Talk:Murder of Mollie Tibbetts/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Seriously, Alien is a slur.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Frankly I don't care if CNN uses a slur. Calling a person, even somebody accused of a serious crime, a slur is not something that should be done in Wikipedia's voice. This is a violation of WP:NPOV and not something to be inserted without getting consensus first. Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Alien is not a slur, it's a widely used legal term. We don't use euphemisms here. Natureium (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Immigrant is much clearer and doesn't have the... dehumanizing... context of alien. Simonm223 (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Alien is a legal term, regardless of connotation. I disagree with the notion that it violates NPOV. Strikerforce^Talk 14:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Me too. It's a label shared with hideous bug-eyed mutants from Mars, but that's just because they're from Mars, nothing about their tentacles or personalities. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I apparently cannot find the part in WP:NPOV where it says to use the legal term for things over what sources use Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

But it does not matter what the official or legal term is, at all. The Diaz, that the justice department wants people to use illegal aliens does not matter one whit. What matters is what sources use. In general, news sources use undocumented or illegal immigrant (as noted in that CNN piece), and so do high quality academic sources. In this specific case too, illegal or undocumented immigrant is the most used term. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

As a more general question not directly related to this, is it a policy that we use the exact words that sources do? What if reliable sources use a slang term for something? Natureium (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Alien is a legal term, and it is appropriate (see linked article). Can @Simonm223: bring a source by a reliable source that it is a slur? It's his onus to do such, since he is making such claims. --1l2l3k (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Without weighing on either side of this, here is an interesting source. GAB^gab 14:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The "illegal" part is definitely a bit sketchy. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

GAB, with all due respect for the WaPo, I'd request for this a less partisan source than that. The article is completely unusable for this purpose. WaPo has been fighting this administration since day one and is not independent (given all the issues of Bezos with Trump). Alien is still a legal term. Sentences such as In recent years, there has been a push to change the vocabulary surrounding immigration to avoid the term “illegal.” that the article uses, without making any reference to who is pushing, and making the word illegal taboo, does strike me as the article is not a reliable source for this purpose. --1l2l3k (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

It's the "they" that isn't pushing to erase the equally-sketchy "undocumented". Only ever two sides to American political debate. As a Canadian, I suggest going with plain "alien" or unqualified "immigrant". Maybe just "Mexican". InedibleHulk (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

You are trolling. Both "undocumented" and "illegal" are perfectly fine words, and so are "alien" and "immigrant". Neither of them is a slur and continuing this discussion is feeding the trolls. The connotations given to words may become political weapons by whoever has the power to make changes to the freedom of speech. One day things can change further and one can be accused of breathing, but until we have a reliable source that breathing is bad for thy neighbor in wiki, we'll still accept terms that are perfectly fine. --1l2l3k (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't troll and when I do, it's subtler than this. They're both sketchy per the valid points in two sources about them. At least when combined with aliens and immigrants. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, you ironically suggested "Mexican", correct? That was not called for. Anyways, we have to go for what the source says, so I'll comment down below.--1l2l3k (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Nothing ironic about it. He's a Mexican (meaning someone from Mexico). I think that conveys he's not from Iowa adequately. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh I see, my apologies then: I thought you were talking in general. While I have nothing against using his nationality in the article, the discussion here is merely for the use of the word "alien", someone is saying it's a slur, and my point is that it is not. --1l2l3k (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

And my point is that neither of you are (probably) going to get so wound about "Mexican". There doesn't always have to be a lesser of two evils. But you're right, it's not a slur, just something someone has associated with something worse. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• If we want to get technical, an alien is everyone in a country who is not a national, and this includes people visiting temporarily. An immigrant is a person who comes to a country to live with the intention to stay permanently. Immigrants may or may not be also aliens. An immigrant who has become a naturalized citizen is not an alien. A citizen born abroad who travels to the country to live is also a non-alien immigrant. A person who travels to the country to stay temporarily (or is in a legal status that allows them only to stay temporarily even if they may transition to an immigrant status at a later date), is legally a non-immigrant. A non-immigrant non-alien would be someone who has dual citizenship, or a national living permanently abroad, who travels to one or the other country in which they do not reside, in order to stay temporarily. GMG^talk 14:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• Alien is a legal term.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Use what reliable sources use. "Legal term" ain't got nothing to do with it. Volunteer Marek 15:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

If you want to make that argument, please answer my question above. Natureium (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

For shits and giggles, here's the first dozen sources that come up in a google news search for "Mollie Tibbetts" (in quotes) and the terminology they use (paywall sources ignored).

Source	Terminology
Time	undocumented Mexican immigrant, illegal immigrant
Snopes	undocumented immigrants, illegal alien (quoting White House twitter account), illegal immigrants (quoting random tweet)
news.com.au	“illegal immigrant” (in scare quotes, quoting Russia-linked Twitter accounts)
NYT (opinion piece)	illegal-immigrant (quoting National Review), illegal immigration
SacBee	undocumented immigrant, undocumented immigrants, illegal undocumented workers (quoting John Fox), illegal immigration, illegal immigrants (quoting Alex Nowrasteh)
USA Today	illegal alien (quoting Trump), Undocumented immigrant
Des Moines Register	undocumented immigrant
NPR	illegal immigrant
WaPo	undocumented immigrants, illegal alien (quoting White House twitter), illegal immigrants (quoting Candace Owens), immigrants who are in the country illegally
Pacific Standard	undocumented people
Fox	nothing (this appears to be from prior to the identification of a suspect)
WaPo	illegal immigrant (quoting Huckabee Sanders)

So it does look like "immigrant" wins out by a good margin given this small sample of today's top news results. Only three mentions of "alien" and all quoting the White House or Trump himself. Even Huckabee Sanders uses "illegal immigrant". GMG^talk 15:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Please answer my question above. Natureium (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes. We generally use the wording that the preponderance of independent reliable sources use. Thus big table of sources taken from a neutral search term (i.e., one that does not include either "alien" or "immigrant"). GMG^talk 15:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

That didn't answer my question. I asked what policy says that we need to use the exact wording of reliable sources. FWIF, I don't have a strong opinion on what term we use here, but if people keep saying that we need to use what sources say, they need to say where they're coming up with that rule. Natureium (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

No, there's no policy. Unless it's a proper noun or quote. We're meant to paraphrase general things. It's just the facts that need to be consensually agreed. But if we can figure out which phrasing pisses the fewest people off in a small sample, it may translate to how well we avoid irking a majority of readers. And I can't find "illegal immigrants" in the Snopes story, for what that's worth. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Mainly WP:YESPOV and WP:LABEL I would imagine. GMG^talk 15:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:SET Illegal alien is preferred to Illegal immigrant. In googlebooks, as per research below, we have:

Illegal alien - 165,000 results

Illegal immigrant - 137,000 results

As such illegal alien is preferred. The difference is not big, but why disregard the expression illegal alien when is supported by scholarship? --1l2l3k (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

In the first page of alien results, I see The Way of the Shadow Wolves, by Steven Seagal. That's not very scholarly. Is it? In any case, the "about" numbers don't really mean anything. Directly following your links, it tells me 118,000 for alien and 75,200 for immigrant. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is a poor metric as it measures usage across the English language without context. It's also going to be biased toward 19th century sources that are available in the public domain in their entirety. Compare homosexual (5.8 million), gay (32.5k) and faggot (583k). Clearly one of these is the preferable term in the modern context, and there's no way to tell how many of these are talking about people who are happy or about bundles of sticks. It's much better to examine specifically the verbiage used by mainstream sources in this particular context. GMG^talk 16:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

^yup Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, Googlebooks helps us see the use in English language of a certain expression. The number of pages is important, but the number of hits is more, as it shows the times an expression is used in English. My point is the expression "illegal alien" is used, and a lot, and is not a "slur" expression. Who is pushing such position needs to argument it well, and not with cherrypicked sources. The comparisons with "gay" words are irrelevant. GreenMeansGo says that MSM is preferred to GoogleBooks to 19th century sources in English language? Hm, and why should we think that we are smarter than the 19th century scholars by running towards the MSM and not our forefathers, who perhaps were smarter than we are? And why should we bypass the wikipolicies? Besides, I don't see it in the policies that MSM is preferred to scholarship and books. --1l2l3k (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The comparison above was chosen specifically because one of them is obviously a slur. Similarly, you can find many uncontroversial slurs that were common (and fairly neutral at the time) terms in the 19th Century that we would not dream of including in mainspace today (things like "colored" and "mongoloid" come to mind). I'm not arguing that "Alien" is in fact a slur. What I'm arguing is that if it were, your test wouldn't tell us one way or the other. The same test would tell is to prefer in mainspace, homosexual, faggot, and gay in that order, which is obviously ludicrous. GMG^talk 16:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Reading the books can help, but counting the numbers won't. I get a million more homosexuals than Green does, and about a third fewer gays and faggots (not that there's anything wrong with that). A lot of your results may not have had the words in them at all; I certainly didn't see them bolded in the blurbs. It may be a way to find a hint, but there's no easy answer there. That said, I don't have a better idea for ennumerating the way people talk. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

We do not emulate the way people talk. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

To an extent, of course we do. Plain English works best. But we don't go about learning the language by comparing round numbers generated by a mysterious proprietary algorithm that increasingly tells us what we want to hear. On that note, when I said "ennumerate", I meant "enumerate", not "emulate". InedibleHulk (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, the policy is simply WP:NPOV, which requires us to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic and that includes language usage. The sources I sampled are all comparatively reliable and on topic. The sources you have sampled are not, or if they are, we have no idea to what degree. GMG^talk 16:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that we should base our encyclopedia based on what 19th century sources says? Look, per NPOV and V we base our articles on mainstream reliable sources, the best ones we have - the sources that matter are the ones that are used, because those are the ones we base our article on. And those, which are currently just "MSM", use "illegal immigrant" over "illegal alien". That is the more prominent viewpoint, one could say. Leave alone that a google scholar search gets more hits for "illegal immigrant", but that's really irrelevant. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Now what may be a useful SET is something like a news search for "Mollie Tibbetts" "alien" - 68,500 results, and "Mollie Tibbetts" "immigrant" - 526,000 results. Although as we've seen your mileage may vary, but surely shouldn't vary by almost an entire order of magnitude. GMG^talk 17:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you please provide links to those results, please? --1l2l3k (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. Not sure why I didn't to begin with. "Mollie Tibbetts" "alien" - 68,500 results[1], and "Mollie Tibbetts" "immigrant" - 536,000 results[2]. GMG^talk 18:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I get 96,100 and 173,000. "Alien" gets 118 actual results, culminating in alien Floridan children. The second shows 109, ending in how old Ringo's gotten. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why we're consistently getting different results. I'm consistently getting the same, even on different browsers. GMG^talk 19:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

It's like that all over. Localized and personalized spaces for our "unique" thought bubbles, even if we thought we told them not to track us. Confirmation bias helps advertisers better serve mankind. And not like aliens serve us, either! More like how the aliens serve us. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Today it's 107,000 aliens to 110,000 immigrants (for me). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I believe that the fact that the left leaning Rolling Stone appears in the top of your search and says alien proves my point that alien is NOT a right wing slur, :-). --1l2l3k (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

One not need be a slur for the other to clearly be the more mainstream and therefore more neutral formulation. Also TRS is using the term in attributed quotes, and not in their own voice. In their own voice they say "immigrant". GMG^talk 18:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of whether alien is a slur or not, Wikipedia uses "Illegal Immigrant" as its terminology in other places, which is the terminology we should use for consistency. It's true that conservatives/right leaning people will tend to prefer "illegal alien" for whatever reason, because they think it's harsher or less politically correct or whatever.

What is frustrating me, though, is the constant POV editing of the "illegal immigrant/alien" descriptor into the lede. The lede needs to summarize the body of the article! If the body of the article says that there's a political controversy over his immigration status and that his status is disputed, that's what the lede should say, too. Throwing an unqualified descriptor into the lede that doesn't match what the body says at all is clearly indicative of drive by POV editing that violates WP:BLPCRIME. Please stop! Wikipedia is not your place to call out the suspect's immigration status to push your political talking points. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I have not said that we cannot use "illegal immigrant". I am Ok using it as the sources say. Also I'm saying that "alien" is not a slur (just in case I wasn't clear enough in saying it probably 5 times by now). If some people start saying that it is a slur, just because their political ennemies use it, doesn't make it such. --1l2l3k (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

: So, does the federal government of the United States engage in "slurs"? Because here is what the government says:

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement stated "law enforcement remains absolutely confident that we’ve correctly identified the suspect as an illegal alien from Mexico."

(Emphasis added for clarity). XavierItzm (talk) 07:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Yes, the government can be political. Is that surprising? Obama's administration preferred "undocumented". So what? Wikipedia uses the terminology "illegal immigrant", and deviating from this because a few editors are insistent upon a different terminology, for whatever reason, is clearly non-neutral. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 16:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from injecting your politics into the thread. The OP, Simonm223, said "alien is a slur." Evidently it is not, since the government of the United States uses it. This has nothing to do with politics, which do not belong here. XavierItzm (talk) 11:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

You're late to the party and it's already been established that Wikipedia has no requirement to parrot the US government in our articles. As has been pointed out, under the less-racist Obama administration they used the term "undocumented immigrant" while under the deeply racist Trump administration they've switched to "illegal alien" - almost like the latter was the preferred phrase of racists or something. Simonm223 (talk) 11:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. Please desist from injecting your parochial politics. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not apply here. In this case, the government has said the subject is an illegal alien, and that's all there is to it. XavierItzm (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Straw poll

Starting a straw poll on this to gauge local consensus. If it becomes clear there is none, anyone can feel free to convert into an RfC at any time. GMG^talk 17:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Question - Should the article refer to the suspect as an immigrant or alien?

• Immigrant - In two tests above, both in the dozen highest ranked related news stories and in news results overall about the subject, the sources seem to heavily favor use of "immigrant" over "alien", and appear to have a preference for using "alien" in attributed quotes when it is used, and not in their own voice. GMG^talk 17:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Immigrant because it fits with the "Immigration status" section. "Alienation status" sure sounds weird. But if we're to start talking about this throughout the article, mix it up between the two. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Clarifying and summarizing my position:
  Illegal alien and Illegal immigrant can both be used and are both acceptable:

1. "Alien" is NOT a slur. Speech policing is converting the word "alien" to an unacceptable word here, just like it was done with the word "gay" by the end of the 20th century, and we no longer can say "gay old time", as it would take another meaning now. "Alien" is also, a correct, legal word.
2. "Alien" is a different word from "immigrant", as the immigrant word means "a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.", whereas alien means merely "belonging to a foreign country or nation.". We don't know whether Rivera intended or not to live permanently in the United States, but we know that he was an alien, as he is a Mexican, not a US citizen. Sources disagree too: The employer says he was an illegal alien, the lawyer says he was in the US legally, and the police says he was illegal too.
3. My search above (also reported here) showed that in Googlebooks "illegal alien" is more used than "illegal immigrant" in this context.

Illegal alien - 165,000 results

Illegal immigrant - 137,000 results

As such the word "alien" is more correct.--1l2l3k (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

1. Whether or not it is a slur depends on context. In some contexts it can definitely be a slur. In fact, in most contexts that are applicable to this topic it is being used as a slur.

2. We follow sources.

3. The FIRST hit I get for a Google books search on "illegal alien" is this. Quote: "When a disabled starship enters the Earth's atmosphere, fear is quickly replaced with awe. The first contact ever between humans and aliens is made. Seven incredibly intelligent members of an advanced race are welcomed by the world." Yeah... I think you're getting a ton of false positives there. (google books searches are notoriously crap) Volunteer Marek 21:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Immigrant "Illegal alien", while originally not a political term, became one after those fervently against political correctness sought to use it more often and criticize those who use even widely accepted terminology like "illegal immigrant" (just look at tweets from conservatives vs everyone else). Regardless of whether the term is political or not, most sources use "illegal immigrant" and Wikipedia itself uses the terminology "illegal immigrant" elsewhere. However, I'm confused as to why we're even polling this. Is this about the lede or? I don't really think any places in the article could benefit from changing from immigrant to alien, since we don't actually use the exact phrase "illegal immigrant" anywhere. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 18:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

We have an "immigrant" in the first sentence of the suspect section. That's the one I thought this was all about. Now I'm not so sure. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

You do realize that both options are the same in the poll, right? They are both "Immigrant". There is no alternative to them. --1l2l3k (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 18:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Made it more clear by bolding InedibleHulk' GMG's options. --1l2l3k (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, so just because GMG is green, he's InedibleHulk? I see how it is... InedibleHulk (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I still don't get it. I voted for one of the bolded options. Am I missing something? – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 18:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

It confused me as both InedibleHulk and GMG went in a second with the two options, bolding them, and I thought it was only InedibleHulk and the question was not signed off by GMG. My bad. --1l2l3k (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I mean, they are really missing an opportunity to go with some kind of signature like INEDIBILEHULK^SMASH! ...Just saying... GMG^talk 19:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

That's just pouring salt on the wound now. My name is a cultural appropriation of the orange hulk. Don't feel bad, a lot of people just assume. It's my own fault for being obtuse, but it's tricky to rhyme a word with "Hogan". At least you didn't paint up a dog to mock me! They gave me a double Emmy, though, so who am I to say they're wrong? You're both alright, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• illegal alien and illegal immigrant are accurate terms that can be used. Using immigrant without the modifier, illegal, is inaccurate. This is an encyclopedia. We use precise language.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

How is "immigrant" inaccurate? Whether legal or illegal, he's still an immigrant. This is Wikipedia, where we have a policy called WP:BLPCRIME. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 18:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

different, more limited, sets of rights apply to persons who enter a country with out legal permission. "illegal" is used as a modifier to make the distinction clear. Imprecise lnaguage is a disservice to our readers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I understand there is a distinction between legal and illegal immigrants. However, you still haven't made an argument for why leaving out "illegal" is inaccurate. Are we supposed to always specify whether an immigrant is legal or illegal? Should every use of the word "immigrant" or "immigrate" in Wikipedia have "legal(ly)" or "illegal(ly)" prepended on the front, even though a court of law has not convicted the person of a crime? That seems contrary to your position of trying to ensure accuracy (or precision, which is different) and could possibly be undue in many places. I don't think any rational reader, upon reading this article, would assume that the suspect immigrated here legally. In fact, the preponderance of evidence in the article indicates the opposite. Why is it a disservice that "illegal" and "illegally" don't appear alongside "immigrant/immigrate"? – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 20:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't ruling out the use of "illegal" in my formulation. I just didn't want to get into the issue of "illegal" verses "undocumented". GMG^talk 18:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Illegal Alien - We know for a fact the suspect is Illegal (the federal agency that gets paid to determine this said so, namely, USCIS). We also know he's an Alien (because he is not a citizen –––all non-citizens are aliens). On the other hand, we don't know if he is an immigrant. Had he initiated efforts to legalize his situation and stay legally in the U.S. on a permanent basis, thus making him an immigrant? We don't know, and it is not our place to speculate: see WP:OR. Therefore, since we don't know, we cannot ascertain he's an immigrant. Therefore, Illegal Alien, as the most concise and precise paraphrasis of media reports. XavierItzm (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • No, we actually don't know that "for a fact", the sources disagree and there is a dispute over it. And no, applying for permanent status is NOT what differentiates an "immigrant" from an "alien". Volunteer Marek 21:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Merriam-Webster begs to differ from you. «immigrant | ˈiməɡrənt | noun a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.» If the subject fails to get a permanent status, he cannot live permanently in the U.S., i.e., he cannot become an immigrant. He's just a visitor. XavierItzm (talk) 07:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
  • How is it speculating when sources say he's an immigrant? You're the one doing WP:OR, doing your own research to say that he isn't an immigrant because he's not trying to stay legally (and nothing in immigrant requires one to legally stay permanently) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
• Immigrant - we follow what sources say and I don't see sources calling him an "alien". This is a Wikipedia invention. Volunteer Marek 21:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

"ICE spokesman Shawn Neudauer tells the Register that 'law enforcement remains absolutely confident that we’ve correctly identified the suspect as an illegal alien from Mexico, based both on investigative interviews with him and on records checks." If absolute confidence in definition from the literal authorities on US immigration doesn't count for something, I don't believe anything will. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. And here is what the sources actually say (i.e., The New York Times):

He is “an illegal alien from Mexico,” said Shawn Neudauer, a spokesman for ICE

(Emphasis added for clarity). XavierItzm (talk) 07:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Yes, the government uses alien, and the NY times quotes them. That doesn't mean that we need to or can use it in wikivoice; we can use it in quotes. GMG has analyzed the sourcing above in a table, where it is clear when not quoting, sources use "illegal immigrant". Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• And yeah, which text in the article is this exactly about? Volunteer Marek 21:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

There was a short lived edit war over this earlier today that spawned this discussion. It's not there now, but in the ensuing discussion there didn't seem to be any obvious agreement about whether we should leave it that way. GMG^talk 22:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Immigrant An immigrant is somebody who immigrated somewhere. Is there any dispute that the suspect immigrated to the United States? If not, then I don't see how is this controversial. ^Falling_Gravity 03:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The "immigrant" word means "a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country." The subject had no driver's license, no Social Security, his car was not under his own name, and he had sought no legal status through DACA or other relief plans that exist. It is highly presumptuous to assume that the subject is an "immigrant". The accurate term is that the subject is an alien. XavierItzm (talk) 06:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• Immigrant per GMG and my comments above Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
• Immigrant per WP:COMMONNAME. It seems that consensus is emerging that we should use the common name. But what is the common name? I investigate below. wumbolo ^^^ 08:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME argument by Wumbolo
Sources saying immigrant: Rolling stone (1 2), Time (1 2), The Wall Street Journal (1), The New York Times (1 2), The Washington Post (1 2), BBC (1 2) Sources saying alien:

• Comment The previous "investigation" left out six dissenting sources for oomph. Two can play that game. And I'm aware that Breitbart is crap, but included it for being one of the few to publicly mention how the gag order against "alien" is dead. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME argument by InedibleHulk
Sources saying alien: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, President of the United States of America, Breitbart, Monroe County Reporter, Reason, Des Moines Register Sources saying immigrant:

• Immigrant per the reasons I expressed originally. I find "illegal alien" to be fundamentally dehumanizing and as such perjorative. Simonm223 (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• Edited to add that I couldn't care less what the US government calls immigrants; we don't need to reflect the propaganda of that state in Wikipedia's voice. Simonm223 (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, this isn't about "immigrant" vs "illegal alien". Just regular "alien". And the fact that we're choosing between Republican and Democratic labels exclusively (rather than foreigner, migrant, settler, colonist, pioneer, outsider, incomer or newcomer) is already a vivid reflection of state propaganda. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Immigrant per GMG. Yoninah (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
• Alien for the reasons given by 1l2l3k and others. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
• Immigrant per WP:NPOV and being sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• illegal Immigrant, is sufficient and more neutral without watering down the point. Although, "alien" is a legitimate term still in use, I believe the other suggestion is less "charged". Kierzek (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• Illegal immigrant is factual, neutral, and matches most sources. — JFG ^talk 18:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• Illegal immigrant While "alien" is a legal term, it has a different connotation than "immigrant". For the purposes of maintaining NPOV, I feel that we should use "immigrant". Strikerforce^Talk 18:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• Illegal alien and Illegal immigrant are both acceptable terms that are both widely used and well understood. The unqualified use of "immigrant" connotes legal status and should be avoided here since it would be misleading to the average reader. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• Question. The term "alien" is being used in a quote ("law enforcement remains absolutely confident that we’ve correctly identified the suspect as an illegal alien from Mexico"). Can we use a piped link in that quote such as illegal alien? Bus stop (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Probably not, no. Per MOS:LWQ, we tend to avoid linking within quotes in any way where it's not absolutely clear that what we're linking to is what's intended by the speaker. That rules out most piped links that are not perfectly synonymous with the pipe. GMG^talk 14:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, that sounds about right. Bus stop (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Illegal immigrant–the cited sources heavily favor this term. However, let's all please be aware that the term "illegal alien" is not a slur or dehumanizing! It's a perfectly legitimate term commonly used in U.S. statutes --Zingarese talk · contribs 14:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Seriously, haven't you people got more important things to argue about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:5800:F500:F4AE:84DE:2845:8B97 (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Pinging you cause you closed the AfD discussion. I think it would be best if this discussion is closed. It's pretty clear that this isn't going to be the article where we suddenly switch to using "illegal alien", and all it's doing is being a magnet for right wing concern trolls. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 10:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:, and while you are at it, observe who introduced the name "Obama" to this thread. Talk about "concern" people! XavierItzm (talk) 11:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

That's the best diff you can show of me "inserting politics" into the conversation? Politics was inserted into this when a few editors, against the vast majority of other editors on Wikipedia, and in the face of overwhelming evidence that people generally don't use "illegal alien" except as a right wing talking point, pushed so hard for clearly non-standard terminology. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 16:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

This argument was political from its beginnings in op-ed pieces. The bit on this talk page is just spillover, and nobody here deserves blame or credit for spinning what was already spun. The donkey and elephant show is the sole reason we're thinking about this pair of synonyms rather than any of the thirty or so other words in the article with potentially controversial connotations ("promote" vs "advance", anyone?). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, no, let's not dance around the literal elephant in the room. There's no editors pushing for "undocumented" here, the "politically correct" version. Letting right wing concern trolls control discussion and then sit back and say "everyone is at fault" is unfair. We shouldn't be having such a massive discussion on this. It's such a waste of time. Is every article concerning immigrants supposed to have a huge discussion about immigrant vs alien? This is the problem with concern trolls who pretend to care about issues under the guise of neutrality, and then try to impune others for the "politics" that they themselves are quite obviously pushing. We can't let these types of people distract from the project; it's far too easy for them to take advantage of WP:AGF and derail discussions. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 18:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The way to avoid wasting time here, is to state an argument as succinctly as possible, and then go do something else instead while we await the results of the poll, be that either a natural resolution, or a formal close. Arguing back and forth about what or who is unnecessarily political is pointless. GMG^talk 18:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not pointless, because this is how the right operates. Did you see how that editor accused me of "injecting politics" in what was a comment simply explaining how the government is political? I stopped assuming good faith when I was accused of acting in bad faith for no particular reason at all. If we continue to assume good faith instead of standing up to problematic editing, that's how they win. This is a common tactic. It's akin to doing a racist dog whisle, and then when people call you out on racism, saying "wow, you brought race up? You're the real racist here". I don't believe this poll should've even started in the first place. If people want to change to "illegal alien", they should do a move proposal over at Illegal immigration. Also, this poll has gone on for a week now, with no end in sight despite a clear lack of consensus to shift from Wikipedia's established terminology. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 19:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

This poll didn't start because anyone wanted "illegal alien". Someone just didn't want "alien". And it's not meant to shift or move anything, only testing the waters to see if an actual RfC has legs. No time limit, no winners or losers, nothing for an admin to close, basically just a casual Internet discussion. And on that note, Hitler. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

You know things are bad when you ruin a name forever. Jeffrey Dahmer ate like 20 people. Folks still name their kids Jeff all the time. But you don't see any little Adolfs or Judases running around the playground. GMG^talk 19:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Not true. Simon started this thread because some editors kept trying to insert "illegal alien" into the article. In any case, "illegal immigrant" is the status quo consensus. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 20:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

But GMG started the poll, which I thought we were talking about. And what you said about why Simon said anything is also basically what I said about what he wound up saying. Also in any case, Heath Hitler's kid is presumably back to school today, though it's unclear if he still plays soccer. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

IIRC, there was a brief edit war that spawned the talk page discussion that very quickly went nowhere. Thus a structured discussion. I didn't have a compelling reason at the time to think that it would not be reinserted in the article. If the version of the article is your preferred version, why are you concerned with how soon the discussion is closed, or whether it is closed at all. At least numerically, it seems to favor immigrant anyway. GMG^talk 20:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Because it's giving a platform to editors who refuse to WP:LISTEN and instead accuse others of political agendas. Let's not pretend right wing trolls don't do this all the time on Wikipedia. How many times a year does some random editor come into something like Talk:Patriarchy and "inquire" about its neutrality? We shut those people down cause it's a waste of time and energy. Close your eyes to this issue all you want, but pretending there isn't a problem is not going to fix it. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 20:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Which editors? Which others? If you're seeing specific accusations, don't nuke the platform, just remind specific people to not make personal attacks. Plenty of us don't even know what a concern troll is, much less work for "those people". InedibleHulk (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Just a thought, but perhaps we should all consider the old saying about dead horses and move on from this subject, at this point? Strikerforce^Talk 21:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of text on what the research shows

The editor CZeke removed a sentence[3] noting that the research shows that illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crime than native-born Americans with the assertion that this was "pure OR and should be removed". However, the text is sourced to sources such as the WaPo and NYT, who are noting this explicitly in stories about Tibbetts. The text should be restored in full. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The facts should be concise and that is the person charged with the crime has been proven to be in the US illegally. No idea why we need to even go off on a tangent about what groups commit crimes at all. Expanding on this could go in the politicization portion of the article though.--MONGO (talk) 14:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The sentence was removed from the 'politicization' portion of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree it should be restored. – Levivich 17:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The real issue now is to add that the person charged did not have the full miranda rights told to him before questioning.--MONGO (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

That's well covered in RS, no objection from me to including a mention of that. – Levivich 18:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Removing it wasn't actually my first choice. There's no reason it can't be there -- if it's actually connected to the preceding sentence, rather than just being a flat, out-of-place assertion in Wikipedia's voice. But I tried that approach first and it was reverted. If someone can do it in a way that passes muster, I'm all in favour. ~ CZeke (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

It directly relates to the question at the heart of the politics of this killing: whether illegal immigrants pose a public threat or not. Which is why RS make note that the research shows that illegal immigrants are less crime-prone than natives. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

All it needs is to not be a sudden assertion of fact in the middle of a paragraph about people's arguments. You reverted "saying that"; fair enough. How about "on the evidence that"? ~ CZeke (talk) 02:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

My !vote would be to change it to: Opponents of illegal immigration emphasized that the suspect had entered the country illegally,^[43][44] despite illegal immigrants being less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans.^[45][46][47] – Levivich 02:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with that version. I'm also fine with the older status quo version. I don't like is the version that gives the impression that the research is attributed pov from democrats. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Works for me too; it's not perfect but it's much better than the current version. Glad we could meet in the middle on this. ~ CZeke (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The text claiming illegal immigrants commit less crime should be removed, or at least qualified to include the fact that there is no complete official data source on the crime rates of illegal immigrants. The citations are not to studies, they are to partisan media outlets. The conclusions made in the article are not directly supported by the citations. It is at best misleading, and at worst outright false. Real data actually contradicts this narrative, as seen in this report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics 206.53.64.84 (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

If there is no data, why do you profess to know reality? Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Trial begins Monday, 17 May 2021

And citing COVID, the presiding judge has ordered no media or spectators may be in the gallery. It is expected that remotely operated cameras will be in use to live-stream the court proceedings to CourtTV and other outlets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:4907:4B00:31BD:2193:9D3C:81F1 (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Jury Selection is complete

According to (https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2021/05/18/jury-selection-continues-cristhian-bahena-rivera-trial-accused-killing-mollie-tibbetts/5138089001/) the jury selection is complete and consists of seven men, eight women, with three alternates. Opening arguments will be this upcoming Wednesday at 8:30am. 198.70.2.200 (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Closing arguments

Following an opening statement consisting of instructions to the jury, the closing arguments began on May 27th, 2021. 2604:2D80:4907:4B00:DD35:D22B:779F:1D28 (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Jury deliberation

The jury began deliberation at 1:31 PM Central USA time (that's 2:31 PM Eastern). 2604:2D80:4907:4B00:DD35:D22B:779F:1D28 (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Jury deliberation will continue tomorrow morning, Friday, May 28th, after having been sequestered for deliberations for 3:15:57 2604:2D80:4907:4B00:DD35:D22B:779F:1D28 (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Verdict has been announced

Since this article is locked, someone other than me will have to update it with the final verdict which was just announced: defendant has been found guilty of murder in the first degree. In Iowa, that means life in prison without the chance for parole. The jury deliberated for over 7 hours. 198.70.2.200 (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Sentencing will take place 9am Central Time, on July 15th, 2021. 198.70.2.200 (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Title of article needs to be changed to "murder of ...". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Article title has now been changed. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)