-citizen parent. Parent should definitely be singular. The second definition says noncitizen. I believe the two most common and notable definitions would be born to illegal and noncitizen, respectively (not all non-citizens are illegal. The only source in the article that explicitly says any immigrant is the Double Tongued Dictionary. The reason the source gives is "Those who use this term tend to be opposed to *all* immigration and immigrants....", which is ridiculous. The term "anchor baby" is definitely more specific in political usage. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2045617,00.html Proposed bills affect the children of illegal immigrants. Another source gives says "Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency." http://www.theamericanresistance.com/issues/anchor_babies.html The top two definitions in Urban dictionary says illegal or noncitizen. 71.255.83.222 (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I highly doubt that children born to naturalized citizens would be considered anchor babies by most politicians. Another definition is "children born to illegal immigrants but who automatically are US citizens under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution."http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0128/In-Arizona-a-bid-to-block-citizenship-for-illegal-immigrants-anchor-babies71.255.83.222 (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the term is categorized as a political term, a political group would be a more reliable source for notable usage than Grant Barrett. His definition can be mentioned elsewhere in the article. 71.255.83.222 (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You're not helping your case by pulling in clearly unreliable sources such as FAIR, Urban Dictionary, and the "American Resistance" to try and dismiss reliable sources. And no, in an article on a term, web pages from anti-immigrant groups are not more reliable than a published lexicographer, or any of the other reliable sources we already have available. That's just silly. Please see WP:RS and WP:V. Both the Double-Tongued Dictionary and the NYT source by Barrett make clear that the term is used for any immigrant.

We can certainly continue this discussion to determine how best to proceed with the article, but please stop reinstating your edits that have been challenged by two different editors. This constitutes edit warring.Cúchullain ^t/c 07:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Gathering examples of how this term has been used and purporting to decide here at this page which is the "right" one is original research. We go by how reliable, independent, secondary sources say the term is used, only. If there is no clear consensus among those reliable sources, then we say so, we do not choose our favourite. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and if there is no clear consensus among reliable independent sources on what this term means, then we need to consider whether Wikipedia needs, or indeed, can have, an article on it. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Rushed comment: See WP:N and WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Is the American Heritage Dictionary not a reliable source? How are political groups not a reliable source for the definition and usage of this political term? They are the ones using the term, so their meaning of the term is definitely notable. There are multiple sources that differ from the one currently in the article. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/12/12/2010-political-dictionary-from-aqua-buddha-to-wikileaks.html This source also describes some history of the term. 71.255.83.222 (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

All these sources demonstrate that the common and more notable definitions of the term differ from the one in the article. 71.255.83.222 (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The American Heritage Dictionary is obviously a reliable source. Urban Dictionary and those anti-immigrant web pages are not.Cúchullain ^t/c 07:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

We do not decide what the correct use of this term is by discussion here. As I said before we go only by what reliable independent sources say. Instead of piling up examples of usage, 71... needs to point to a source that we can cite to support that usage. I further note that this term is deemed pejorative and we need to avoid this article and this talk page becoming a forum in which people can engage in a debate about the merits or otherwise of the thing under the guide of discussing the article. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is the definition in this article different than the one that most people, media, and politicians use? I'm pretty sure that the term only applies to the children of illegal immigrants, not legal ones. The American Heritage says noncitizen, but other sources don't use the term for children of legal immigrants regardless of whether or not they are citizens. Of the sources listed so far, one says children of all immigrants (Double-Tongued dictionary, one says noncitizen (American Heritage Dictionary), one does not specify (New York Times), and the rest say illegal. The American Heritage definition also does not specify the country. I have heard the term apply outside the U.S. 198.151.130.69 (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It's worth remembering that there are people in the country who are neither citizens nor immigrants (legal or illegal). In particular, people on tourist, student, or work visas are not necessarily immigrants-- just temporary visitors. Women may engage in birth tourism, or just give birth without specifically planning it ahead. But we do need to report what the reliable sources say, even if they disagree. We can't rely on our own personal knowledge of how the term is used, or where.   Will Beback  talk  01:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the article uses the definition of only one of the sources found (the least reliable one), and that definition differs from the other sources. The American Heritage Dictionary was added as a reference to the first sentence of the article, but its definition was not. You say that we need to report what the reliable sources say, yet that is not being done. The American Heritage Dictionary and the Daily Beast give clear definitions. Other sources such as Time give descriptions of the term. None of these definitions are in the article. The American Heritage Dictionary is a reliable source for definitions as are the news and media coverage that make that term notable. Their definitions differ from the one in the article, so the article should be changed. 198.151.130.69 (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It's very odd that you're claiming that you're sure the term "only applies to the children of illegal immigrants", and then appeal to a dictionary that has an even broader definition than the one offered here. According to the AHD, the term can apply to any "child of a noncitizen mother" - not illegal immigrants; not even just immigrants, but any noncitizen. Now that we have that source, we do need to discuss whether or not we need to update our definition. But clearly we can't say the term applies to "illegal immigrants" when the sources don't say that.Cúchullain ^t/c 20:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I used the AHD as an example to show that there are many sources that contradict the article. I listed 3 specific definitions given by the sources already, while saying that the NYT definition is less specific than that of other sources. The article needs to be changed. It cannot have the current definition as the sole definition. The article can be changed by adding all the other definitions or replacing the current definition with one or several definitions. I recommend removing the current definition and adding the definition from media coverage, such as the Daily Beast and Time as their coverage is what makes the term notable. The AHD definition can be added if the term is deemed to be notable to apply to children born outside of the U.S. 198.151.130.71 (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you're trying to use the AHD definition to dispute this one, but then dismissing what the AHD actually says because it doesn't agree with your preferred definition. That's not going to work. The crux of the matter is that though some commenters may restrict the term to only children of illegal immigrants, not all or even most of them do. This much is clear from just perusing the sources already mentioned here, including the Double-Tongued Dictionary, the American Heritage Dictionary, the New York Times piece, and other sources that mention the term outside the scope of only illegal immigration, not to mention the comment from Grant Barrett where he specifically notes it's not only restricted to illegal immigrants. As such we need to provide an inclusive definition. I would support using a definition more in line with what the AHD has to say.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I was showing that there were multiple definitions from sources, yet this article contains the statement "is used for the child of any immigrant" but does not include the other definitions. I suggested the definitions from the sources that came from media coverage. Multiple definitions can be included in the article if they are notable. Why is the AHD used as a reference for the first sentence when the sentence does not use that source? The comment from Grant Barrett is the only source listed that explicitly says children of all immigrants. The second part of his comment that is sourced isn't even part of the definition of the term. Further inspection reveals that his entire comment is not even part of the definition from the source. It is in the comment section of the page. So far we have Grant Barrett of the NYT and Double-Tongued Dictionary with "child born to an immigrant", the AHD with "child born to noncitizen mother", and a some other sources that say child of illegal immigrants. Two variables in the definitions are whether or not the word "illegal" is used and whether the parents are noncitizen/alien or immigrants. The Grant Barrett sources and AHD do not mention the word illegal, while others do. None of the definitions explicitly say "is used for the child of any immigrant" as this article does. This comment listed as a reference is from the comment section of the source. The AHD definition is broader and does not mention the U.S. I would support adding a definition more in line with the AHD definition, but the sentence that says "is used for the child of any immigrant" should be deleted. A definition that says something general like "child born to immigrants or aliens in a country that grants said child citizenship via birthright" could be the first sentence, possibly followed by a sentence saying that the term is often used specifically for the children of illegal aliens or illegal immigrants in the U.S. 198.151.130.71 (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The Grant Barret source does specifically clarify that the term used for any immigrant. Additionally, all three of the sources, each of which is more reliable for this than the ones you offer, don't indicate that the term is only used for illegal immigrants. You're trying to parse here. There aren't "multiple" definitions, there's one definition that some, but not all or most, use somewhat more restrictively (or at least claim to).

I've also never heard the term used outside of the U.S., so I wouldn't say the term is used in "any country" that has birthright citizenship; in fact, every one of the other sources in the article body are about the U.S. Still, we may need to revisit that in light of the AHD entry. If we're sticking with a U.S. definition, I'd recommend something like "'Anchor baby' is a pejorative term for a child born in the United States to non-citizen parents, who, as an American citizen, supposedly can later facilitate immigration for relatives." If we're going the "any country" route, I suggest "'Anchor baby' is a pejorative term for a child born to non-citizen parents in a country that grants birthright citizenship, who, as a citizen, supposedly can later facilitate immigration for relatives."

There's no need to get into the "often used specifically for children of illegal aliens" business. The next line already says it's "often used in the context of the debate over illegal immigration to the United States", which more accurately reflects the sources in the article body.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The quotation in the first reference is not a valid part of the source and should be removed. Many of the above sources seem reliable, so who are you to say which is more reliable? It should be noted that many people use the definition that refers to the children of illegal aliens. The definitions that use the word noncitizen or just immigrants don't seem to have much news coverage, so I am not sure if they are notable enough to be included as well. I do think it is possible to include more than one definition though. 71.251.47.98 (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

What? Wikipedia is written to reflect what the reliable sources on the topic say, not what you think "seems to have much news coverage".--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The amount of news coverage a definition gets affects its weight. The current definition in the article has undue weight over other definitions. 174.254.195.18 (talk) 11:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I put in the AHD definition. "noncitizen" goes hand in hand with birth tourism and is different than "immigrant". "mother" is used. Many children do not have known fathers. 198.151.130.83 (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I made several changes to the article since many parts of the article were ambiguous or did not reflect the sources. If you disagree with any of the changes, treat each change individually, rather than reverting all of them. 198.151.130.83 (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The anon revert was me (Cuchullain). Havingtrouble editing on a mobile device, so I'll be brief. Your edit major changes alter the scope of the article and are disputed. We need to hammer out such changes here on the talk page first. For one thing, Wikipedia does not give poorly attributed quotes to other sources as an introductory sentence. For another your edit removed well sourced material attributed to reliable sources like the Double Tounged Dictionary and the St. Petersburg Times which were directly relevant. In the spirit of BRD let's please sort this out on the talk page before introducing major changes of this kind.Cúchullain ^t/c 03:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Why are some definitions, such as the AHD definition of "child born to a noncitizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil" not included while others are? I don't believe the definition in the current article is more notable than other definitions. 198.151.130.84 (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The "History and usage" section only includes the Double-Toungued Dictionary. It mentions the AHD news, but does not include the whole definition from the AHD. 198.151.130.84 (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is "parents" used instead of "mother"? The father does not directly control where the child is born. The AHD uses "mother". 198.151.130.84 (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

As I've told you repeatedly, we need to revisit the introduction below. Your little statement that "parents" shouldn't be included because "many children do not have known fathers" is pretty offensive; you'd be advised not to say things like that if you want to be taken seriously.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

How am I being offensive? I was trying to give an example. You did not yet address why one definition is used over others. 198.151.130.84 (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you really asking how claiming that many children of immigrants don't have "known fathers" could be offensive? At any rate, see the section here for discussion about the definition.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not say "children of immigrants". I said "children". It is very possible for someone to not know who their parents are. Many feral children and orphans do not know who their parents are. "Who is the father" is a common phrase. 198.151.130.84 (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was really asking how I was being offensive. 198.151.130.84 (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

What is this article about?

It doesn't seem clear what this article is about, or indeed whether we need it at all. There are three possible things it could be talking about.

• The meaning and use of the phrase "Anchor baby" as such. This is not suitable for Wikipedia: see Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
• Any events surrounding the use of the phrase in the real world, such as people being criticised for its use, formal bans on its use in some institution, and so on, provided of course that they can be verified as notable. Such an article would probably be entitled Anchor baby usage controversy.
• The concept of, legal position of or political controversy surrounding the concept represented by that phrase. The phrase is clearly informal at best and pejorative at worst, so such an article should probably entitled Politics of family reunification or Politics of citizenship law.

We do need to decide, because at present there is the distinct possibility that, under the pretext of documenting use of the phrase, it will become a WP:COATRACK for quotations promoting a particular political position on the (un)desirability of immigration and family unification. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The article is about the meaning and use of "anchor baby". Words and terms may indeed be the subject of Wikipedia articles if they are notable in and of themselves (ie, if there is significant coverage in reliable sources). As NOTDIC says "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject". This one easily passes the notability threshold.

As for what it should cover, it should cover the meaning and history of the term. Discussion of the legal particulars of children dubbed "anchor babies" is appropriate, but needs to be ancillary and suplimental to the topic itself. Similarly, individual controversies over particular usages of the word may also be appropriate, but need to be directly relevant to the subject (and backed up by third-party reliable sources, of course.)Cúchullain ^t/c 17:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Cuchullain, although I believe Cusop is correct that the article will intermittently engender controversy. However, that in and of itself, doesn't warrant its deletion. Nor do I see any reason to rename the article. As for WP:NOTDICT, that policy is almost universally ignored at Wikipedia. See, as an example of one of many, That. I don't even try to delete such articles because of the pushback.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the policy is ignored; I'd say there's a broad consensus that if a word itself passes the general notability guidelines, that it can be an encyclopedic subject. Articles on words are routinely deleted if they contain nothing but a dictionary definition without any context, history, etc.Cúchullain ^t/c 17:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think "anchor baby" falls into the same category as common words, so it doesn't bother me that there's an article on it, but with common words like "that" (my example), Wikipedia editors are notoriously resourceful at finding some material that supposedly elevates the article to beyond just a definition. My guess is if I AfD'd such an article because it did not have anything special in it, I'd find editors at AfD who would tell me that there is material out there to support the article (even though it's not included), and the consensus would be keep. I'd love to see evidence of "routine deletion" of word articles because of WP:NOTDICT.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

(←) Proceeding on the basis that this article is about the meaning and usage of the phrase, then there are some points to address. Firstly, we do have a policy against that, even if it is not always followed. Secondly, is there indeed significant coverage in reliable sources? There are currently 19 references. Two [1],[2] are dictionaries, two [3],[17] are about the use of the phrase, three [5],[6],[9] use and/or define the phrase in passing, two [7],[19] are to Youtube, one [16] is dead, seven [4],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[18] are about US immigration law and almost certainly do not use the phrase, two [8],[10] are political points. So not much notability there, but an awful lot of WP:COATRACK. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, the NOTDIC policy specifically indicates that words and phrases can be the subject of articles. There is certainly enough substantial coverage in sources to establish notability for this term. Of the sources, there is actually only one dictionary entry (this), though now we also have the AHD entry that needs to be added. This is actually an NYT piece on notable terms from that year (no, not all of them are notable for an article). On top of the pieces on the term you already mention, we also have this and this on the term and the AHD's handling of it. This and this from PolitiFact are about the term and the actual immigration policy involved. These were formerly in the article but were unilaterally removed by a tendentious editor. There are plenty more sources than that as well.

I agree that the article needs improvement and that a lot of the "controversies" section constitutes coatracking. I plan on working on the article to deal with the coatracking and sourcing issues as soon as I get some time to do it.Cúchullain ^t/c 19:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I have cut out some of the more obvious coatrackery. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Good work, I think those removals were pretty well justified. I'll do some more work on this today to include the above-mentioned sources when I get a chance.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Unreliable Reference

A quote from the comments section of a source was being used as a source. I removed it because it is self-published and not subject to editorial control. It was not part of the definition in the source. It also contained non-encyclopedic content and irrelevant stereotyping. 198.151.130.83 (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the entire "Double-Tongued Dictionary", and not just the comments section, is self-published and not subject to editorial control. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The quote is in the comments section... self-published? More like non-published. 71.251.47.234 (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

New work

Okay, I was waiting for the anonymous editor who placed this tag to explain the issues they have here on the talk page, but that's obviously not going to happen.

However, to respond to the various other points raised in the tag:

• "may not represent a worldwide view of the subjec": This would require an explanation of the problem discussing specific issues actionable within Wikipedia policy. If the problem is that the article focuses on usage in the United States, that's natural, as we have no evidence of the word being used outside that country.
• "introduction may need to be rewritten": This evidently refers only to the introductory sentence, changed (without discussion) here. I agree that it's time to update the definition, and will bring this up below.
• "neutrality is disputed". This too would require an explanation of the problem raising actionable issues according to Wikipedia policy.
• "may contain improper references to self-published sources". This evidently refers to the material from lexicographer Grant Barrett that the anon attempted to excise. This was discussed at length at the reliable sources noticeboard here as well as on this talk page, and the consensus that emerged was that Barrett is absolutely a reliable source, particularly in the study of emerging terms and slang. He edited the Official Dictionary of Unofficial English, published by McGraw-Hill, and the Oxford Dictionary of American Political Slang, published, obviously, by Oxford. He is vice president of the American Dialect Society and is on the editorial board of, and has been published in, the society's university-published academic journal, American Speech. He also belongs to the Dictionary Society of North America and the Linguistic Society of America. The Double-Tongued Dictionary, which he edits, has received a Laurence Urdang Award from the Dictionary Society of North America for its work on new words. It is regularly described and cited in other sources, for instance these books. Clearly both Grant and the Double-Tongued Dictionary are reliable sources. In addition, the comment from Grant on the Dictionary website easily falls into the realm of self-published sources we can use.
• "may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints", again, without mentioning an actionable issue, this doesn't do much good.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Another problem with the lead is that it does not summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. There are out of context details that should be replaced with missing general information. I tried to fix some of this, but all of my changes were reverted. The phrase "In reality" is used, but there is no preceding idea. That paragraph covers the "immigration benefits" section of the article, put the "incidence" section of the article is missing from the lead. 198.151.130.84 (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed Barrett's comments in the lead because they were not separated from the definition and have undue weight in the article. Barrett's comments have undue weight in the article and when the article is adjusted, should be not be in the lead. The second part of Barrett's quoted comment also does not add to the article. 198.151.130.84 (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The AHD definition is more worldwide than the one currently in the article. People have used the term to refer to non-U.S. anchor babies in the context of saying that other countries do not have anchor babies. Someone mentioned Finland, but that definition does not seem notable at this point. There are other countries that grant birthright citizenship, but the body of the article should focus on the United States, unless there are other sources. 198.151.130.84 (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The sentence beginning with "in reality" responds to the central claim of the "anchor baby" slur - that people are coming to the country to have babies who will facilitate their immigration - which is explained in the first paragraph. That second paragraph summarizes information covered more fully in the "Immigration benefits" and "Incidence" sections. Your major changes to the intro were not an improvement, as they greatly overstated the actual immigration benefits of having a citizen child, which the source specifically says would be "an extremely long-term, and uncertain, process".

Barrett isn't quoted in the lead, so there's no "undue weight" there. All that's being done is citing his entry, as it's one of the best available sources for the definition and has been used in the article. And his quoted comment certainly does add to the article as it's further explanation of the term from a published expert.

The sentence in the lead, "The term is often used in the context of the debate over illegal immigration to the United States, but is used for the child of any immigrant" references Barrett's quote. The first part of the quote is about the term, but the second is not. In the article, there is undue weight towards the definition from the Double-Toungued Dictionary and Barrett. 198.151.130.84 (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't greatly overstate the actual immigration benefits of having a citizen child. I actually removed the word "benefits". 198.151.130.84 (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Was there anything wrong about the other changes? 198.151.130.84 (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is the second paragraph written like an argument? It says the "benefits" are limited, but limited relative to what? The info on U.S. policies in the lead is more detailed than in the body. The lead is missing key information on the fourteenth amendment and that some claim the United States' "birthright citizenship" is an incentive for illegal immigration, and that immigrants come to the country to give birth specifically so that their child will be a U.S. citizen, regardless of the benefits to relatives. The lead says "there is little evidence that acquiring citizenship is their goal" but fails to mention the claims that that is their goal, making the statement out of context (it says in the first paragraph, but that is too far away). It should not be written like an argument and might be too detailed for the lead. If the two paragraphs in the lead were to be combined, it would focus too much on one part of the article. The lead focuses too much on relatives acquiring citizenship compared to just the child. 198.151.130.84 (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You're grasping at straws with the "globalize" tag in an article about an American term. At any rate, as I've said multiple times, yes, we do need to update the introductory sentence.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who actually tagged the article. I was just commenting on some of the tags. 21:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Immigration benefits section

This edit[2] changed the section claiming to change to "superior wording". The edit changed "any person born in the United States is a citizen of the country" to "any person born in the United States are citizens of the country". I believe the former wording is superior to the lather. It changed "There is an implication that U.S. citizens can help parents and other relatives obtain citizenship" to "The general assumption of the 'anchor baby' label is that a U.S. citizen child confers immigration benefits on the parents and extended family". The former is closer to the source. The lather does not make clear what "immigration benefits" are. The term "immigration benefits" is not even used in the source. The edit also reorganized the section so that information on direct benefits to the U.S. citizen is sandwiched between information on relatives of the U.S. citizen. The edit also added a paragraph that is repetitive of another paragraph in the section. The editor also mentioned misinterpretation. Please explain the misinterpretation. The edit also added the phrase "but contrary to the belief". This is not in the source. The sentence "Immigration law does not provide categories for any other relatives that would apply in this situation" was seemingly irrelevantly added. Also, the sentence "As such, according to the fact checking project PolitiFact, having a child in order to gain citizenship would be 'an extremely long-term, and uncertain, process' should clarify "citizenship for its parents" like the source does. Can the editor, Cuchullain, please explain all of these changes? 198.151.130.85 (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Not so fast. You made yet another major, totally undiscussed change that altered and rearranged that whole section.[3] I merely restored it to the previous version, as your new wording was not an improvement over what was there before, and introduced a lot of interpretation of the primary sources, which violates WP:NOR. I will correct the grammatical issues you've pointed out.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I see not all of the interpretation of primary sources was the result of your edits - though it was very hard to tell what you'd changed as you made so many small edits in a short period of time. I went ahead and removed those sections pending further discussion. While most of it appears to be accurate, we can't just interpret the legislation ourselves, we need secondary sources for that.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The way the sources are used do not fit the policy of acceptable use? Should the information from those sources be put in quotations? The information from those sources was almost word for word, so it should not qualify as interpretation. 198.151.130.85 (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is "contrary to the belief" used? It does not make sense in that context because the second part of the sentence is not contradicting the first, and the first part of the sentence does not have a belief to be contradicted. The word "and and" is also incorrect. The organization of the section also does not make sense. Information on benefits to the child should not be sandwiched between information on the relatives in that manner. I will correct these issues that you have not addressed. 198.151.130.85 (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The sentences that I added but you removed were "Citizen children who are at least 21 years old can sponsor their parents for immigration to the U.S.", "Immediate relatives, such as parents, of U.S. citizens have special immigration priority and do not have to wait in line for a visa number to immigrate", and "Relatives of the U.S. citizen that fall under a 'family preference category' usually have to go through a waiting period before an immigrant visa number becomes available due to the limited the number of relatives who may immigrate under these categories each year". The sources were [4] and [5]. The first sentence's wording is a little different, but is supported by a secondary source, so the primary source issue is not a problem. The second sentence uses the same wording except it provides an example of what is considered an immediate relative, which is in the source and can be easily verified by looking at the source. The third source uses wording that is very similar to the source. 198.151.130.85 (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said I removed the material attributed to primary sources, not just by you, pending further discussion. Parts of it offered too much interpretation of what the laws said - and at any rate this isn't really the place to go into full specifics about U.S. immigration law. The Politifact piece goes into considerable detail about the meaning and reality behind the "anchor baby" slur, but doesn't include every single part of the law that may (or may not) be a benefit to parents of a citizen child. That's a fair indication that we shouldn't either.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sentences written in the negative construction should be changed to be more clear and concise to follow manual of style guidelines. 198.151.130.87 (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Revisiting the introductory sentence

Now that we have the American Heritage Dictionary definition of this term available, it's time to revisit our definition. We now have three high quality sources giving a definition of "anchor baby":

• American Heritage Dictionary:[6] Anchor baby: n. Offensive. Used as a disparaging term for a child born to a noncitizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, especially when the child's birthplace is thought to have been chosen in order to improve the mother's or other relatives' chances of securing eventual citizenship.
• Double-Tongued Dictionary:[7] Anchor baby n. a child born of an immigrant in the United States, said to be a device by which a family can find legal foothold in the US, since those children are automatically allowed to choose American citizenship. Also anchor child, a very young immigrant who will later sponsor citizenship for family members who are still abroad.
• New York Times Week in Review piece: "2006 Buzzords":[8] Anchor baby: a derogatory term for a child born in the United States to an immigrant. Since these children automatically qualify as American citizens, they can later act as a sponsor for other family members.

Of these, the AHD and Double-Tongued Dictionary entries are the more authoritative. The AHD is a well established dictionary; the second is an online dictionary specializing in emerging terms and slang, edited by lexicographer Grant Barrett. The NYT piece is also written by Barrett.
It's now on us to review this article's definition in light of the recent AHD addition. All three definitions say basically the same thing, with minor but noteworthy differences. My feeling is that we should be as broad and inclusive as possible, and update the definition to include what all these sources say. Notably, while some partisans try to claim the term is used only for the children of only illegal immigrants, none of these definitions say this. The AHD entry goes further, indicating it's used not only for immigrants, but "noncitizens" (eg, visitors to the country). The AHD also says it can apply to a child born in any birthright country, though all other sources discuss the United States only. And of course, we need to get the definition right without plagiarizing any of these sources.

I suggest we amend our current definition:

"Anchor baby" is a pejorative term for a child born in the United States to immigrant parents, who, as an American citizen, supposedly can later facilitate immigration for relatives.

to something like:

"Anchor baby" is a pejorative term for a child born in a country that grants birthright citizenship to non-citizen parents, who, as a citizen of that country, supposedly can facilitate later immigration for relatives.

Thoughts?--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

There are more than those 3 sources available. There are other dictionary definitions [9] as well as definitions in articles and other texts. It is difficult to say if one source considered reliable is more authoritative than another. Those three definitions do not say that same thing. "Immigrants" and "noncitizens" are completely different words. The AHD does not say immigrant aat all. "Immigrants", "all immigrants", and "illegal immigrants" are also different. "Parents", "parent", and "mother" are also different. 198.151.130.84 (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

These are the only three we've seen so far that (1) specifically concern themselves with defining the meaning of the term "anchor baby" and (2) are written by experts in the field. It's not really very difficult to determine which sources are superior than others if you know what you are doing. The AHD entry is from an established dictionary. The Double-Tongued Dictionary entry is from a dictionary that specializes specifically in new terms like this and is written by a professional lexicographer. The NYT source is written by that same lexicographer and was published in the American newspaper of record, though I'd regard it as less authoritative than the others, as it was from a glossary included in a newspaper. In contrast, the Daily Beast article was written not by a lexicographer, but a journalist, and is therefore less authoritative.

Yes, I already said that one important difference is that the AHD uses "noncitizen" while the other two use "immigrant". As I explained, I suggest using "non-citizen" to make sure our definition is broad enough to cover all the sources. Do you have any comments on my proposed wording?

Additionally, changing the first sentence requires us to change the subsequent sentence as well. I suggest we just move to the line that "the term is generally used in the debate of illegal immigration to the United States".--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I would definitely agree with citing the American Heritage Dictionary definition. Amongst other things, this source strengthens the article's claim that the term is pejorative / derogatory / offensive. I am concerned about the suggestion that the term "anchor baby" is international in character — and especially uncertain how to handle translations or calques of the phrase into other languages, since (in contrast to "nigger") there is no suggestion here that "anchor baby" was adopted into English from any other language. I also believe the article needs to remain strongly focussed on the usage and politics of the specific term "anchor baby". Since the raison d'être for the expression is grounded in popular resentment over immigration abuse and/or illegal immigration, some acknowledgment of the background issue is clearly needed, but this article must not be allowed to become a coatrack for material criticizing illegal immigration to the United States, birthright citizenship in the United States, or similar subjects. — Richwales 22:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I certainly agree with that. What do you think of the suggested wording?--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"noncitizen" is not broader than "immigrant". Not all immigrants are noncitizens/aliens. For example, an immigrant who becomes a naturalized citizen is not a noncitizen. 198.151.130.84 (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

We could say "immigrant or non-citizen" to be as encompassing as possible.Cúchullain ^t/c 22:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with using one "broad" definition is that some sources use the term to refer to more specific things. For example, a "broad" definition would just be "child", which would encompass all the children of all the other definitions, but would not be the same term. I suggest being more specific and possibly including more than one possible notable definition. 198.151.130.84 (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Another example: "child of an illegal immigrant" would not refer to the child of legal immigrant and thus has a different meaning. 198.151.130.84 (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been closely following the latest few rounds in the ongoing edit war over whether this term is descriptive, pejorative, somewhere in between, or something else entirely. In past edits and comments, I've probably been in or close to the "pejorative" camp.

Even though I haven't been following the wars engagement by engagement, I've been thinking about the issue behind the wars as I've seen the article pop up on my watchlist. I disagree with the thrust of the comment above by Richwales. That comment writes of, "the article's claim that the term is pejorative / derogatory / offensive". IMO, it flouts WP:DUE for the article to make such a claim if prominent reliable sources exist which do not support such a claim. Rather than stating such a claim as an editorial viewpoint of Wikipedia, the article should be fairly representing all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, as required by DUE.

This discussion section concerns itself with the introductory sentence. I suggest that the sentence be split into multiple sentences. It currently reads

"Anchor baby" is a pejorative term for a child born in the United States to immigrant parents, who, as an American citizen, supposedly can later facilitate immigration for relatives.

References

I suggest splitting this, something like the following:

"Anchor baby" is a politically incorrect term for a child born in the United States to immigrant parents, who, as an American citizen, supposedly can later facilitate immigration for relatives. The term is viewed by some as pejorative. The term is sometimes used to specifically refer to the child of an illegal immigrant; sometimes used to refer to any child of a noncitizen parent.

References

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I prefer Wtmitchell's suggestion over the current article. There is still the issue of "parents", "parent", and "mother". 198.151.130.84 (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The AHD says "born to noncitizen mother". This is important. For example, it includes surrogate and biological mothers, but excludes adoptive parents. 198.151.130.84 (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the dictionaries and news organizations should be considered reliable sources. I see many sources that go into detail on the subject or use the term in context refer to the AHD definition and a child born to an illegal alien. It seems to me that Barrett's comments/definition is a minority definition, so I question its weight and notability to even be included. How many sources are there about Barrett's definition? If there aren't enough, Barrett's comment should be considered as trivia. 198.151.130.84 (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That's just a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. We don't go with sources based on news coverage, we go with the sources that are the most authoritative in the relevant field. I already explained to you here why Barrett is a reliable (he's a respected lexicographer who specializes in emerging terms like this one). The same post also linked to books that discuss his work([10] & [11]); not that it matters really, but here are several more sources that discuss his take on "anchor baby" specifically that I found in a 1-minute Google search:[12][13][14][15][16] Bottom line is, sources written by linguists and lexicographers are more authoritative on the definitions of words and terms than those written by journalists. Mind you, sources written by journalists can also be reliable for other things (such as the politics behind the term), and many are already included in the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

"Adoptive parents"? Now there's a bit of a special case... get adopted by a citizen and one can apply for status which otherwise would not apply - but under a rather specific procedure with tight restrictions. That law is normally applied when (for instance) a US adoptive parent adopts a non-American child born outside the US. The adoption process effectively strips the child of their entire original identity (typically, records are sealed to prevent the kid from asking about their birth parents), family of origin and nationality. --66.102.83.61 (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's just parsing, and it's making the issue needlessly convoluted. "Parents" is fine.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Wtmitchell, I see two problems with that approach. First, the sources are very clear that the term is pejorative, so that really needs to be in the introductory sentence. "Politically incorrect" is really loaded, and should be avoided. Second, none of the dictionary sources, least of all the new AHD source, include the restriction to illegal immigrants only. More to the point, we also have the quote from Barrett explaining that it's "used for any immigrant". The sources that do offer illegal immigrant definition are all from the news media, therefore giving it such a prominent position in the lead would be giving equivalent weight to news columns as to sources coming from dictionaries and linguists, so that's a bit troubling. I still think the current approach is better in that regard. How about:

"Anchor baby" is a pejorative term for a child born in the United States to immigrant parents, who, as an American citizen, supposedly can later facilitate immigration for relatives. The term is often used in the context of the debate over illegal immigration to the United States, but may refer to any child of an immigrant or non-citizen.

References

Or, to incorporate this anon's other concerns,

"Anchor baby" is a pejorative term for a child born to immigrant or non-citizen parents in a country that grants birthright citizenship, who, as a citizen of that country, supposedly can later facilitate immigration for relatives. The term is often used in the context of the debate over illegal immigration to the United States, but may refer to any child of an immigrant or non-citizen.

References

--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I see one possible issue with broadly defining "anchor baby" as a US/Canadian-born child of "any immigrant" - if the immigrant is holding permanent residence (which allows a claim for citizenship after three to five years living in that country) it's likely the parent will be sworn in soon enough to use that citizenship (not depending on the child's independent jus soli rights) to allow the kid to enrol in a kindergarten five years later as a citizen. In that case, there is little or no "anchor baby" bonus to parent or child as both already become citizens through other means. For that matter, a child of "any immigrant" could also be someone with one immigrant and one citizen as parents (which currently would be a dual citizen by jus sanguinis even if born in a third country). If anything, the permanent resident would be expected by default to use the medical system in their country of residence as they must maintain some minimum physical presence in that region to become part of that community before taking citizenship, so the child of a resident here being born elsewhere would be the exception, not the rule.

An "anchor baby" should be someone who stands to gain some tangible benefit for themselves or their family just by being born in "the new country". A kid who was likely to be sworn-in anyway as their parents obtain citizenship by other means (ie: permanent residence) gains little... unless he really wanted Obama's job some day and figured that birth certificate might be handy to claim now. --66.102.83.61 (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Weight is different than reliability. It does not matter if you think one source is more authoritative if they are all reliable and do not directly conflict. The sources use the term to refer to different things. The Wikipedia article should be clear on that and include all notable definitions. Barrett's comments and the dictionary definitions must also be distinguished from each other. "born to", "parents", "parent", and "mother" are important. Also, the phrase "supposedly can later facilitate immigration for relatives" is not a requirement. Only birthright citizenship is. 198.151.130.85 (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, weight is different than reliability. Which is why I said that when it comes to defining a word or term, less authoritative sources (such as news columns) should not be given equal weight as sources written by experts on the subject. And no, the sources are all referring to the same thing, just in slightly different ways; you're just parsing, and at this point it's distracting us from finding a workable solution.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I suppose we could get around the issue of "parents" vs. "mother" by simply saying "child born to immigrants/non-citizens", but such a change shouldn't be made unless consensus develops for it, as you are literally the only one who has taken issue with it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

One key issue is plural vs singular. Regarding weighting, the definitions are different and should be weighted according to notability, not authoritativeness. A problem with "immigrant or non-citizen" is that it does not clearly distinguish them. Wtmitchell's wording is more clear. 198.151.130.85 (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

More parsing and more misunderstanding of the policy. The sources are weighed by how authoritative they are on the topic. The sources are then used to determine how notable that particular viewpoint is. And the "or" in "immigrant or non-citizen" clearly distinguishes between those two words. Also, you are the only one who has expressed concern over the issue of "parents/parent/mother", and others have objected to it. As there's clearly no consensus for that particular change, it's time to move on.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The definitions are not as different as you're trying to claim; they all refer to the same concept with a few differences.

Since the AHD definition received a lot of coverage and and is referenced to frequently, I consider it to have high notability. The NYT and the Double-toungued dictionary definitions are sometimes referenced, so I consider it to have medium notability. Since many sources use the definition of child of illegal immigrant/alien, that definition has high notability. This is assuming that illegal immigrant and illegal alien both mean one who migrates or resides unlawfully. There are few if any references to Barrett's comment. Since Barrett's comment is a minority view point and self-published, it has very low notability. 198.151.130.87 (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

198.151.130.87, a couple of items. First, in line with the terminology used by WP:DUE, where you spoke of notability above, I think you meant prominence in DUEspeak. Also, see here for content inclusion and exclusion criteria -- or at least my take on that in a project page discussion.

Cúchullain, I'm not following this discussion closely and I see that I missed seeing your comments above re the terms politically incorrect vs. pejorative. I don't know what you meant by loaded in comparing the terms but, as I take that term, it seems to me that the term pejorative is at least as loaded as is the term politically incorrect. I see, though, that the political correctness article describes that term as "pejorative". We (I, anyhow) may be getting recursively referential here. What I was trying to do was to convert an assertion to the effect that the term anchor baby absolutely is pejorative whenever it is used and by whomever it is used into an assertion (with supporting cites) that the term is sometimes used as a pejorative term. Re the sources cited being very clear that the term is pejorative, those sources were cited as examples of sources which characterized the term as pejorative—one might expect such examples to be very clear that the term is pejorative. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

"Pejorative" isn't loaded; it means what it means. The problem with "politically incorrect" is that it's basically a pejorative for pejorative. It's essentially satire. The sources are very clear that the term is pejorative and offensive in the real sense, so we need to be too.Cúchullain ^t/c 17:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It might be useful to add a footnote chronicling the events in the addition of the anchor baby definition to the American Heritage Dictionary -- initially without any indication that the term is pejorative[17] then, after a firestorm of protests[18], revised to describe the term as "Offensive Used as a disparaging term"[19][http://amren.com/oldnews/archives/2011/12/anchor_baby_con.php][20]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

there are already a couple of lines about it in the "history and usage" section. Overall I think your suggestion is a good one, with the caveats I mention above.Cúchullain ^t/c 03:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes Wtmitchell, I did mean due. 198.151.130.88 (talk) 03:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)