User talk:KimberNorth

August 2020
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Natural-born-citizen clause. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And if disagree with an edit, discuss your disagreements on the talk page. Don't edit war. Thanks. --Weazie (talk) 02:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Your recent edit, with the summary "Added information on natural birth and delete unconstitutional opinion", removed properly sourced material and substituted two unsubstantiated assertions — first, that a natural-born citizen must have "at least one native or natural born parent"; and second, that "the precise meaning of the natural-born-citizen could be decided using case notes on the 14th amendment". If you want to put these claims into the article, you must at a minimum cite reliable sources of suitable quality to substantiate the new statements.  And the original article (absent your changes) cites two such sources (the Gordon and Tokaji papers) substantiating the claim that this issue might be deemed a non-justiciable political question.  If you are convinced that the article (as it stands) is just plain wrong, and that your changes are essential in order to make it say the truth, you need to discuss your concerns on the article's talk page and/or other places set aside for resolving disputes.  If you continue your efforts to impose your changes in defiance of, or without regard to, consensus, you are violating Wikipedia's prohibition on edit warring and risk being blocked from editing.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I guess I’m lost on what is considered reliable published material. I ignorantly thought my edits would be just a citation link added on.. Can I add two links at the bottom? Thank you KimberNorth (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's the link to Wikipedia's requirement for reliable sources. In your last edit, you attempted to add a link to the U.S. Supreme Court case Wong Kim Ark, which is already extensively discussed in the article. You also attempted to link to this site, which is not a reliable source because it is just some random, anonymous blog. Thank you for not further edit warring. --Weazie (talk) 03:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * You also need to respect Wikipedia's "Neutral Point of View" policy (WP:NPOV), which says that if you want to add new material that contradicts existing well-sourced material, you need to give fair and unbiased treatment of all views that are substantiated by reliable sources. As User:Weazie pointed out, the www.14thamendment.us web site does not meet Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source — it is clearly self-published material (see WP:RSSELF) representing only the personal views of its author, Fred Elbel.  There is a huge difference between court decisions, treatises by legal scholars, etc. on the one hand, and personal blogs denouncing said material and purporting to explain The Truth on the other.


 * As for United States v. Wong Kim Ark, this article contains an in-depth treatment of birthright citizenship (though not natural-born citizenship as such, because Mr. Wong wasn't trying to run for President). The Wong Kim Ark article also discusses the so-called "anchor baby" issue, which wasn't anything like the kind of controversy in 1898 that it is now.  I imagine that Fred Elbel believes either that Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided and is flatly spurious, or that the Wong Kim Ark decision doesn't apply to US-born children whose parents were not citizens or permanent residents of the US, but this is not a situation where we can edit Wikipedia to say that the past decision and current federal statutes / regulations are just plain wrong (though we may and should — and I believe the Natural-born-citizen clause article already does — make sure readers are aware of properly substantiated differences of opinion and how, if at all, Congress and/or the courts have dealt with them).


 * Also w/r/t the Wong Kim Ark article, I would point out that this article was hashed out some years ago via an intensive vetting procedure lasting several months (culminating in its being designated as a Featured Article — that's what the star in the upper right-hand corner of this article means). While no Wikipedia article (not even a Featured Article) is sacrosanct and immune from later revision, Featured Article status does mean that any substantive change to the article should be made only after careful discussion and a clear consensus.  Given that you are a brand-new editor, I would strongly advise you not to try to change the citizenship-related claims in the Wong Kim Ark article — even if (or perhaps especially if) you are convinced that the existing material is just plain wrong; if you absolutely must, you can use the article's talk page to discuss the changes you would want to make and to provide the sources you would propose to cite in support of your changes, but said changes should be made only when there is a definite consensus of other editors to do so.


 * I hope the above information will be useful to you in your quest to become a good and productive Wikipedia editor. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)