Talk:United States v. Wong Kim Ark/Archives/2010

"Federalist" blogs
Several "federalist blog" links are found throughout 14th Amendment-related articles. Can anyone verify the bona fides of the author ("PA Madison, former research fellow in constitutional studies")? His "scholarship" is misleading at best, and completely wrong at worst. For example, see http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/constitutional_law/.

From what I picked from the Volokh Conspiracy it appears he is/was an Archivist/Historian of law for the Library of Congress. Actually his scholarship is outstanding and verifiable. He does not frame his arguments under current prevailing federal judicial thought but under original meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.241.12 (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The link to P. A. Madison's blog was added by someone on December 19, 2005. I moved the link to the end of the article on December 25 and added a descriptive comment in an attempt to preserve NPOV.  Although the quality of the legal scholarship on this blog may certainly be in question, I would suggest it's probably better to keep the link more or less as is — not only because the material does reflect how a vocal group feels about this subject, but also because trying to delete it is likely to trigger a nasty revert war.  Richwales 06:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If you Google him, you'll find that he has a decidedly conservative axe to grind. Citing such a biased source calls the reliability of the whole article into question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.114.176.218 (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

More sources
I spent a few hours this evening looking for, and adding, sources to add to this article. I don't claim to be done, but I think it's better now than it was. Any comments, suggestions, or improvements are, of course, welcome. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I added more sources (and reformatted some cites to use the various "cite" templates). Many (though by no means all) of the current sources are direct cites to the Wong Kim Ark majority and dissenting opinions, which are of course primary sources that should be improved where possible by replacing most of them with secondary sources per WP:PSTS. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Last paragraph (non-US-born children of Americans natural born?) removed
I [ removed] the last paragraph of the article (dealing with whether Wong Kim Ark is relevant to the "natural-born citizen" status of non-US-born children of American parents). This is unsourced speculation hanging solely on a single comment in the dissent. It might be worth reinstating at a later time if reliable sources can be found (keeping in mind, of course, that POV blogs are not considered reliable sources). Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)