Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States v. Wong Kim Ark/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 18:52, 20 September 2011.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

 * Nominator(s): Rich wales (talk · contribs) 03:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... This article discusses a landmark US Supreme Court case on birthright citizenship. It has been significantly worked on since it became a GA last January. It covers the topic clearly and comprehensively, and after two peer reviews, I believe it is in suitable condition to be recognized as an FA. Rich wales (talk · contribs) 03:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Citations are rarely needed in the lead - check your use of them with reference to WP:LEAD
 * Be consistent in whether website names are linked
 * Check quotation formatting re: MOS:ITALICS, MOS:ELLIPSIS, MOS:QUOTE, etc
 * Do you have reference/ID numbers for the documents from NARA? Also, check for consistency in how these citations are formatted
 * Convenience links to print-based sources (ie. Google Books) don't need retrieval dates
 * FN 20: page(s)?
 * FN 26: which Kansas City?
 * Check for small inconsistencies in reference formatting like doubled periods
 * Where is Thousand Oaks? Provide states for ambiguous or lesser-known locations
 * Don't mix templated and untemplated citations, as this causes formatting inconsistencies. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Acknowledged. I'll start working on the above issues and get back to you within the next day or two.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 14:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There appear to be a couple of bugs in the Cite court template. As best I can tell, the template insists on putting a period after quoted text from the case.  I tried the postscript= kludge that works around this problem in Cite journal, but this doesn't seem to have any effect for Cite court.  The Cite court template also puts quoted text in parens (in contrast to what Cite journal does), and it attaches the external web link to the word "Text" instead of doing something more reasonable such as linking to the case name.  Do the FA review people have any abilities (beyond those of mere mortals) to light a fire under the template people and get these issues addressed?  If not, do you know of any workarounds I can use?  Or are these formatting nits sufficiently vexing that the FA review might need to be put on hold pending a nicer-looking solution?   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 18:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but templates and coding do not fall within my area of competency, and I have no particular clout with the template people. I think we can live with its issues if necessary, but it would be great if someone could chime in with a workaround. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not currently have any reference/ID numbers for the immigration files I viewed at the NARA office in 2005. I agree that this info would be highly desirable—and if absolutely necessary, I am prepared to take another trip to the NARA office (it is within reasonable driving distance of where I live) and try to look at the files again.  Alternatively, I could simply remove these sources, along with the portions of the article that depend on them; this would be unfortunate, because I believe the material in question is relevant and helpful, but the article should be OK without these bits, and I can add them back later if/when I have more complete sourcing details.  What would you suggest?   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 18:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Do they have an online database or listing that would allow you to find this information without going back? I would advocate against removing these sources if possible, but you would know best what affect that would have on the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Another bug or misfeature in the Cite court template is that it doesn't support the accessdate= parameter. My peer-reviewer for this article recommended I include the access dates for court cases—possibly even if this meant working around the bug in the template—but what you said regarding not needing retrieval dates for "convenience links to print-based sources" leads me to think that maybe I don't need to worry about this after all in the case of US Supreme Court cases (or other court cases that are printed in well-known case reporter series).  What should I do?   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 18:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would argue that retrieval dates in such cases are unnecessary, but law references are not my area of expertise. Did your peer reviewer present his/her reasoning for including access dates? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The peer reviewer seemed to feel that, just on principle, any source with a URL link should probably show an access date, by any means necessary, in order to be assured of passing FA review. I don't think he would argue with you, though, if you feel this is overkill (as you did, for example, with books.google.com links for print books).  It sounds like I might as well go ahead and remove the (currently ignored) accessdate= parameters from my Cite court templates, just in case someone does eventually "fix" the template.  And will it be sufficient to see if anyone else comments here on a possible workaround for the template problems?  Or should I bring this question up somewhere else where more FA-involved people are likely to see it?  (Some of these issues have already been raised, BTW, at Template talk:Cite court, but no one seems to be actively dealing with problem reports there these days .)


 * I take that back; someone did just comment at Template talk:Cite court, apologizing for the delay and suggesting the issue will be addressed after all.  Rich wales (talk · contribs) 20:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have sandboxed an update to cite court that makes it compliant with Citation Style 1 (cite book, journal, web, etc.). Please review and comment. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 15:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've temporarily changed all the cite court templates in the article to cite court/sandbox. Most of the case references look better than they did w/r/t the placement of the link and the extraneous parens and extra period.  I am concerned, however, that people who deal with legal topics are going to complain that these cites no longer conform to accepted US legal citation norms.  For example, reference #1 currently shows as "United States v. Wong Kim Ark. 1898. 169 U.S. 649, p. 715." — but my understanding is that every lawyer, law clerk, and law student in the US will tell you that this must be written as "United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 715 (1898)", with the year in parens at the end of the cite, and without a "p." abbreviation before the page number within the case.  I also see a problem with reference #14 — the litigants info (In re Wong Kim Ark) is missing, and there are two periods after the court name; it "should" read "In re Wong Kim Ark, 71 Fed. 382, 392 (N.D.Cal. 1896)".   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 18:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The original template checks to see if an article exists that matches the litigants and automatically adds the link. I included this feature and it is causing the missing litigants, but only for that text. I have disabled it while I troubleshoot. This is now fixed
 * The p. is not added by the template, but by markup like p. 715.
 * The extra period is a perennial issue, as it is the core separator and cannot be disabled per field. The easy fix is to eliminate a trailing period in the field.
 * As to the format: The template does not give any reference for the format and no one else appears to watching the discussion. We are not locked to outside styles— the key is to present all the information in an understandable format for a reader to locate the source.
 * Given the above statement, I do have an issue with the court format. As an encyclopedia, we should not expect a read to understand that N.D.Cal. means United States District Court for the Northern District of California— my first thought was North Dakota. Especially with a worldwide audience. This is probably something that needs to be discussed elsewhere and should not affect the status of the article. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 19:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. I've taken out the "p." in all the pinpoints; I've removed the final period from "N.D.Cal."; and I've wikilinked this abbreviation to the article on the district court.  I still disagree regarding the placement of the year of a decision, but I'm willing to punt this issue for the time being (though I will probably bring it up eventually with the Law and/or U.S. Supreme Court Cases wikiprojects).  For anyone who is interested, see Bluebook for more about US legal citation style.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 20:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We should take this to the template talk page. This minor style issue should not impact the FA status for this article. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 20:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me. Let me know when the fixed template is in production, and I'll go back in and take out the "/sandbox" modifications I made to the article.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 20:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have abandoned this because "Any attempt to convert other citations from book to court or from book to Bluebook etc., simply because Bluebook citations were used, will likely be reverted on sight." ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 21:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * My own feeling regarding access dates for law references is that they're generally unnecessary, at least for US federal or state cases, because anyone who knows anything at all about legal research can easily take the cite for a case (e.g., "169 U.S. 649") and find the case (either in print in a law library, or online in a zillion places). So there's no real danger of a link going bad and no one being able to find the case or prove it ever really existed to begin with.  Older, lower-level court rulings might be a bit harder to find online from scratch (e.g., the In re Wong Kim Ark district court case, which is source #14 in the article as it currently stands), so I could possibly see an argument for showing an access date for that one, even if not for the Supreme Court cases.


 * I tried checking the archival search feature on NARA's web site, but I couldn't find anything for Wong Kim Ark or his family. I'll try again.  The effect of taking out these sources would be that the evident ambiguity regarding Wong Kim Ark's birth year would not be sufficiently documented, and the "Subsequent developments" paragraph about Wong Kim Ark's sons would no longer be substantiated.  While these items are not central to the article, I think they help flesh it out (especially the info about Wong's sons, which gives some insight into Wong Kim Ark the man, as opposed to Wong Kim Ark the court case).  And although this might not be a good rationale for research methods in general, Wong Kim Ark is sufficiently well known to researchers in this subject area that anyone could just walk into the NARA office in San Bruno, CA, go to the Chinese immigration desk, and ask to see whatever they have about Wong Kim Ark.  (Go read the 1998 SF Weekly story, for instance — current source #9.)   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 20:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I was the peer reviewer. Out of habit, I add access dates to refs with URLs. I personally prefer citing print sources, if available, because they are not subject to link rot. If access dates are not required for convenience URLs, I'm fine with that. Finetooth (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * For what it may be worth, I've added another source to the "subsequent developments" section: a 1926 letter to Wong Kim Ark from his eldest son (Wong Yoke Fun — the one whom US officials had accused of being a "paper son" and refused to let into the country), informing his father that Wong Yook Jim (the youngest son, and the one mentioned in another source as still being alive in 1998 and living in California) was about to board a ship to come to the US.  I'm going to do another search for the photocopies I made in 2005 of various stuff from the family's immigration files, so that I can solidify this section further and avoid any possible suggestions of WP:SYNTH.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 02:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I found the photocopies I made in 2005. My project for this evening is to scan the most relevant pages, upload them to Commons, and then incorporate them as sources into the article.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 04:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've updated the National Archives sources, and I think I now have acceptable sourcing for the ambiguous birth year and the paragraph about Wong's sons. I assume there may still be things left to do here; please let me know what you'd like me to work on next. Rich wales (talk · contribs) 06:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I created and populated a "Wong Kim Ark" category on Commons, and I put a Commons category template in the "External links" section. I note there is a wikisource-inline in the external links, but the only thing there on Wikisource is a copy of the Supreme Court case. It seems to me that if a link to the Wikisource material should exist in the article at all, it should be incorporated into the caselaw source template already there. What do people think? Rich wales (talk · contribs) 05:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't use a proper short form citation for cases already cited. It's not proper to keep repeating the whole case citation over and over again.  An example of a proper short form: Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 713.  If the template doesn't provide for this, then just don't use the template in those instances; its only purpose really is to provide a convenience link to the opinion text, which only needs to be done once in the article.  Finetooth, re: print sources, a citation to a case reporter is always a print source (the United States Reports in this case), so any URL is just an online copy of that source and verification isn't dependent upon or specific to that URL.  Access dates are therefore not helpful or necessary.  And please let's fix the template back so we're not using the pretend case cite format (United States v. Wong Kim Ark. 1898. 169 U.S. 649.).  It gives me a headache just seeing that.  postdlf (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll be more than happy to use short-form citations where appropriate. I agree they would make the list of references more readable.


 * Regarding the case citation format, the reason the issue originally came up was that Cite court had some obvious flaws involving things like unnecessarily parenthesizing quotations, adding extraneous periods after quotation text that already ended with a period, and attaching the external link to a superfluous word "Text". The current Cite court/sandbox represented a serious effort to fix the template — which, however, got stalled on (I believe) the question of where to place the year (and whether to put parens around the year), as well as the overall issues which you've seen raised on the template's talk page.


 * Actually, with respect to the case cite format, I'm halfway wondering if it might be better for me to change the Supreme Court case cites to use ussc instead of Cite court — with the case name (litigants) and any quoted text appearing outside the template. Any thoughts on this?   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 21:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Quotes from opinions are either given within the body of a sentence, followed by the case citation, or it is placed within parentheses following the citation. I commonly use the post-cite quote-in-parentheses form in non-legal citations too.  postdlf (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, the first thing I'll do here is to go back to the production Cite court} templates (since the "sandbox" version has reportedly now been abandoned), and then convert cites into a proper short form where appropriate. We can take it from there regarding what to do if the remaining case cites are unsightly in some way.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 00:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I've finished converting the Supreme Court case cites into short-form cites (written by hand, without using any template). I also redid the In re Wong Kim Ark federal district court cite totally by hand. So, at this point, the article is no longer using the Cite court template (either production or sandbox version). At the moment, the two court case cites (currently references #2 and #14) which include quotes from an opinion are not using parens, for uniformity with quotes from all the other sources. If the consensus is that quotations in court case cites should use parens (per accepted Bluebook-like conventions), the parens can of course be added back manually. Please feel free to take another look at the article now, and let me know what you feel needs to be done next. Rich wales (talk · contribs) 01:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The short-form cites are used only for successive citations to the same case; you still need to use the full citation the first time you cite to a case. postdlf (talk) 06:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Should I do that even when a given case has been cited (using ussc) in the body of the article? I.e., write a full cite to each case in the first footnote that mentions that case, and then use the short form in subsequent footnotes?   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 06:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Assuming the answer to the above is "yes" (or, at least, "why not?"), I've redone the first footnote cite to each court case to be a full cite using ussc, with the case name wikilinked to the case's Wikipedia article. I did some other work as well.  I hope this looks better.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 16:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Be consistent in whether journals include publisher and location
 * FNs 11, 54, 71 don't match formatting of other refs. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Break arbitraire

 * Oppose Totally missing procedural history section. (What happened in the district and circuit courts?) Treatment of the impact of the case is somewhat random. How does this fit into the bigger picture? The article should be built around law review articles, but it's not. Are those the only two SCOTUS cases that have cited it? Has it been cited by circuit courts? How? (I'm not going to do costly Westlaw searches, but I'm confident that it has been cited a lot. For you to sort out what all these citations mean would be original synthesis, but this is what looking to law reviews would do for you.) Right now there's coverage of a popular controversy but not how this fits into jurisprudence. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe the article already gives the complete procedural history — the customs people rejected Wong's claim of US citizenship, a federal district judge disagreed and ruled Wong was a citizen, and the government appealed the district court ruling directly to the Supreme Court. As for your other points, I'm certainly willing to work on expanding the treatment of the case even beyond what is already there; does anyone else out there have any thoughts on this?   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 02:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I missed that sentence. But really I would expect a fuller treatment. What was the reasoning of the district court? It reached the same conclusion, but what facts and legal principles did it rely upon? Was its reasoning the same as or different from the Supreme Court's? Also, you should explain how this got appealed directly from the district court to the supreme court, because this is no longer possible (that's why I assumed the circuit court information was missing). Here's an article with some background: . I assume something on wikipedia must cover this too. Another somewhat related weakness of the article is its failure to consider related caselaw in the background section. What similar cases preceded this one? Had other lower courts addressed this issue? (If you can find out, why did the court take this case? Was there a circuit split it was resolving?) Essentially this article should primarily rely on law reviews and legal treatises, which would explain these things, but barely any law reviews or legal treatises are cited. (Except for a somewhat puzzling emphasis on some article by John C. Eastman, who--judging by his lack of an article--is not a prominent legal mind.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm going to go do some more work on the article, and I'll let you know when you can take another look.  Rich wales (talk · contribs) 04:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've added more detail regarding the background of the Wong Kim Ark case in the federal district court. I've also added more detail regarding Supreme Court cases that have cited Wong Kim Ark.  It turns out, BTW, that John C. Eastman does have his own Wikipedia article, and I've wikilinked him accordingly.  I'm not sure I agree that this article must detail exactly how and why the district court ruling was appealed directly to the Supreme Court; it clearly says at the start of the Supreme Court opinion that this is what happened, and in order to keep the article focussed on the case (and not digressing too much into details of legal procedure), I would submit that this is good enough.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 07:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And I've also added cites from two more law review articles. I'm going to continue looking for more material, but anyone who wants to take another look at the article may certainly do so now.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 21:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure exactly what was added with the law review articles, but the section on the impact of this case takes the entirely wrong approach in listing supreme court cases that cite this one--which is simply not useful. The impact of the case needs to be put into context by legal writers in secondary sources (typically in law review articles and treatises), and this will basically have to be rewritten from the ground up, starting with an examination of what sources are available out there. Are you researching using Westlaw or Lexis? With these tools, you can look at every legal secondary source that has ever cited the case. This should be the starting point for the writing of the article, rather than listing or trying to synthesize primary sources. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I do have LEXIS/NEXIS access, and I've shepardized Wong Kim Ark, and I'll do some more work on the article later today in an effort to address your concerns.  Rich wales (talk · contribs) 20:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Random break

 * Oppose: Support - My objections have been dealt with.
 * There is no mention of the Burlingame Treaty with regard to the Chinese Exclusion Act.
 * I'm wondering why the justices who dissented are listed, but not the 6 who agreed with the majority in "Opinion of the Court"?
 * Weedin v. Chin Bow - the phrasing "who tried to claim" sounds like he was unsuccessful or that he was somehow deceiving. The rest of the text implies neither. Better to just use "claimed".
 * Copyediting - removed " who was alleged".
 * The criticism focuses on recent criticism. I would think there would have been some criticism when the case was decided. Even if none of the papers survived, I'd be surprised if no historian has looked into it and not found evidence of any public criticism at the time.
 * Given the first and last point, I think it fails 1b and possibly 1c. 陣 内 Jinnai 23:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've made some changes to address the above concerns.
 * Added material and cites from several law journal articles which I found and read via a LEXIS/NEXIS search — in addition to the articles, books, and primary case cites already included.
 * Added the names of the Supreme Court justices involved with the majority opinion. (I suppose the article could either name all the justices, or not name any of them; FWIW, they're listed in the infobox.)
 * Added mention of the Burlingame Treaty.
 * Various copyedits.
 * I'm still searching for a source discussing contemporary reactions to the Wong Kim Ark decision. And although the article cites numerous law review articles, I'm still looking for a single article somewhere which could be used as the basis for the entire "impact" section.  There are already sources here which substantiate the claim that the Supreme Court has never seriously questioned Wong Kim Ark in subsequent cases, so I could see the possibility of taking out the entire list of subsequent cases (or perhaps just leaving the footnote cites) except for Plyler v. Doe (the case about illegal immigration and public education).   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 03:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know if all the justices should be mentioned, but I just found it curious that not even the lead judge for the majority wasn't mentioned.
 * Although now that I think about it, the opinion was 6-2 so that's 8 justices. There's no mention why there wasn't 9. Was there only 8 at the time or did one of them recuse themselves? That kind of info I'd also expect in the court's opinion section. It is mentioned in the lead that the 9th justice took no part, but not why; also if he recused himself, if there is a reason known that should be listed. 陣 内 Jinnai 03:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the reason Justice McKenna didn't participate in the case was because he had been confirmed to the Supreme Court only very shortly before the case was argued. I'll add this to the article as soon as I can verify the details via a source.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 04:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 169 U.S. at 732: "MR. JUSTICE McKENNA, not having been a member of the court when this case was argued, took no part in the decision."  I'll look for a secondary source that talks about this, but otherwise I would propose this should suffice.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 04:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph to "Subsequent developments" describing a reaction to the Wong Kim Ark ruling by a legal writer in 1898. I also added a bit more to the "Habeas corpus petition" section explaining (with a source cite to the same 1898 article) how the fundamental question was one of common-law vs. international-law interpretation of jurisdiction in the Citizenship Clause. See [ here] for the diff. I'll continue to look for more early commentary on the case, but I'd be grateful for another comment from each of you as to how many of your concerns have been dealt with and what you feel would still need to be done. As I said last night, I'm open to the idea of taking out most of the list of subsequent Supreme Court cases (perhaps just leaving the footnote cites), if you feel this info is extraneous and unhelpful — though I do feel it's appropriate to keep the information about Plyler v. Doe, since that is very relevant to the current debate over birthright citizenship and people's preferred interpretation of the subject to the jurisdiction thereof clause. Rich wales (talk · contribs) 19:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My two biggest concerns are the lack of early commentary (being addressed atm) and if possible finding a secondary source about why McKenna didn't serve there. The latter is fine if there is no secondary source though. Also, the lead should be updated to reflect the additional immediate commentary and criticism. 陣 内 Jinnai 19:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding McKenna, the batch of edits I reported an hour ago included adding a footnote cite to the "6-2 decision" in which Woodworth (author of the 1898 American Law Review article) repeats the case's own statement that McKenna didn't participate because he wasn't a member of the court when the arguments took place. I'll continue to look for more early commentary, and I'll also review the lead.  Thanks for the feedback.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 20:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Calliopejen1, is there anything special I need to do in LEXIS-NEXIS to get older law review articles referencing Wong Kim Ark? I can't seem to find cites to any articles earlier than 1973 (even when I specify "all available dates" in the search).  I already have (and, as you've seen, have already been using) one article from an 1898 journal (which I found in a Google search), but that's the only "old" article I've been able to find so far that discusses Wong Kim Ark in any detail.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 20:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I found (and have incorporated into the article) an 1898 San Francisco Chronicle editorial which expresses alarm at the prospect that not only Chinese, but also Japanese, and even American Indians were likely to get US citizenship, and even eventually the right to vote, as a result of the Wong Kim Ark ruling. Obviously, few if any people would dare talk like this today, but as I said, this was 1898.  I also found (and have cited) an 1898 Washington Post article reporting the decision but not commenting on it.  The work continues.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 20:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I found an 1896 law review article (written by the same author who wrote the 1898 article I already had), which noted that the common-law-vs.-international-law question which was recognized as key in the initial federal district court case had not previously been considered by the Supreme Court. Jinnai, do you have any remaining concerns?  Are you still opposed to this article's promotion to FA?  If you do still see problems, please let me know what they are so I can continue improving the article.  Thanks.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 22:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll check it over tomorrow. I'm too busy with RL today. 陣 内 Jinnai 01:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * JSTOR just released public domain content so I might wait a few days and see if google scholar might pick something more up since you seem to be having difficulty searching old archives. 陣 内 Jinnai 18:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I can assist with checking the lower-court history and the contemporary reaction to the decision, if no one else has already gotten to it. Please let me know if there are specific questions outstanding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Brad. Regarding the lower court history, I think there is a valid question as to why the case went directly from the federal district court to the Supreme Court.  Numerous sources — including LEXIS-NEXIS, and perhaps most importantly, the Supreme Court case report itself — say this is what happened, but not why; and since the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals existed in 1898, it's reasonable for someone (such as Calliopejen1) to want the history explained and to be skeptical of any claim that no sources discuss the apparent leapfrogging over the Ninth Circuit.


 * Similarly as to why the case went to the Supreme Court on appeal rather than via a request for certiorari. I can speculate that this might have been because the district court ruling was seen as invalidating a federal statute (the Chinese Exclusion Act), but that's WP:OR on my part and obviously can't be used in the article.  At the same time, although I'd welcome more complete info on these points, I do not think the article should be overloaded with this sort of info, to the point that it would come to concentrate on details of legal procedure that really belong in other articles, rather than on the case at hand here.


 * Regarding contemporary reaction to the decision, I managed to find some additional info using ProQuest, including an 1898 San Francisco Chronicle editorial which expressed deep concern over the ruling (in language that would considered inexcusably bigoted today, but again, this was 1898 and attitudes were different). It would be nice to find a law review article or two from 1898 or shortly thereafter that discussed the case from a legal expert's perspective (preferably material both "pro" and "con"); if you can help with that, I think it would be good to find more analysis if possible from lawyers and legal scholars (as opposed to newspaper editors).  The apparent dearth of this kind of material appears to be a major showstopper to Calliopejen1, based on what she's said up to this point.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 04:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I can certainly take a look at the procedural history in the next day or two, and will also try to check if there were any law review or similar commentaries on the case. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * NYB, please advise as soon as practical ... normally, with two Opposes and a very long review at this stage, it would be time to archive this. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Calliopejen1, could you please take another look at the article now? A fair amount of work has been done since your last comments — including incorporation of the reasoning of the district court, contemporary reactions to and subsequent impact of the case, and additional material from law review articles.  Are you still opposed to this article being promoted to FA?  If so, what would you still need to see done that might eventually change your mind?   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 14:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Pinged:  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

With regard to the procedural issue of why this case was appealed directly from the District Court to the Supreme Court, the answer is that this was provided for by the procedural statutes at the time. As of 1898, the route of appeal was governed by the Evarts Act of 1891, which established the Circuit Courts of Appeals and governed the allocation of appeals between those courts of appeals and the Supreme Court. Our Evarts Act article contains a link to the text of the Act in the Statutes at Large, which is here. Section 5 of the Act provides "[t]hat appeals or writs of error may be taken from the district courts ... direct to the Supreme Court in the following cases: ... In any case that involves the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States. ¶ In any case in which the constitutionality of any law of the United States, or the validity or construction of any treaty made under its authority, is drawn in question." I can find a secondary source that summarizes the history of these jurisdictional provisions (The Business of the Supreme Court by Frankfurter and Landis will probably be the most accessible source discussing that general era), but Wong Kim Ark seems to fit both of these descriptions fairly clearly. More soon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Now that we have an answer to this question, what should we do with it?  I'm hesitant to add it here (in the Wong Kim Ark article) because it doesn't directly say this is what happened in this particular case and I don't want to violate WP:SYNTH.  Regardless of whether this nugget of info can or can't be added directly to the Wong Kim Ark article, it looks like it would find a good home in the Judiciary Act of 1891 article — which is itself badly in need of work, with no source except a cite to Statutes at Large, but cleaning up that page can presumably wait till another day.  Is there any consensus here, though, as to whether a detailed rationale for the direct appeal (bypassing the Ninth Circuit) really needs to be included in Wong Kim Ark in order for it (now or in the future) to become a Featured Article?  Or is it enough to simply say that the district court's ruling was appealed directly to the Supreme Court, since there is (I believe) adequate evidence from secondary sources that this is in fact what happened (even though said sources don't explain why)?   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 03:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I will try to find a secondary source saying that this case was appealed from the District Court to the Supreme Court pursuant to section 5 of the Judiciary Act of 1891; the problem is that there may be no source explicitly saying that simply because it was obvious at the time, just as today, you would read "the case was brought from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court, which granted cert.," not "the case was brought from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari pursuant to section 1254 of title 28." (The author of Wong Kim Ark would have particularly taken the appeal mechanism for granted, as Justice Gray was one of the leading proponents of the Evarts Act.) Worst case, though it might be considered original research, is that I could pull the briefs and record on appeal at the National Archives, which would cite the jurisdictional statute relied on. In any event, I can't see how this one sentence makes the difference between this article making FA or not. More soon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the correct citation of Judge Morrow's decision in the District Court is 71 Fed. 382. The citation to 1 Fed. 382 appears to be a typo in the Findlaw version of the opinion, not present in the Westlaw or book version. (And a case from 1 Fed. as opposed to 71 Fed. would date to approximately 1880 rather than 1896.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If no secondary source can be found, adding the info to 陣  内 Jinnai 04:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Responding to Jinnai: That sounds good to me, as long as people are not going to accuse us of citing Wikipedia as its own source.  (And I have now added the material in question to Judiciary Act of 1891, and I've added a link to this article in the "See also" section of the Wong Kim Ark article.  I've also tagged "Judiciary Act of 1891" as requiring more citations — all it has right now is a cite to the statute itself.)   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 05:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Responding to Newyorkbrad: I agree that "1 Fed. 382" is a typo, and I've fixed this in the article's infobox.  As for how close to (or far from) FA this article currently is, my impression is that the only remaining substantive objection is over whether the article's foundation is sufficiently based on secondary sources from the legal profession.  Calliopejen1 felt that the sections on the background (including the arguments originally raised in the district court) and the subsequent impact were not guided by analyses of the case in law reviews and were instead primarily my own original research.  (If I'm misstating Calliopejen1 here, I trust she will set me straight.)  Since these objections were raised, I've made major changes in the "Habeas corpus petition" and "Subsequent developments" sections, including quite a bit of material derived from law reviews.  I do think it's possible, at this point, that all of the original objections may have been satisfactorily dealt with — though I assume it would be best for us to hear from the editors who raised those objections in the first place (Calliopejen1 and Jinnai) and hear what they have to say about the article now.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 04:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Google scholar search for the public domain stuff JSTOR is releasing. Some of them are still tagged atm. Some of them aren't relevant, but a few of them look promising for early opinions. 陣 内 Jinnai 15:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Many of these, unfortunately, appear to be of little use — just one-sentence restatements of the case.  One of two of them could possibly be used as additional secondary-source substantiation of the already well-established claims in the text, but I think that would probably be overkill at this point.  None of these sources, as best I can tell, constitute a comprehensive, in-depth, specific treatment of the Wong Kim Ark case — the sort of thing which I believe Calliopejen1 was hoping for / expecting / insisting on — though, as I said earlier, I believe the parts of the article which Jen was particularly concerned about have been reworked by now, based on the best secondary sources that seem to be available.


 * Jinnai, I would still like to know whether you believe any of the objections you originally raised against promoting this article to FA still stand — or whether they have all been dealt with and you would now support (or at least not oppose) its promotion. I would also hope that Calliopejen1 would address this same question w/r/t her objections — and also that other people who have been working with this article recently might speak up and give their opinions.  I will accept at this point that if anything nontrivial still remains to be done, it may be best (as SandyGeorgia suggested) to archive this candidacy, and for me to come back again after a while in hopes that a second candidacy for this article could be quick and uncomplicated.  But since this is my first venture into Featured Article territory, I'll defer on this point to people who have more experience.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 17:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Assuming none of those could be used as statements from a bit later on in the early 20th century. Specifically, about opinions that would help bolster either the quick adoption of the decision or continued opposition to it early on. If they cannot be used as such, then yes, I am satisfied. 陣 内 Jinnai 20:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I can include have now included mention of Regan v. King, a 1942 case in which the Native Sons of the Golden West challenged the US citizenship of a large group of US-born Japanese-Americans who had registered to vote in San Francisco. The plaintiffs' attorney said that Wong Kim Ark was "one of the most injurious and unfortunate decisions" ever handed down by the Supreme Court, and he hoped this new case would give the court "an opportunity to correct itself".  However, the case was summarily dismissed by both the federal district court and the Ninth Circuit (each citing Wong Kim Ark as a controlling precedent), and the Supreme Court denied certiorari.  Other than that, I really haven't seen any early stuff that discussed the Wong Kim Ark ruling in any detail, other than simply giving it a one-sentence or footnote cite — other than the material I've previously included.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 22:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC) (including changes in bold)
 * And I've added a paragraph discussing Regan v. King in the "Criticisms" subsection near the end of the article — using two New York Times stories as secondary sources, and also citing the case (in district court, the Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court's denial of cert) based on info in LEXIS-NEXIS.  Rich wales (talk · contribs) 22:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, so now that Jinnai has indicated that he [ supports] promotion, we still have to clarify where Calliopejen1 stands. I left a [ note] on her talk page about 29 hours ago, asking her to check the article again and come back here to tell us if her concerns have been satisfactorily dealt with. She hasn't edited on Wikipedia in a little over two days, but hopefully she'll be back soon. Rich wales (talk · contribs) 03:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Noted that Callipejen1 was pinged on the 14th. Pending additional input, my read of NYB's information is that the article is not failing comprehensiveness, even if a secondary source is not found because direct appeals to the Supreme Court were allowed at that time.  However, the nomination has only one support at three weeks. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment. I've offered to review this one, but now I notice the nominator has just started an RFA, and I've rarely seen an RFA candidate who had much attention left over for anything else; ping me in about 9 days please (you'll need at least a couple of days to recover however the RFA turns out :). - Dank (push to talk) 14:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Your discretion. I don't want to horribly overcommit my time, but at the same time, I don't want this FAC process to die.  I've put a lot of effort into the article so far, and I'm prepared to see it through to completion.  If people feel a few days' hiatus is necessary, though, I'll respect your judgment.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 14:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
Undecided. I have made a few changes that seemed easier to make there than explain here: clarifying status of parents in lead, clarifying that the dissent was not part of the opinion of the court, and explaining a key 1812 precedent. I'll try to do more later today.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The "suggested" article structure here is simply wrong to place dissents under the heading "Opinion of the Court". Why should we follow this suggestion?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the article structure, I don't see that we really have any discretion here to depart from the current WP:SCOTUS consensus — until and unless said consensus gets changed. So the arguments should go to the WikiProject's talk page (which I see you've done).  Now we need to see what other people say over there.  I think you have a reasonable point, BTW.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 20:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The wlink that you point to says: "The following is the current suggested outline for Supreme Court case articles." If it is meant to be a binding policy, then hopefully I won't be criticized for attempting to change policy so as to advance my position in a dispute. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The article refers in the lead to "the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship to U.S.–born children of illegal immigrants". Again, later in the article, there is discussion of the "longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship via jus soli to U.S.–born children of illegal immigrants".  When did this practice begin?  Before or after this case was decided?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As written, this Wikipedia article seems to suggest that Congress may have no power to regulate who is and is not a citizen at birth. But under United States nationality law, Article I, section 8, clause 4 of the Constitution does give Congress power to establish naturalization rules, which may affect whether citizenship is acquired at birth (e.g. for people not born on U.S. territory).  Shouldn't the constitutional power of Congress be mentioned, especially since it was the purported basis for the legislation that the Court struck down in this case?  I could give this a try, if you like.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The Wong Kim Ark majority opinion does discuss Congress' power w/r/t naturalization, but it doesn't discuss "naturalization" in the context of citizenship at birth except when talking about conferring US citizenship on foreign-born children of American parents — not the point at issue in the case, hence obiter dicta rather than part of the holding. While I'll agree that the Chinese Exclusion Act's prohibition on the naturalization of Chinese immigrants did play a key role in the arguments against Wong's claim to citizenship, my understanding is that they argued Wong was not a US citizen primarily because his parents were ineligible for US naturalization (and, by their interpretation of jurisdiction in the Citizenship Clause, this meant in their view that Wong wasn't covered).  In any case, before elaborating on this issue in the article, you would really need to find one or more reliable secondary sources which make this argument — don't just make the observation yourself based on your own understanding (even if you think it's obvious).   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 20:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, I'm not suggesting to insert unsourced material into the article. See, for example, this source: "Congress' power over naturalization is an exclusive power; no State [or person] has the power to constitute a foreign subject a citizen of the United States....The first sentence of Sec. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contemplates two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization. 1143 This contemplation is given statutory expression in Sec. 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which itemizes those categories of persons who are citizens of the United States at birth; all other persons in order to become citizens must pass through the naturalization process. The first category merely tracks the language of the first sentence of Sec. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment in declaring that all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens by birth. But there are six other categories of citizens by birth....."Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've mentioned The Exchange.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Putting the new material about The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon in a separate subsection gives it, IMO, inordinate prominence.  Also, without a secondary source (such as a law review article) discussing the relationship of this case to the Wong Kim Ark case, mentioning it (especially so prominently) is problematic.  BTW, I almost made the mistake of saying that the Wong Kim Ark opinion doesn't even mention The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon at all — until I realized that two references to "The Exchange" were referring to this case.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 20:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Per your valid point about a separate subsection for The Exchange, I've just now removed the header so it's not in a separate subsection now. Reading the case (Wong Kim Ark), I was struck by the fact that The Exchange seemed to be the key precedent that was used to construe this clause of the 14th Amendment, but of course you're correct that secondary sourcing is needed, so I've just inserted two secondary sources.  BTW, I'm on an iPhone today, so my edits, and spelling, and research, are not as wonderful as they would otherwise be. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're on an iPhone, I'm doing an RfA. That makes us about even. :-)  You've made a lot of suggestions and changes, and I'll give them the careful attention they deserve as soon as I can.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 01:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Patrick Glen quote in the lead, the full quote is as follows: "The parameters of the jus soli principle, as stated by the court in Wong Kim Ark, have never been seriously questioned by the Suoreme Court, and have been accepted as dogma by the lower courts." I've modified the lead a little bit to more closely track the source.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead says: "Attempts have been made from time to time in Congress either to restrict birthright citizenship, either via statutory redefinition of the term jurisdiction, or by overriding both the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Citizenship Clause itself through a new amendment to the Constitution, but no such proposal has succeeded." I'm going to edit as follows: "Attempts have been made from time to time in Congress either to restrict birthright citizenship, via statute, or by overriding both the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Citizenship Clause itself through a new amendment to the Constitution, but no such proposal has succeeded." Two reasons: first, using the word "either" twice in rapid succession doesn't look good, and second, congressional sponsors who don't view Wong Kim Ark as applicable to illegal aliens (because Wong's parents were here legally) therefore don't see any need to redefine the word "jurisdiction", but rather they seek to implement and elaborate upon what they think is the original meaning of the 14th Amendment (in other words, the wording we use could be more neutral).Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm curious whether the Court in this case said (either in holding or dicta) that Congress cannot give other groups the same immunity that it already gives to foreign diplomats. If Congress can do that, then maybe the children of those other groups might not be entitled to automatic citizenship at birth.  In any event, if it's unclear whether the Court in this case said that Congress cannot give other groups the same immunity that it already gives to foreign diplomats, then we need to be careful not to suggest in this Wikipedia article that the Court did so.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've inserted the following material with a footnote: "According to law professor Lino Graglia of the University of Texas, even if Wong Kim Ark settled the status of children of legal residents, it did not do so for children of illegal residents; Graglia asserts that the case weighs against automatic birthright for illegal immigrants because the Court denied such citizenship for an analogous group, namely 'children  of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation'."Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessary to include the title of the article in any of the headers, and so have modified the headers. I also inserted a subheader regarding illegal immigration, which should make it somewhat easier for readers to navigate the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.