User talk:Richwales/Archives/2016-07

Questions about Birthplace Citizenship summary section
1) Do you agree that a measure of adverse public opinion (Rasmussen 2011 poll) adds to an understanding of the controversy surrounding the Birthplace Citizenship policy?

2) How would you have introduced the topic of unsettled controversy into the Summary Section? (In the detail sections, the controversy over the policy is a recurring theme).

3) To merely state the Citizenship Clause as a "done deal" (ignoring the differing interpretations of it that lead to different policies)....isn't that a form of editorializing on behalf of a "cause"?

My understanding of Wikipedia policies is that controverial topics are to be addressed objectively, and differing sides are to made explicit. As an editor, you are NOT supposed to quash opposing points of view. At the most, you should petition the author to better meet any standard being overlooked.

Your undo of the two paragraphs in the Summary summarizing the heart of the disagreement over the meaning of the 14th Amendment was not accompanied by a sufficient explanation. I suggest we work together via "Talk" to strengthen this article in the direction of objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbierre (talk • contribs) 22:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * First, please note that the generally accepted English-language phrase describing jus soli citizenship is birthright citizenship, not birthplace citizenship. Your use of "birthplace citizenship" makes logical sense, but it simply isn't the term that is commonly used.


 * Mentioning a Rasmussen Reports opinion poll may be relevant in the "Current controversy" section near the end of the article. I would be very careful about giving overly weighty credence to such a poll in the lead section.  I do agree that the lead as it currently stands would probably benefit from reworking, but this needs to be done in such a way as to describe the issues neutrally and give fair consideration both to arguments for and against birthright citizenship.  When adding material like this, you need to be very careful with charged words like "indiscriminate"; similarly for "clarify", which you used in your earlier changes (which I reverted) — both of these words convey value judgments that do not belong in a Wikipedia article.


 * The Wikipedia policy for justifying new material in an article (WP:BURDEN) says that all material "challenged or likely to be challenged" must be attributed to a reliable, published source which clearly supports the material in question. Also, the burden to demonstrate that material is verifiable lies with the editor who is adding or restoring the material.  Further, any material which is not backed up via a reliable source may be removed and shouldn't be restored without including a source.  So, when you added controversial material without including sources, other editors were within their rights to remove it, and they don't need to justify such removal (that's your job), and their removal of your inadequately sourced material is not a violation of the "neutral point of view" (WP:NPOV) policy.


 * And I did offer a justification for my removal of your original addition, in the edit summary, where I said the following: statements like these may be true, but unless they are substantiated by citations to reliable sources, they violate our prohibition against "original research".


 * Finally, with regard to your later editing, in which two other editors reverted your change and you re-added it twice, most seasoned Wikipedia contributors would call this a clear violation of the prohibition against edit warring. The edit warring policy (WP:EW) clearly says that you can not justify such action because you are convinced that your version is right and that others who disagree with you are wrong.  I strongly urge you to take your disagreements to the article's talk page, engage in a genuine dialogue, and be prepared to accept the possibility that others might disagree with you in whole or in part.  If you make another re-addition of the material which others have been disagreeing with this evening, you will almost certainly find yourself blocked from editing, for at least a couple of days, and even longer if you go back to the same combative editing style after your initial block expires.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Mail!
MSJapan (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)