Talk:Elvira Arellano/Archive 1

Importance
I think this is an important entry; thank you to whoever started it. I also think that for such a volatile issue, it is fair and presents the facts. Some people might take offense to the terms "illegal immigrant" and "convicted criminal", but that's exactly what she is. She is an immigrant who is here illegally and she was convicted of the crime of falsifying a Social Security number to obtain work. 69.211.109.153 06:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Goldschla 11/15/06


 * It may be an important entry on a volatile issue, but it is still subject to the same rules and guidelines as other WikiPedia articles. References must be cited, and the article must be neutral (i.e., no POV).  Entries and links to the Op/Ed (Editorial) article in the Chicago Tribune have been deleted.  —Chicaneo 00:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Requesting addition of Illegal Alien in place of Undocumented Worker.
Somebody who crosses the border illegally is an illegal alien.

Elvira Arellano is therefore an illegal alien as nobody is disputing the fact that she entered into the US illegally twice.

Elvira Arellano may also have been an undocumented worker, but so is a teenager who does not report baby sitting wages. Furthermore, Elvira Arellano is not presently working, so the characterization is even less relevant now.

To list Elvira Arellano as an undocumented worker, with no reference to her being an illegal immigrant/alien is factually negligent and dishonest.

Countless news articles refer to her as an illegal alien:


 * [| Chicago Tribune]
 * [| Washington Times]

Even cable news refers to her as an illegal alien:


 * [| CNN]

There have been numerous reverts setting this article back to undocumented worker, this is to open a debate on the issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.113.7.17 (talk • contribs).


 * First, by whose definition is Elvira Arellano an "illegal alien"? In User:70.113.7.17's edit summaries he/she stated that this was not his definition, but that of the State Department.  I looked at the U.S. Department of State's homepage and its links but did not find the term "illegal alien" anywhere.  User:70.113.7.17, please provide a link to the specific Department of State's page which makes the term "illegal alien" the official term.  Second, whatever term is used, a link to the government's official definition would help to prevent further disputes.  Chicaneo 04:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Illegal Alien Defined


 * Google's definitions:
 * | Illegal Immigrant Defined
 * | Illegal Alien Defined


 * Dictionary.com Definition:


 * illegal alien:


 * 1. a foreigner who has entered or resides in a country unlawfully or without the country's authorization.


 * 2. a foreigner who enters the U.S. without an entry or immigrant visa, esp. a person who crosses the border by avoiding inspection or who overstays the period of time allowed as a visitor, tourist, or businessperson. Compare resident alien.


 * Also called illegal immigrant.


 * Elvira Arellano meets the criteria required to be called "illegal alien", unless it can be proven otherwise. Burden is on those opposed to illegal alien change to provide proof she is legally in the [United States]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.153.30.227 (talk • contribs).
 * "Elvira Arellano may also have been an undocumented worker, but so is a teenager who does not report baby sitting wages."--Do you have a real world example of the expression "indocumented worker" actually being used in this manner? This sounds a bit made up to me. I did a google search on "undocumented worker", and checked all of the entries on the first 6 pages (the first 60 hits) before I gave up, and in ALL cases the expression refered to immigrants. This includes official governmental websites and law offices. For example, the 3rd hit is the California Department of Industrial Relations webpage http://www.dir.ca.gov/QAundoc.html titled "Undocumented worker rights", and it is clear from the webpage that they are refering to immigrants. I would be quite surprised to encounter the expression used without qualification in the way that you imagine, save for somebody purposely doing so to make a point. --Ramsey2006 05:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What is an undocumented worker?


 * An undocumented worker is a worker who does not have a valid visa to work in the United States.


 * An undocumented worker can be a person who entered the U.S. illegally; who entered the U.S. as a visitor and unlawfully started working; or who had a valid visa to work which expired and was not renewed.


 * http://www.graydon.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/news_events.newsletter_detail/object_id/1c3a2be4-94ad-4b36-bd48-26a5dc876b28/The21stCenturyEmployerandUSImmigrationLawsWhatisanEmployertoDo.cfm
 * --Ramsey2006 05:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Point is illegal alien more accurately describes her status than undocumented worker does. People working under the table are undocumented workers, people visiting countries under travel visas who do odd jobs are undocumented workers, but neither of these groups are illegal aliens.  Therefore, undocumented worker is not the best description.
 * In all of your reverts back to undocumented worker, you have never included a reason for why undocumented worker is more valid then illegal alien, multiple people have expressed reason for using illegal alien. It is dishonest to omit this fact and I believe your efforts to prevent Elvira Arellano as being referred to as an illegal alien represent a biased POV.  That said, am giving you the chance to debate your reasoning.  The previous post does nothing to suggest why undocumented worker should be solely used.
 * In the past, I have made attempts to compromise, leaving both illegal alien and undocumented worker in the article, but you reverted that change out and have left no option for a middle ground solution to date.
 * Finally, in your last Talk posting you seem to imply that undocumented worker and illegal alien are interchangeable, but if that were the case, why do you protest using illegal alien? I suspect it is because the two terms are not in fact as interchangeable.  Yes illegal alien has a negative connotation, but it is still the best term.
 * Please view definitions of illegal alien below, the burden is on those who do not wish the article to refer to Elvira Arellano as an illegal alien to provide proof that she is in fact not here illegally. I am open to compromise of posting both illegal alien and undocumented worked, but it is biased and dishonest to prevent any references to illegal alien, when that is the heart of this story. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.113.7.17 (talk • contribs).
 * It is pretty clear that she came here to work, and that she has indeed been working, since one of her places of employment is even mentioned in the article, so "undocumented worker" seems quite accurate. However, in the spirit of compromise, would you prefer "undocumented immigrant" to "undocumented worker"? (BTW, it would be quite helpful if you would get a username and sign your comments, to avoid confusion.)--Ramsey2006 06:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Unidentified user(s), in the above posts you state that reverts from the term "illegal alien" to whichever term it is that you do not prefer is POV. In fact you are the one(s) engaging in POV. Let me explain. In the above post(s) you define the term "illegal alien" and then attempt to legitimize your definitions by linking to various sources. The first source you cited is a link to a WikiPedia article entitled "Illegal immigration". That article is marked at the top of the page as disputed, not verified and as one that contains POV. Hardly a valid source. The second source you cite is linked to a URL which is "not found". Again, hardly a valid source. There is the possibility that it is a broken link which broke after you posted the link. There is also the possibility that your intentions are not honorable. I can't be sure, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you could check that link and then re-post. The third source is linked to an online dictionary which states that the definitions you posted are "based on" a Random House dictionary. The phrase "based on" gives cause for pause and certainly indicates that the definitions may have been altered. Once again, hardly a valid source. Unidentified user(s) you'll have to do better than that to make your case. Chicaneo 12:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you can help and provide additional definitions of the term "illegal alien" and "undocumented immigrant" (which has not yet been sourced at all) for this debate, I fixed the second Google link. --Jackspenn 15:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to provide you with definitions for these two terms and I would like to link them to federal legislation or official government policy but I can't seem to find those terms used anywhere. This exact same debate is going on at the Illegal immigration to the United States talk page.  I am an editor of that article and the definitions section contains a link to a manual for a pilot project which defines illegal alien.  That link is being disputed because it is not official policy (see talk page discussion) and I do not recommend using that definition here.  Since I am not the one who is wanting to use the term "illegal alien", then the burden is not on me to define anything.  I believe the burden is on you to prove that your term is valid.  Chicaneo 00:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How about if the sentence were re-worded, "Arellano first entered the United States illegally in 1997"? Then there's no argument between the terms.  I assume we can agree she entered illegally.  —Wknight94 (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That sounds good to me. I am not opposed to pointing out that she is in the US illegally, I simply dislike the label "illegal alien" without it being an "official" term.  It is important that WP articles be fair, factual and acurate.  Use of unofficial labels simply sets these kinds of disputes into motion.  If an "official" label is used, there can be a link to that term, and there is no dispute. Chicaneo 06:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd go even further with labels. Official governmental agencies and entire governments themselves often come equiped with rather strong POV's, and go through alot of trouble to develope terminology to push those POV's. (for example, "colateral damage" and "peacekeeper missle") Being "official" is no guarentee of NPOV. It only assures that the POV has been certified as Politically Correct by a governmental agency.--Ramsey2006 07:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point. Just thinking about all the labels our govt and its agencies manufacture to promote an agenda (hidden or stated) is making my head spin with "spin".  Chicaneo 08:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Compromise: Lets use both terms
How able we change "Arellano first entered the United States in 1997 as an undocumented worker." to "Arellano is an illegal alien who first entered the United States in 1997."

and then change this "In 2000, she moved to Chicago and worked as a cleaning woman at O'Hare International Airport." to "In 2000, she moved to Chicago and took a cleaning job at O'Hare International Airport as an undocumented worker."

This allows for the inclusion of both the illegal alien term and the undocumented worker term, and places them in content related to each of those terms. I am trying really hard to reach a middle ground here, please let me know if this will work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.113.7.17 (talk • contribs).


 * As I suggested below, how about something simpler, like replacing "undocumented worker" with "undocumented immigrant"? The section is titled "History" as I recall. The focus is on the sequence of events that actually happened, not on a running commentary of terms describing what she is. --Ramsey2006 06:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Her illegal alien status needs to be included in this article. It is important to inform readers of her illegal acts that resulted in her current situation; to ignore this is intellectually dishonest.  All of your edits push a pro-Arellano POV that try to legitimize her position and remove any personal responsibility.  If you wish to be neutral, you will accept the above compromise.  The overwhelming  media articles refer to her as an illegal alien, this has been documented and is provable by a simple Google search.  You pushed for undocumented worker reference, and now do complete change to attempt a different approach.  We should be about the truth, even if it hurts.  Labeling her an illegal alien is completely legitimate and is supported by definitions already provided.  It is also the most appropriate descriptor.  I will not get taught into a why not this or that debate that can just keep me jumping hoops, rather, I have laid out a sound argument for the inclusion of "illegal alien", if you want to use other descriptors, we can debate that, but there has not been one sound reason for not using the term "illegal alien".




 * What is the definition of an "undocumented immigrant"? It is not common or widely used.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.113.7.17 (talk • contribs).
 * Much of the Illegal immigration to the United States has to do with this sole issue of what to call the people. How about "undocumented worker/illegal immigrant"?  I have to admit, not being terribly involved or interested in this issue, I would have never known that "undocumented worker" meant that the person had crossed the border illegally.  It does seem disingenuous to not mention "illegal" somewhere.  The article here is not called "Undocumented workers in the United States".  —Wknight94 (talk) 14:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "undocumented worker/illegal immigrant" in place of the original "undocumented worker" would be an acceptable to me. --Ramsey2006 18:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of the History section could be edited quite simply to read as follows: "Arellano first entered the United States in 1997 as an undocumented worker/illegal immigrant." --Ramsey2006 18:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How about for the history section dropping the disputed labels and simply stating the facts such as: "In 1997 Arellano entered the United States illegally, was apprehended, and deported back to Mexico by the United States government."  I would not be opposed to also adding the word "illegally" to the intro section if it means that we can reach a compromise on this issue.  The first sentence of the intro section would then read "Elvira Arellano (born 1975) is a Mexican citizen living illegally in the United ....." Chicaneo 07:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. --Ramsey2006 07:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Who's who here?
I can't even figure out who's participating here in this discussion and who is saying what. Anonymous users are not signing their comments.

On the article page, there are 3 anonymous user IP's:


 * 68.166.88.10 who made a series of edits almost two weeks ago on Nov 15.
 * 70.113.7.17 who made several series of edits on the evening of Nov 24 and around 1:00am on the morning of Nov 26.
 * 70.246.89.177 who made several edits on the evening of Nov 26, last night.

On the talk page, I just realized that the latest anonymous user 70.246.89.177 from last night (Nov 26) has not even posted to this discussion. Instead, late last night and early this morning there have been two anonymous user IP's who have been posting without signing their posts. Those IP's are:


 * 70.113.7.17
 * 67.153.30.227

Now, I have no way of knowing if any of these anonymous users are the same poster or not, and if so, which ones. I also cannot easily identify who is saying what.

The anonymous users need to let everybody here know which IP's they have posted under, and need to start signing their comments before I can continue participating in this discussion. Are 70.113.7.17 and 70.246.89.177 the same person? --Ramsey2006 09:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I just spent some time fixing the order of posts and levels of sections as well as signing for people. What a mess!  Let's post at the bottom of the page as is customary and let's sign our posts with ~ —Wknight94 (talk) 12:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. It is alot easier to follow now. --Ramsey2006 18:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

70.113.7.17 and 70.246.89.177 are both the same person, one is my home, one a coffee shop I was at. I just started using Wiki, so you have to be patient. --70.113.7.17 14:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's easy to fix. Create a user ID!  :)  —Wknight94 (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Lets finish this debate
There still hasn't been any published reason not to list her as an "illegal alien". I provided multiple reasons for why illegal alien should be included, to jump from lets use "undocumented worker", no wait, lets use "undocumented immigrant" (which, still hasn't even been defined) avoids the issue we are debating. Let me phrase it as clearly as possible:

After reading the definitions, checking Google and checking multiple news articles, it is apparent that wikipedia is outside the norm by not sighting Elvira Arellano as an illegal alien, if we are not to list her as an "illegal alien", it must be proven she is not an illegal alien.

An acceptable answer would be Here is evidence (with sources) she is in the US legally and it is all an misunderstanding.

An unacceptable answer would be How about we use this PC phrase or this PC phrase instead.

I have been very patient in this lopsided debate. I have answered every request given to me. No one has addressed my request. I have been subjected to various avoidance tactics, so unless it can be proven she is not an illegal alien, I intend to make this change and not have it reverted out. I previously posted under 70.113.7.17 and 70.246.89.177, but have since gotten a user ID as requested. --Jackspenn 15:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Like I said in my previous post, I tend to agree with you - but to a limited extent. A mention of the illegality of her actions is totally warranted IMHO but, let's be honest, some of your edits have completely overwhelmed the article with that aspect.  Look at the diff for this set of your edits and tell me there's no POV in there.  You even removed the link to the Human rights Portal at the bottom!  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Like I have said, I am new to wikipedia. Look at the progess in my postings, I have learned to comment on history, use talk, use signatures, got an account to avoid confusion with other IP comments, am accepting of content that I do not agree with and all in an incredibly short period of time. I completely revamped my entire methodology.  I have decided to fight for the inclusion of relevant facts rather then the exclusion of questionable facts or unrelated items.  I make no excuses for missteps I made earlier, it was not in the best interest of open source projects, I simply have done my best not to repeat them.    --Jackspenn 19:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay. And it sounds like Ramsey2006 is agreeable above.  Compromise reached?  —Wknight94 (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Illegal alien is full of POV. --evrik (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. Using the term "illegal" in every third sentence is POV but "illegal alien" is just a fact.  —Wknight94 (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Legality is a social construct. The term alien should be enough for the article. --evrik (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure what that means. The legality of her actions are why she's notable in the first place.  If legality were not important, 1.) she wouldn't have an article because there wouldn't be a story and 2.) why would you care if the word "illegal" were included?  —Wknight94 (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Illegal alien does not presnt an NPOV. The current wording is fine. If you don't understand what a social construct is, then perhaps you should study up before debating this issue. --evrik (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's a social construct you should study up on before continuing further: civility. I know what a social construct is - I don't see how that helps your case in the least.  Level of "documentation" isn't a social construct?  Legality and documentation are each POV and together they result in NPOV.  —Wknight94 (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, found this edit summary in your contributions: immoral is loaded with POV. That's why I liked the word "legal". Legal is POV here but not there, eh?  —Wknight94 (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And another edit where you're finding sources just to change "unfair" to "legal". But here you want to change "legal" to "undocumented".  Do tell...  —Wknight94 (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue of which term to use is not an easy one to solve and will probably not be solved soon. Because we are required to be NPOV (this is not a suggestion, or a guideline, it is a requirement) I would argue that the term we use must be in found in either federal legislation or in official policy of a branch of government. On the IRS webpage, the IRS uses the term "illegal alien" and equates it with "undocumented alien". The IRS webpage defines these terms but does not cite a source for these definitaions. I have not looked at actual IRS legislation to see if these terms are in use in federal legislation or in official IRS policy. Unless we can find the term "illegal alien" or "undocumented worker" or "insert your favorite term here" in federal legislation or official policy, then it's all POV as far as I'm concerned. Also, I am not willing to use any term favored by any media source, or by any special interest group simply because it is used most frequently or because it is the more PC thing to do. Sorry I haven't helped a bit but that's my two cents. Chicaneo 00:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Countless news sources refer to her as an illegal alien. We have a several definitions for illegal alien and she meets them.  We are not debating what terms to use, we are debating is it acceptable to refer to her as an illegal alien.  Short question for you to answer is, "Is it a fact that Elvira Arellano is an illegal alien?".  To avoid a reference to illegal alien in this story, we need proof she is either here legally or she is not here.  On both issues, there is no debate.  We are not debating is illegal alien a pretty term or a nice term or one you like, the debate is simply is she an illegal alien or not?  --Jackspenn 01:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


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

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


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


 * I just noticed that Chicaneo and wknight94 have agreed (at the bottom of the heading Requesting addition of Illegal Alien in place of Undocumented Worker above) to another formulation of the initial sentence that totally avoids the need to label her altogether. Would this wording be agreeable to you?--Ramsey2006 06:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "In 1997 Arellano illegally entered the United States, was apprehended, and deported back to Mexico by the United States government." works. --Jackspenn 16:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So why isn't it done? :)  —Wknight94 (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just did it. In fact, I added not ONE "illegal", but TWO "illegals", not as labels, but rather as facts, as we best guess them now until the case is actually adjudicated. --Ramsey2006 03:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I should point out that Evrik has not yet weighed in on the discussion, and so my edit (especially in the first sentence of the article, where I express our gratuitous best guess as to the legal guilt of the protagonist without benifit of a judge nor jury, in a case that has yet to be decided) is still rather provisional. I made the edit with the full knoweledge that I am prejudging a not yet decided case, in the spirit of wikicompromise. Mainly, I'm just tired, and want to get back to mathematics. There are non-existent articles that I'd like to create when I get the time. --Ramsey2006 03:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Evrik's hit-and-run argument was weak anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There was no need to comment further. --evrik (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ramsey2006, thanks for hanging in there. Chicaneo 15:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)