Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/United States v. Wong Kim Ark/archive2

Calliopejen1
Oppose for the time being because I think there should be more reflection on all the new sources, digesting them, adding them over time, etc. Essentially, I don't think the span of time since all of these sources have been introduced is enough for a thorough review and analysis of them all. (If the closer doesn't think this is fair, that's fine, but we got about 250 new citing secondary sources only a couple weeks ago.) I think the article is coming along though, and don't mean to suggest that it's doomed on later review. To respond to Savidan's earlier comments: I think the law review vs. case issue is always a tricky one, mostly because the legal profession oddly does not have a decent peer review system. But for me, I think the problem with relying on caselaw here is especially that it is hard to evaluate where a more-than-100-year-old case fits into the current legal landscape without an expert in the field (whether professor or judge) doing this for you. There has been over 100 years of law in the meantime to introduce nuances, call the reasoning into doubt, etc etc, and it's not really like this is something a Wikipedian should be analyzing. (Another problem is that citing opinions discussing this case may not themselves be good law anymore--because they themselves are so old--either.) In a perfect world, there would be a recent Supreme Court or Circuit Court decision surveying the relevant caselaw and explaining how this case fits in. I assume this does not exist though... (Richwales, am I wrong?) BTW of course I am not suggesting that all passing mentions of this case in random law reviews should be cited. Only high-quality articles by reputable professors published in reputable law reviews where the professor is surveying the field rather than outlining his proposal for a new framework etc should be included. I think as a matter of general practice the treatise/law review vs. case citation is hard to decide in the abstract but must be considered on a proposition-by-proposition basis. But regardless, a featured article, to be a summary of all the highest-quality sources, should take into account how legal scholars think about the case, which necessarily requires review of law reviews/treatises to see what they have to say. And I don't think that there has been enough time passed for this to have occurred and all of the revisions to be stable. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment/response — Without intending by any means to get into a major argument here, I do believe I have done a proper job of sifting through and analysing the various sources (including both case law and high-quality law review articles). As best I've been able to determine, there simply isn't any "recent Supreme Court or Circuit Court decision surveying the relevant caselaw and explaining how this case fits in" — presumably because the courts have invariably taken Wong Kim Ark as settled law, and no court has challenged, questioned, or even reexamined the issue.  (Plyler v. Doe cites Wong Kim Ark in support of its conclusions, but it doesn't go into any depth; and the last serious challenge to the Wong Kim Ark holdings, in Regan v. King, was summarily tossed out on its ear without any comment beyond "Wong Kim Ark is settled law, why are you wasting our time?, get outta here".)  And the law review articles — even considering only those by professors, government lawyers, and such — are all, pretty much by their nature, going to either agree with Wong Kim Ark, insist the case was wrongly decided, or argue that the current hot-button issue (birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants) is distinguished.  I respect your concern that there's been so little elapsed time since I added this new material to the article, and if the overall consensus is that the best way to evaluate the article is to archive this FAC and come back later, I'll be OK with that.  I would, however, like to hear what other people have to say — and I remain worried that I may end up caught in the crossfire here between irreconcilably conflicting demands of different reviewers (a situation which can presumably be settled only by getting more people to review the FAC carefully and hopefully create a consensus going one particular way).  —  Rich wales 05:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: What does this actually mean: "...I think there should be more reflection on all the new sources, digesting them, adding them over time, etc."? Can Calliopejen1 clarify exactly what process is envisaged here? Brianboulton (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment — More specifically, are you (Calliopejen1) saying that I couldn't possibly have done a satisfactory job of analysing and distilling so much additional source material in so short a time? Or that the addition of all this new material, so recently, means the article is no longer "stable" as required by the FA criteria?  (If the latter, I will point out that there is an exception to the stability requirement for changes made "in response to the featured article process".  I'll gladly leave it to others to decide whether or not they are comfortable with the large amount of change that has happened to this article since it came up for FAC a few weeks ago.)  —  Rich wales 06:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Essentially it's stablility and 1(c)--I doubt that this could possibly take into account the breadth of all the highest-quality sources. I pointed out 248 sources that apparently had never before been reviewed. It would be crazy to think that an article that two weeks ago lacked the benefit of the consideration of 248 new sources could possibly now represent Wikipedia's highest-quality work.  And to respond to Brianboulton - the FA criteria require a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature," which obviously includes legal journals and other secondary sources when one is writing about a Supreme Court case. It would be like saying when nominating the article on World War II for FAC, oh, you mean I should have considered journals of military history? (or books about military history, take your pick...) If someone has never reviewed an enormous, critical category of sources before the FA nomination even started, there would be justifiable skepticism that that broad category of sources had been properly integrated into the article with so little time. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Like Brian, I am failing to see a clear connection between this Oppose and WP:WIAFA; if there is a specific high quality source that is left out of the article, please discuss. If there is a specific area of concern of comprehensiveness or sourcing, please be specific about it. This is not a 1e (stability) issue, as far as I can tell from the info presented. I restarted this FAC to get a clear picture if there were any issues relating to WP:WIAFA that remain.  This article has seen vague, unspecific opposes throughout several FACs, and that's not fair to the nominator.  Specifics, directly speaking to WP:WIAFA please.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the "about 250 new citing secondary sources", I assume Calliopejen1 was referring to the 348 Shepard's hits in law reviews and periodicals which I posted [ here] a couple of weeks ago. Calliopejen1 went through that list and pared it down into a categorized list of 36 articles she felt were most likely to be helpful (see [ here]). I went through these articles; I'm using material from two of them, and I believe four others might be mildly useful. Most of them, however, seem less suitable, such as because they don't deal with birthright citizenship; make only passing, unhelpful footnote references to Wong Kim Ark; are primarily argumentative in nature; and/or were written by law students rather than by experienced legal professionals. I think I should also point out that the article already makes heavy use of secondary sources — roughly half of the footnotes cite secondary sources, and there's a "references" list of eight articles and books which I am referring to multiple times. As Calliopejen1 pointed out, the FA criteria call for a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" — it doesn't have to be an exhaustive survey of all the relevant literature in order to cover the subject in the manner expected of a Featured Article. If Calliopejen1 (or anyone else) can see specific omissions or other failings, then by all means please bring them up. — Rich wales 05:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Savidan
Comments, still leaning toward oppose - I have re-read the article. While it has improved since the start of this FAC, several issues remain. Savidan 21:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * ” After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and prior to the Wong Kim Ark case, the question of jus soli citizenship for children of aliens had arisen only with reference to Chinese and American Indians.” – Make this the topic sentence of a new paragraph that summarizes the pre-WKA Citizenship Clause case law concerning the Chinese and Indians. In fact, I think this should be separated from the pre-Citizenship Clause background and moved between the Citizenship Clause and the WKA facts, probably as a new === heading. Otherwise, it’s confusing to mix pre- and post- Citizenship Clause background in the === section before the Citizenship Clause drafting === section. Savidan 21:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You raise a reasonable point here, and I'd like to spend some time ruminating on how best to address the issue. Thanks.  —  Rich wales 05:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I moved the sentence in question to just before the discussion of In re Look Tin Sing. As I explain below, I believe the placement of material pre/post the Citizenship Clause has logic, and I am resisting the idea of changing it.  —  Rich wales 07:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Your edits are an improvement. But, I continue to think that the article needs three separate === sections on: (1) pre-Citizenship Clause law, (2) the adoption of the Citizenship Clause, and (3) Interpretation of the Citizenship Clause before Wong Kim Ark. The current organization creates the following problems. First, mixing pre- and post-Citizenship Clause law in a single section and placing that section before the section on the Citizenship Clause is confusing and makes it harder for the reader to grasp the chronology. Second, scattering the interpretation of the Citizenship Clause before Wong Kim Ark throughout the article makes it harder for the reader to understand the snapshot of the law as it stood before the case. I'm not sure that you need a separate section for "Citizenship of Chinese persons in the United States." This content could be moved to other sections; that's up to you. But, this section cannot be the place where the pre-WKA Citizenship Clause interpretation is discussed. A reader interested in that topic would be unlikely to click that section (because they wouldn't know already that the clause had only been interpreted with regards to the Chinese and Indians). Savidan 17:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've rearranged the background information to be reasonably close to chronological. Please let me know what you think of it now.  —  Rich wales 04:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "Citizenship of Chinese persons in the United States" should be after "The Citizenship Clause and the courts." Headings for "Early history of United States citizenship law" and "Citizenship of Chinese persons in the United States" to make clear that they cover the pre-Citizenship Clause period, and the period between the Citizenship Clause and WKA respectively. Perhaps "United States citizenship law before the Fourteenth Amendment" (or "Pre-Fourteenth Amendment citizenship law") and "Interpretation of the Citizenship Clause before Wong Kim Ark"? Savidan 07:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * At the risk of possibly torpedoing any possibility of your deciding to support promotion of this article, I'm going to say that I believe the sequencing of the background items is OK as it stands. It is not, IMO, necessary to present everything in a rigidly chronological order, and unless other commentators show that there is a consensus to rearrange this material further, I'm not prepared to spend more time on this.  —  Rich wales 18:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * ” thereby entrenching the 1866 Act's citizenship guarantee in the Constitution and allaying concerns that the original language might be repealed by a later Congress26] or struck down as unconstitutional by the courts.[27][28]” – the current paragraph structure gives overemphasis to this idea, leading to the inference that these were the only purposes of the Clause. This is especially true because this interpretation of the Citizenship Clause is singled out for the double treatment of the Citizenship Clause before the === section on the clause. The first === section should be for pre-Citizenship Clause law and all the Citizenship Clause content should be moved to the Citizenship Clause ===. Otherwise, to avoid undue overemphasis, only the text of the Clause should be repeated in the first === section. Sans any select commentary.


 * ” The Civil Rights Act of 1866 granted citizenship not merely to former slaves, but to "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed". However, concerns were soon raised in Congress that this act might be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court,[27][28] or that a future Congress might choose to repeal it.[26] These concerns led to the framing of the Fourteenth Amendment, including the Citizenship Clause.[30]” – the Civil Rights Act should be summarized in the first === section, not repeated in the Citizenship Clause section. This gives additional overemphasis to the view previously mentioned.


 * ” The two exceptions to citizenship by birth mentioned in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (namely, for those "subject to any foreign power" and for "Indians not taxed") were replaced in Howard's proposal by the single qualification that one must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States in order to be born a citizen thereof.” – unless the text of the Civil Rights Act was used in an earlier version of the Clause, the “replaced” wording is incorrect. Again, overemphasis of the view that the Citizenship Clause was coextensive with the CRA. Savidan 21:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The reason I am first discussing the history of US citizenship law in general (first subsection), and then dealing specifically with the Citizenship Clause (second subsection), is to give the reader a broader background within which to place the more detailed information about the Citizenship Clause. I believe this is a very appropriate way to handle the material, and I'm sorry not to be pleasing you, but I'm not inclined to change this part of the text along the lines you propose.  If it turns out that there's a consensus on this point that you're right and I'm wrong, I'll revisit this point.


 * My reading of the material about the Citizenship Clause strongly suggests that the main reason for this clause was, indeed, to put the citizenship provisions of the 1866 Civil Rights Act beyond the reach of either Congress or the Supreme Court. And given that the view that the Citizenship Clause was coextensive with the 1866 Act was argued by the author of the Citizenship Clause (Senator Howard), I do not believe the current text of the article is overemphasizing this point.  So, at the present time, I've made a slight rewording of the "replaced by" sentence you had concerns about, but I feel the remaining text of the "Citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment" subsection is OK as it stands.  —  Rich wales 04:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As noted above, I've rearranged the material in the background section to be closer to chronological. —  Rich wales 04:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not object to the paragraph stating Senator Howard's view that the Citizenship Claus meant the same thing as the CRA. "After the Civil War and the subsequent abolition of slavery, Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866.[17] One provision of this law declared as citizens, not only the freed slaves, but "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed".[18] Concerns were raised that the citizenship guarantee in the Civil Rights Act might be repealed by a later Congress[19] or struck down as unconstitutional by the courts.[20][21] Soon after the passage of the Act, Congress drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and sent it to the states for ratification (a process which was completed in 1868).[22]" - this should be moved to the pre-14th Amendment section. The most obvious way to start the "Citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment" is with the text. To bury the lead with two paragraphs about the CRA is a rather strong structural bias that the in favor of Sen. Howard's view, which after all did not prevail. I'm fine with including the legislative history that references the CRA; I am not fine with having the article's discussion of the CRA proper within the Citizenship Clause section. Why not just start the section with "The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides: ..."? Savidan 07:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Somewhat in the spirit of my earlier comment, I'm going to stand firm on the way I'm currently describing the legislative history of the Citizenship Clause. I do not believe the current text is unduly slanted towards Howard's interpretation (which is itself ambiguous).  Again, if a consensus forms to the contrary, I'll gladly reconsider, but until/unless that happens, I'm not inclined to make further changes here.  If that means you're not going to be willing to support promotion, then so be it.  —  Rich wales 18:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The “Citizenship law since Wong Kim Ark” is very short and half of it seems to actually be about pre-WKA law. In fact, it repeats the quote from the intro (putting the summary status, and hence intor-worthiness, of this quote very much into doubt), without actually mentioning any key developments in US citizenship law between WKA and today.


 * ” Wong Kim Ark and subsequent cases” – Is Plyler the only Supreme Court case that has considered WKA in depth? If not, what justifies singling out Plyler alone for treatment here? I think this section would be the appropriate place to include how subsequent SCOTUS decisions have stated the holding of WKA. Savidan 21:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There really haven't been any "key" developments in US birthright citizenship law since Wong Kim Ark, except for the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 (which effectively overruled Elk v. Wilkins and needs to be mentioned for that reason if no other). The post-WKA statutory changes regarding citizenship at birth have involved things like citizenship for people born in various US territories — or how much time an American parent must have lived in the US before their foreign-born child gets jus sanguinis citizenship — but nothing I believe qualifies as monumental in this regard.


 * The article doesn't spend much time on citizenship via naturalization — nor should it, IMO, since that wasn't the point at issue in Wong Kim Ark's situation — but upon further thought, I suppose it might make sense to mention that the restrictions on Chinese immigration and naturalization were eventually lifted (in 1943, by the Magnuson Act), for the same sort of reason that led to my mentioning the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.


 * I do think it would make sense to move the stuff about court cases out of "Citizenship law since Wong Kim Ark" and into "Wong Kim Ark and subsequent cases".


 * The idea of mentioning some other Supreme Court decisions in more detail (elaborating on the two points mentioned at the beginning of "Wong Kim Ark and subsequent cases") is reasonable. Plyler v. Doe is highly relevant to the question of illegal immigration, and I could possibly see moving the bulk of the description of this case to the next subsection.  As best I can tell, no other SCOTUS cases have dealt with Wong Kim Ark in depth — and even Plyler v. Doe mentions it only briefly.  The sources, as best I can tell, really do lead to the conclusion that jus soli has never been seriously questioned since Wong Kim Ark, either by the Supreme Court or by lower courts.  The reason I'm not spending time discussing cases that analyse WKA in detail is that there just don't seem to be any such cases.  If anyone can find something that I'm overlooking, then by all means, I hope they'll bring it up, but I won't be holding my breath.  —  Rich wales 04:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I moved the two sentences about jus soli not being seriously questioned since Wong Kim Ark, and about how subsequent citizenship cases have dealt with other issues, down into the "Wong Kim Ark and subsequent cases" subsection. I also added a sentence to "Citizenship law since Wong Kim Ark" mentioning the eventual lifting of anti-Chinese restrictions via the 1943 Magnuson Act and the Immigration Act of 1965.  I'm still considering a way to move the bulk of the discussion of Plyler v. Doe down into the subsection on illegal immigration.  —  Rich wales 07:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I moved the main discussion of Plyler v. Doe down into the subsection about illegal immigration. I left a highly abbreviated mention of Plyler v. Doe in the "subsequent cases" subsection.  —  Rich wales 07:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I would suggest, at a minimum, adding quote parentheticals to the cases in notes 136 to 139. If, as you say, they only have a single sentence followed by a citation to WKA, there really won't be much of a judgment call in choosing what to quote. Below the line treatment alone may be sufficient for cases dealing with jus sanguinis or loss of citizenship. I think the cases in notes 138 and 139 demand more above the line treatment. Give us a flavor of what the court means by " jus soli as the primary rule." How, exactly, has the court stated the rule? Have they repeated the exceptions from WKA (diplomats? belligerents? others?)? In fact, I think the enumerated exceptions from WKA deserve additional treatment, even if that requires going to lower courts or law reviews. Obviously the Native American exception was repealed by statute. Have there been cases about the meaning of the exceptions? Have there been attempts to create new exceptions? Savidan 07:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll take a closer look at this. There are, however, about 270 lower court cases (per Shepard's) which cite Wong Kim Ark, and neither my own stamina nor my understanding of WP:NOR is going to let me go through them all.  —  Rich wales 18:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've edited the lists of cites in the "subsequent cases" subsection somewhat — splitting up multi-cite footnotes for clarity, adding quotes to the footnotes, and taking out a few cases which turned out to be insufficiently on point or overly repetitive. I'm going to have to think more about your suggestion of adding material detailing the exceptions to jus soli; my study of the cases and secondary sources so far suggest there really isn't anything to be said on this, except for the idea (which I'm already mentioning in the third paragraph from the end) about how the influx of illegal aliens might be analogous to a hostile occupation by alien enemies.  —  Rich wales 02:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Just so what I've done won't be inadvertently overlooked, please note that I've annotated all the case cites in the "subsequent cases" subsection with quotations (current footnotes 144-154). As for adding more material about the exceptions to jus soli, I'll say again that there simply doesn't seem to be anything more to be found on this issue, other than the "hostile occupation" concept already being mentioned later on (in the "children of illegal aliens" subsection), or the various baldly unvarnished insistences that the Wong Kim Ark ruling was just  plain  wrong (and the dissent ought to have been the opinion of the Court) regarding the entire topic of 14th Amendment jurisdiction (again, already more than adequately covered IMO).  If you're still not satisfied by this, I would be grateful for any pointers to specific material which you have good reason to believe is out there and which I'm missing.  —  Rich wales 19:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I added some more detail about the jus soli cases I've mentioned — they affirmed citizenship of US-born individuals of Chinese or Japanese ancestry. Regarding any more details about the exceptions to jurisdiction in the Citizenship Clause, I went through the LexisNexis headnotes for Wong Kim Ark, identified headnotes relevant to jus soli and the exceptions (HN's 6, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 25), and looked through the Shepard's report for all federal appellate cases citing WKA and flagged with one or more of these headnotes.  I read all these cases (there were about a dozen of them), but none of them dealt with a situation where a US-born person might not have been a US citizen based on any of the exceptions to jurisdiction.  I also looked for any cases marked in Shepard's as "distinguished", but the only three "distinguished" cases listed were the three "are Filipinos US citizens?" SCOTUS cases which I've already mentioned, and none of these dealt with questions of exceptions to jurisdiction.  I already went through the law journal articles which Calliopejen1 identified as probably the most useful, and none of them had any such material either.  I'm going through the complete list of 300+ articles now, just in case any intriguing titles pop up, but given that there don't seem to be any cases citing WKA on this issue, I highly doubt I'll find anything in any articles.  If it turns out that this still doesn't satisfy you, I'm honestly not sure what to try next, but I'm open to concrete suggestions related to specific material.  —  Rich wales 02:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I finished going through the complete list of 300+ journal articles on the Wong Kim Ark case. I selected half a dozen promising-looking titles for further study, and I was able to use material from two of them in this Wikipedia article.  But I found nothing at all expanding on the exceptions to jurisdiction under the Citizenship Clause — the only reasonable conclusion I can come to is that such material simply does not exist.  Unless someone can point me to a specific source of specific information, I believe I've done my due diligence here per WP:WIAFA 1(b) and 1(c), and then some.  —  Rich wales 07:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ” Wong Kim Ark and illegal immigration” – this section seems to only include commentary, and does not mention any actual litigation of the question of whether the children of illegal immigrants are constitutionally entitled to citizenship. Has this question ever been raised in court? Additionally, changing the heading title from “criticism” to the current title does not remedy the problem that this section includes only criticism of birthright citizenship and WKA, not praise of the two concepts. Such is unbalanced. Savidan 21:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As best I've been able to find out, there simply haven't been any post-WKA court cases challenging birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants. The closest there is to such a case would be Plyler v. Doe — though that case dealt with illegal alien children (i.e., born outside the US, with no basis for claiming US citizenship, and brought to the US with their illegal immigrant parents).  Although Plyler v. Doe is not on point w/r/t the birthright citizenship issue, it's still relevant because SCOTUS used WKA to guide its interpretation of the jurisdiction phrases in the 14th Amendment.


 * There is, in fact, already material in this last subsection speaking in favour of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens; see the second paragraph. I've not really found any isolated stuff praising this principle that isn't somehow a reaction to attempts to limit or repeal it.  —  Rich wales 05:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * So none of these law review articles cite any cases dealing with the Citizenship Clause and children of illegal aliens? Do they even cite any dicta from court decisions indicating that such a distinction might matter? I think the "Wong Kim Ark and illegal immigration" needs to be split. One section dealing with the simple legal question: "Does this Citizenship Clause guarantee citizenship to the children of illegal aliens?" [not limited to the question of whether WKA itself directly and specifically decided this]. Another section for criticism. In fact, I would suggest a == section for commentary and === sections for praise and criticism. There is a serious neutrality problem with putting this much criticism under a heading that purports to deal only with the previous question. I'm not sure I can believe that Wong Kim Ark has received no praise. Do you mean to represent that not one of the 300 law review articles says something like: "Wong Kim Ark was a good decision. It reaffirmed our highest values as a society. It was great that the Court countered the xenophobia of the time and upheld the promise of the Fourteenth Amendment." I really find it hard to believe that the professorial criticism of WKA has not been replied to by those who disagree; and I find it hard to believe there is no one in academia who has published their agreement with the WKA decision or with birthright citizenship more generally. Savidan 07:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm already mentioning two articles which do praise Wong Kim Ark. I'm willing to look for more if necessary.  I am not willing to look through all 300+ articles mentioned by Shepard's.  And, once again, I am not prepared to rearrange or recategorize the material at this point, absent a consensus that this is the right thing to do.  —  Rich wales 18:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Minor backtrack: In hopes of putting more weight on the pro-Wong Kim Ark material (which was already there, but apparently not forceful enough for you to take significant note of it), I've flipped the "pro" and "con" material, putting the objections to birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens first, and then including the arguments in its favour (and framing them as a response/rebuttal).  I also split the "illegal immigration" subsection into two subsections — one called "Wong Kim Ark and children of illegal aliens", and the other called "Legislative attempts to overturn Wong Kim Ark".  I will continue trying to find more material as you request from law review articles and/or court decisions — though I remain pessimistic about being able to succeed in this.  —  Rich wales 05:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "One section dealing with the simple legal question: 'Does this Citizenship Clause guarantee citizenship to the children of illegal aliens?'" IMO, this would not be appropriate, per WP:SUMMARY and WP:WIAFA criteria #4.  Material of this type might belong at Citizenship Clause, Illegal immigration to the United States, or Birthright citizenship in the United States, but this article is about the Wong Kim Ark case and should (IMO) discuss side issues only to the extent that they relate closely to Wong and his legal situation court case.  Thus, perhaps, "Does Wong Kim Ark guarantee citizenship to the children of illegal aliens?"  —  Rich wales 02:33 15:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've mentioned one more source opposing birthright citizenship for children of illegals, and one more source supporting it. I should say here that I think I've put so much "pro" material in this subsection that some readers might even say I've gone too far and made the text POV in the "pro" direction.  I'd welcome comments on this possibility.  —  Rich wales 07:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Citations — It’s fine if the author wishes to use a non-Bluebook citation format for the cases, but some are simply just Bluebooked wrong rather than according to a different citation style. For example, the Federal Reporter should just be abbreviated “F.” Is the author intentionally using a different citation system (that I have overlooked), and doing so consistently? Savidan 21:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I was not attempting to ignore Bluebook, and if some case citations are not currently correct per Bluebook, I'm certainly willing to fix them. With regard to the Federal Reporter (1st series), I've seen both "Fed." and "Fed.Rep." used in older material (and the Wong Kim Ark opinion uses "Fed.Rep."); however, since modern (Bluebook) usage prefers "F.", I'll make this change.  Again, if there are other things that should be changed, please point them out specifically so I can fix them too.  —  Rich wales 03:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I would also suggest dropping "1898 U.S. LEXIS 1515." Lexis and Westlaw citations are useless unless they are the only citation available. Any other citation can already be used to retrieve the case in both Lexis and Westlaw. The parallel citation for Lynch v. Clark is also off. There should be only one citation, in the preference order described in Table 1; if none of the citatations are preferred, any will do. The order is note 77 appears not be formatted like an opinion at all. Under Rule 1.5(a)(ii), quotes included in footnotes should be like this: Wong Kim Ark, 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."). Reid v. Covert in note 114 lacks a citation. Footnotes--for example, note 118 should read: Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 725 n.2. This recurs, for example in note 150. Procedural phrases for subsequent history--for example note 127 does not comport to Rule 10.7. New Jersey should be "N.J." in note 139. "Emphasis in original" is used for some bold but not others; was the other bolding added by you? Notes 160-164 do not follow Rule 13.2.
 * Did you ever consider using the Bluebook for non-case sources to maintain within-article consistency? Using it for statutes seems like a no-brainer. Ditto for legislative history. Ditto for treaties. Secondary sources are perhaps a closer question, but then again the majority of them are law review articles. Savidan 07:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The question of how strictly the legal cites in this article (or any other Wikipedia article) should or shouldn't conform to the Bluebook standard was beaten to death during this article's first FAC (see also Template talk:Cite court). The conclusion at that time, as I understood it then (and still understand it now), was that Wikipedia articles on legal topics are encyclopedia articles, not law journal articles or legal briefs; that people here are comfortable with a "mostly Bluebook" citation style (not necessary to follow Bluebook 100%); that, in particular, it's not necessary (and probably not even desirable) to parenthesize quotations here, regardless of what Bluebook says; and that it's acceptable (and probably even preferable) to use a mainstream (non-legal-world) style for law journal cites in a Wikipedia article about a legal case.  The debate got rather heated back in September, and one major template expert abandoned the discussion because others refused to accept his interpretation of "uniform citation style".  You might want to rekindle a discussion on this general issue (Template talk:Cite court might be a good initial venue) — but (SandyGeorgia or others please correct me here if I'm mistaken) I don't believe the FAC community will support requiring this question to be resolved in full as a precondition for any possible promotion of the Wong Kim Ark article.


 * In the meantime, I'll do some cleanup of the citations — and, in particular, I'll probably split up the Regan v. King footnote so as to sidestep concerns over acceptable handling of subsequent history — but I'm reluctant to spend a huge amount of time right this instant on citation format, because my impression is that some of your other concerns trump the citation format issue (in terms of whether or not you're willing to support promotion of this article), and those other things probably need more urgent attention than this. —  Rich wales 18:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I do not claim that, as a condition of becoming featured, the citations must conform to the Bluebook. I do think there should be a consistent citation style, so it seems strange to just do the Bluebook wrong. In terms of the statutes, proposed bills, and treaties, I think the omitted citation information would actually be useful (e.g., the statutes at large citation, the codification information if codified) independent of citation style. Savidan 19:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * For additional clarity, here are examples of the types of citation information I would like to see. Savidan 20:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Voting Rights Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-110, 79 Stat. 445 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1973 to 1973bb-1 (2006)).
 * Protection from Personal Intrusion Act, H.R. 2448, 105th Cong. § 2(a) (1997).
 * North Atlantic Treaty art. 5, Apr. 4, 1949, 63 Stat. 2241.


 * I'm open, in principle, to the idea of adding citation information as you're suggesting. It may take some time, in a few cases, to look up all the cites, and I would be grateful for any assistance in improving the cites.  —  Rich wales 02:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment — Before I attempt to address Savidan's concerns (by answering the above criticisms and/or making changes to the article), I would be grateful for guidance from SandyGeorgia and/or other FAC people as to how they would like to proceed. I may also have some additional responses to Calliopejen1's comments, but again, I would appreciate direction from the FAC people before this "restarted" discussion potentially bloats into another huge, tangled conversation. — Rich wales 22:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess that depends on your stamina :) You've had a long haul with this one.  One way to prevent page bloat would be to copy all of Savidan's comments to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/United States v. Wong Kim Ark/archive2 and see if you all can hash something out there.  Take deep breaths ... the article will get better and better by collaboration. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're OK, then, with having this discussion continue? That's fine — I've been worried that if we were to stop now (and this FAC were archived), I wouldn't really be able to get any more feedback until I eventually renominated the article for a third FAC.  —  Rich wales 22:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You've got two supports, so the FAC isn't in danger of being closed. Although, considering my resignation is effective in two weeks, it's unclear if I'll be the one closing this.  As it stands now, if you're good to continue, all I can say is-- make use of the talk page here to help control the page bloat we've seen here.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe I've responded to all of Savidan's points. I've made some changes, and I'm pushing back at some of his comments which I disagree with. I assume the FAC process is not supposed to be a scenario where every suggestion made by every commentator has got to be followed without complaint (something that would inevitably lead to a "too many cooks spoil the broth" result). — Rich wales 05:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * More work done. I'd like to hear from Savidan again and find out what he thinks at this point.  —  Rich wales 07:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Summary of the current state of the article vis-à-vis Savidan's still-outstanding points:


 * Rearrangement and expansion of the material about citizenship law and court cases subsequent to Wong Kim Ark. Despite what I honestly believe is a thorough search, there simply does not seem to be anything more to be found regarding the exceptions to jus soli citizenship mentioned by the Wong Kim Ark court.


 * Rearrangement and expansion of the material about the relevance of Wong Kim Ark to the contemporary question of citizenship for US-born children of illegal aliens, while still keeping the focus of the article on the Wong Kim Ark case. The subsection on "Wong Kim Ark and children of illegal aliens" now discusses four journal articles / book chapters and a State Dept. policy manual supporting jus soli citizenship for such children in light of WKA, plus a subsequent SCOTUS case applying WKA's view of 14th Amendment jurisdiction to illegal aliens.


 * A little bit more work on adding legal cites. I'm continuing on this, and I would be grateful for suggestions of where to find canonical cites for older bills and legislative history.  @SandyGeorgia or other FAC people, how much (if any) progress is necessary on this specific point in order for the article to satisfy the criteria? I think I've got everything cited now.  If Savidan or anyone else sees something I overlooked, or which they feel is still improperly cited, please let me know so I can fix it.  —  Rich wales 07:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * We're apparently at an impasse regarding possible additional rearrangement of pre-WKA material and the treatment of the legislative history of the Citizenship Clause.


 * Anxiously awaiting followup comments, anything I missed, etc. —  Rich wales 07:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Richwales, since you specifically queried me ... my resignation is effective in three days, so I fear that closing any FAC that is a close call would not bode well for that FAC. This is Wikipedia, and folks are prone to unwarranted attacks, and might say I made the wrong call on a close call as a parting shot, so I'm leaving close calls for the new delegates.  But, I can add that, as of now, you have only two supports (the third support is qualified to Images only, doesn't address overall), so even if other delegates consider the opposes resolved, you don't have consensus for promotion.  By the way, since text has been reworked, one thing you might do is to ping in the previous supporters and ask them to revisit with an eye towards whether they're still satisfied.  I also see that Savidan hasn't revisited since Jan 31.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * And Calliopejen1 doesn't appear to have said anything since January 23. I've pinged several people (and two WikiProjects), seeking more input here — thanks for this suggestion.  And I'll keep working on the article as appropriate until this FAC gets closed (one way or the other).  —  Rich wales 07:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)