Talk:Elvira Arellano/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is 'undocumented worker' accurate at all?

According to the article, she is not a worker but instead lives inside a church that she does not leave. Further it says that "she was arrested and convicted of using a false Social Security number to obtain employment and was sentenced to three years probation."

It seems to me that she is not a worker, and that she was not undocumented, but documented with forged documents. Why use 'undocumented worker' at all when neither word accurately applies to her? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.225.125.218 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 10 May 2007

  • Why don't you sign-up for an account and come back to discuss this further. --evrik (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Criminals

The article states "she was arrested and convicted of using a false Social Security number to obtain employment and was sentenced to three years probation." It also says she is a fugitive. She is a criminal and is categorized as such, accurately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.225.125.218 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 10 May 2007

  • Why don't you sign-up for an account and come back to discuss this further. --evrik (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Anchor Baby/Illegal Immigrants

"while i don't doubt that both her and her son get called lots of pejorative names, let's stick to the facts and leave the namecalling out of it" "This was discussed and resolved in November (See talk page). There are already 2 "illegals" in the page. We don't need to see how many we can fit into one short article."- Ramsey2006

For clarification, the above is a comment by User:LordPathogen, containing what are apparently quotes from my edit summaries for the main page. --Ramsey2006 19:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"Anchor baby" is a term her critics use for her son in their comments regarding the 14th Amendment. It may be insulting but it is a term used by them and thus is relevent to this article, political sensitivities aside. As for "illegal immigrant," frankly, I could care less if it was discussed in November or yesterday. It can be reopened for discussion ANY time. It should also be noted that "undocumented" actually maps to the article on illegal immigration because outside of politically correct American euphemisms, everyone else in the world calls people who enter without the permission of a country illegal immigrants. And as we all know, they have plenty of documents, even Ms. Arellano, they are simply fraudulent. Finally, as I noted in my edit, I merely added a link, "illegal immigrants" was already there. I wasn't trying "to see how many we can fit into one short article." If I were simply interested in doing that, I assure you that with a topic like this, I could add a LOT more... ;-) User:LordPathogen16 MAY 2007

Both mother and child have been called lots of pejorative names by their critics. This isn't the place to list them all here. let's stick to the facts, and let the facts speak for themselves. We don't need to engage in name-calling here. We are adults. As for the link that you added, I kept the link that you created, while at the same time fixing the wording that was accidentally introduced by myself in a previous edit. --Ramsey2006 06:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not calling her (or you) names. It is *factual* to report that the term "anchor baby" is being used in her case and why since her child is the fundamental reason she has not been deported again. That is pretty much acknowledged by everyone. If there was no Saul, she would not have gotten the stays of deportation she did. By using the context I added in the article, it is quite clear the article is not simply using a term that some consider perjorative but rather is reporting that the term is being used in her case by her critics. On another note, there is not much point in having articles like "Anchor babies" etc. in wikipedia if no other articles ever link to them regardless if they provide relevent and factual information... User:LordPathogen17 MAY 2007
Some people believe that the fundamental reason that she has not been deported again is because the church gave her sanctuary, so you should probably be more careful when talking about what is "pretty much acknowledged by everybody". There are many, many parents of US citizens who have been deported. As for the name-calling, I am quite aware that Saul Arellano and Michelle Malkin have been called anchor babies by their critics and that both Elvira and Saul have been called wetbacks by their critics and that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have been called niggers by their critics. But just because pejorative terms are listed on wikipedia is no reason for including every name that people have been called by their critics in biographical articles. The specific criticisms of the critics are already included on the page. We are interested in facts here, not in name-calling. --Ramsey2006 16:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Some people may believe she has not been deported because of the church but the real reason is because of her son. There would be no media frenzy were it not for her constantly putting him on TV and pointing out he is a US citizen. ICE simply wants to avoid an elian Gonzalez scenario. You know it as well as I. Ms. Arellano herself uses her son as justification to avoid deportation both in the media and with ICE. If there is any more doubt about why she is still in the US, the statement by ICE that they do not accept Church sanctuary pretty much clears it up. As for the term "anchor baby," its interesting how you do not mind bandying about extremely pejorative words in an attempt to strengthen your argument... Not really sure what Michelle Malkin has to do with this but in Ms. Arellano's case, her sole claim to staying in the US is her son, who by virtue of the 14th Amendment is a citizen of the US. Critics of illegal immigration and specifically this case strongly feel that Saul either was conceived for that purpose or is now being exploited for that reason. Hence, he completely fits the common use of the term which is used descriptively as well as perjoratively. Your delicate sensibilities aside, perjorative or not, these same critics directly call him that, thus it is useful to inform the reader via a link to the article on Anchor Baby. They can then make there own decision whether he meets the criteria. The terms you used, "wetback" and "nigger" have direct racial associations and frankly, are on another level compared to Anchor Baby. This is easily demonstrable by the fact the media uses the term "n-word" when referring to "nigger." I've never read of them using the "a/b-word" in lieue of Anchor Baby and in fact, I have seen and read this term in MSM sources. You are trying to usurp the meaning of the term to only apply to Hispanics, hence your racist slant, but there is no evidence that it only applies to them, as evidenced by the article in wikipedia. The term is generic for any female illegal immigrant who has a child in the US to avoid deportation. I've read it used for Koreans as a example. Perhaps YOU associate it only with Hispanics but then you need to ask yourself why you make that association... You claim to be interested only in the facts ala Joe Friday but from your edits you seem more interested in sanitizing and obfuscating to promote a certain POV. User:LordPathogen17 MAY 2007
You will be happy to know that I justed eliminated the "illegal" vs "undocumented" controversey altogether by attributing the statistic to the person who made it in the referenced article and quoting his words, which were actually more specific and informative, anyway. One less thing to argue about. --Ramsey2006 06:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not. Despite adding a bunch of words, we actually lose information by saying "they live under the threat of deportation." The astute reader might wonder, WHY do they live under threat??? Answer- because they are illegal immigrants... Thus, I put back what was there before any of my edits. I just added linking. The CBS article also uses the term "illegal alien parents" by the way. It always amuses me when people try to obfuscate things with language, blind vs. visually impaired, short vs. vertically challenged, handicapped vs. physically disabled. In the end, most people still know what the meaning really is so it begs the question, why make the change in the first place then? In this case, Ms. Arellano is an illegal immigrant parent. Illegal immigrant is a generic term used the world over for people in in her circumstances. Undocumented is an inaccurate American term coined to obfuscate for political reasons. User:LordPathogen17 MAY 2007
Reguarding the 4.9 million quote: How can information possibly be lost by quoting his exact words? The "astute reader" doesn't need you to interpret the quoted statistic for him or her. --Ramsey2006 16:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
First, the statistic is from a Mexican politician which as far as I know is not responsible for gathering official statistics for the US government. Secondly, the general rule on quoting here is he same as it was in college: quote little, paraphrase if possible, attribute sources. In other words, we do not need his "exact" words. The point you seemed not to grasp is there is no context for the statement about fearing deportation. It needs to be clearly stated that those 4.9 million are the children of illegal immigrants and hence, THAT is why they are "fearing" deportation. They do not live in a vaccum, they fear deportation because they are illegal. That is clear. It is you, however, that are trying to "interpret," bend and obfuscate, not me.
Please refrain from editing the words of other editors on this talk page. Thank you. --Ramsey2006 18:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
No idea what you are talking about. I don't support my arguments that way. User:LordPathogen
I was refering to edits by anomymous User:129.33.49.251 to talk page comments by User:LordPathogen. It is clear now that the two are one and the same editor. My apologies. I'll revert my edit. --Ramsey2006 21:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Actually, there is no edit to revert. It turns out that after posting that comment, I noticed a problem with indentation, and forgot to do the edit that I had intended to do. --Ramsey2006 22:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Interesting argument. First of all, the term anchor baby is not equal in any fashion to the term nigger or wetback. I remember nigger used to mean a person of ignorance, but now it just means a derogatory word towards blacks. Thanks society/political correctness/and we can't forget the KKK. The fact that you(and others) try to liken "anchor baby" (and illegal immigrant) to "nigger" means that you either don't know American History and the civil rights movement (which was definitely not supporting lawbreaking foreign nationals taking advantage of American policy) or your argument has no weight on its own and therefore you'd like to invoke a blatant emotional/primal response to inflammatory words to strengthen it. Either way,anchor baby is not a racial term, derogatory or otherwise, as far as I know: African, Caucasian, Asian, American Indian, etc., ... Anchor Baby?
One of the main reasons we can't deal with the illegal alien problem is that we (US) as a nation are squabbling over things like simple terminology ... minutia. If there were more to citizenship than being born in the US and we had the backbone to deport lawbreakers this Wikipedia entry may not even exist. Seriously, if I commit a crime, they have no second thoughts to breaking up my family and putting me under jail and I am a citizen. — MindHavoc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 17 May 2007
Your difficulties of dealing with the issue and POV rant aside, you (User:129.33.49.251 and User:LordPathogen) are in violation of the wikipedia's 3 revert rule WP:3RR. I will hold off in reporting your violation to give you a chance to revert your last edit in good faith. --Ramsey2006 22:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Your inability to count not-withstanding, I will not revert my last edition. When you report me however, be sure to report yourself as well since according to the Edit History, YOU made 4 revisions in a 24 hours period yourself. So, your rant about the 3 revert rule WP:3RR is rather hypocritical at best... Your arguments are weak, so now you go running to mama... User:LordPathogen17 MAY 2007

REQUEST FOR THIRD OPINION- After arguing over the matter with Ramsey2006, followed by a few days of "cooling off," I have formally requested a "Third Opinion" on this section. We are not talking about a lot of text here. I propose to revert back to my last posting before Crockspot's revert [[1]] . Ramsey2006 seems incapable of understanding the difference between simply adding perjorative words to an article for the sake of it and adding them because they are relevent to the discussion (he does not, however, seem to have a problem with EXTREMELY perjorative terms under this Discussion section in order to win an argument). Critics of Ms. Arellano specifically call Saul a prime example of an Anchor Baby (something they are vehemently against) which though perjorative is also simply used descriptively by others. In any case, it is apparently not THAT perjorative as it is used in MSM. Ramsey2006 has also misrepresented Saul as simply a 7 year old boy. In fact, he is a public figure who has travelled internationally on behalf of his mother, appeared before the Mexican legislature and done numerous media interviews on this issue. In short, he is a public figure although a very young one. Nevertheless, his mother chose to make him one to advance her cause which allows criticism of her motives to be documented. Stating that her critics say Saul is an example of an Anchor Baby is not Wikipedia calling him an Anchor Baby or me calling him an Anchor Baby. It is simply being factual in that that is what her critics call him and what they view as a huge flaw in the US immigration system that needs to be addressed. Using the term with its link thereby invites readers to read the linked article and expand their knowledge on the subject. So, is the term insulting? Yeah, probably. Is it descriptive? Yeah, probably. Is it so harmful that it should not be used? Most definitely not. And actually, despite the revert comment to me by Crockspot stating WP:BLP, the article about that does not mention the use of perjorative or insulting terms at all as far as I could see. In fact, it states "the views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability." Seems pretty relevent to me. Now, there is another issue besides the "Anchor Baby" one that frankly, I think Ramsey2006 slid past Crockspot: the whole "undocumented," "illegal immigrant," "parents live under the threat of deportation" thing. I edited ONE instance to use "illegal immigrants," after which Ramsey2006 decided to use the more obtuse "parents live under the threat of deportation." The reason those parents face deportation is because they are illegal immigrants. So, why not say that instead of trying to obfuscate it? Afterall, the article uses "legal immigrants" and the biased term "undocumented immigrants" so I fail to see what is wrong with using a neutral term that is used the world over for people who enter countries without permission. It is also needless quoting I might add, something wikipedia strives to avoid. It should also be noted that Ramsey2006 edits other articles where the term "illegal immigrant" is present so I am not sure what is problem is here. In general, this article goes out of its way to either use more words than needed or to try and obfuscate things, such as "Elvira Arellano... is a Mexican citizen living illegally in the United States" instead of "Elvira Arellano is an illegal immigrant from Mexico living in the United States". The latter is much more straight-forward IMHO. I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter... User:LordPathogen23:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

I came here per a request on Wikipedia:Third opinion. These are my views:

  • Anchor baby is a perjorative term, according to the Wikipedia article on the subject. A category called "anchor babies" isn't appropriate for a Wikipedia category. It's enough that the anchor baby article links to this one.
  • In this article, it may be appropriate to quote a notable source referring to Elvira Arellano's son as an "anchor baby" however. But only in a quotation.
  • As for "illegal" - call a spade a spade. Elvira Arellano is an illegal immigrant. Nothing wrong with saying so in the article.

Hope that helps. -Amatulic 23:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback! A few comments... I was not proposing a section called "Anchor Baby" in this article, merely the link I had with the context ['her critics call him..."] along with the citiation I had. If the citation is insufficient, I can certainly come up with a direct quote. Ramsey2006 simply removes Anchor baby wherever he sees it... User:LordPathogen01:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The heading of this talk page section made me think that, at some time in the past, an entire Wiki category called "anchor babies" was one of the issues. I didn't think that was it, but my comment above attempted to cover that base just in case.
As I said before, a quotation or statement may be appropriate, illustrating that critics call her son an "anchor baby" - but not more than a short sentence. And even then, I don't particularly see the value in documenting the name-calling. In an encyclopedia, a critic's arguments are more meaningful and noteworthy than any perjorative terms used. However, if the arguments consist mostly of name-calling (that is, the name-calling has greater weight in critics' comments) then it's worth noting that in this article. -Amatulic 00:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again for the feedback. As I understand it, her critics are not simply calling Saul an Anchor baby simply to be perjorative. They are saying it to question the motives of Ms. Arellano as they deem her motives exploitive of both him and US law, in short a convenient method by which she can avoid being deported. It is also not sufficient to rely upon the link from the Anchor baby article. A reader of this article, would not know of that link and the controversy regarding Saul and his mother's critics. In any case, I have provided a quote from a "notable" person sourced to the New York Times. I also changed "parents facing deportation" to the clearer "illegal immigrant" as per yoru advice User:LordPathogen01:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Anchor Baby/Illegal Immigrant

This is a dispute about whether the terms Anchor baby and Illegal_immigrant should be used in this article. Please see the above section on this Page as well as Third Opinion regarding it.

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
  • I have attempted to discuss this issue here at length with Ramsey2006. I then went through a "cooling off" period before deciding to request a Third Opinion. Upon receiving a third opinion, I made a good faith effort to follow the suggestions contained therein. Roughly two hours later, completely ignoring my comments regarding citation and Third Opinion in the edit and without further comment on this page himself, Ramsey2006 again removed my edits in lieue of his own which I feel are none too subtle attempts to be politically correct at the expense of accuracy as well as non-NPOV on his part User:LordPathogen03:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • As you can see from the last edit at 04:15, 23 May 2007, Ramsey2006 was unwilling to wait for any comments despite my edit comment that this was placed on the RfC board before changing it back to what he wants. He claims to want consensus but it seems more like he considers this his own personal article to do with as he pleases... User:LordPathogen04:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • One thing that I would like to point out is that (on the issue of "illegal immigrant" vs "undocumented immigrant"), is that the issue of what terminology and labels to use is not a new one. It has been a very contentious issue in many immigration related articles, including this one. In November, 2006, after much discussion and some difficulty, a consensus was reached on this talk page. The record of that discussion and consensus is contained in the following sections of this talk page:
Requesting addition of Illegal Alien in place of Undocumented Worker
Proposed Compromise: Lets use both terms
Lets finish this debate
Unilateral editing decisions
As you can see, the consensus that was painfully arived at in November was the result of much discussion and difficulty. Let's not throw it away lightly. Essentially, the consensus was to place variants of the word "illegal" in two key sentences, not as labels on people, but as part of a factual description of events. The first of those two key sentences is the introductory sentence of the article, where the fact that she is living in this country illegally is noted:
Elvira Arellano (born 1975) is a Mexican citizen living illegally in the United States who, facing deportation from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, took sanctuary in the Adalberto United Methodist Church, of Chicago in August 2006.
The second of those those two key sentences is the introductory sentence of the History section, where it is stated that her entry into the country was illegal:
Arellano entered the United States illegally in 1997[3], was apprehended and deported back to Mexico by the United States government[4].
It should also be noted that the opening paragraph of this short article contains the word "fugitive", and that the History section contains the words "arrested", "convicted" and "sentenced". Those who would overturn the November consensus have yet to explain what new factual information is really being added to this article by a gratuitous addition of another instance of the word "illegal", especially when it is not being used to state further facts not yet noted in the article, but instead merely to label people. The problematical nature of the use of the word "illegal" to label human beings rather than actions has been addressed in the following press releases from a very diverse group of professional journalistic organizations:
Native American Journalists Association: NAJA Urges Media to Continue Accurate Terminology When Describing Immigrants
Asian American Journalists Association AAJA Statement on Use of "Illegals" in News Media
National Association of Black Journalists: NABJ Cautions Media Over Language Use in Immigration Debate; Stands in Support of Accuracy in Journalism
National Association of Hispanic Journalists: NAHJ Urges News Media to Stop Using Dehumanizing Terms When Covering Immigration: Calls for stopping the use of “illegals” as a noun, curbing the phrase “illegal alien”
On the issue of the word "illegal", and its use to label people, I ask that the November consensus be respect until such time as a new consensus can be acheived, and that the recient edits in violation of the November consensus be reverted.
--Ramsey2006 22:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "Labeling" people policemen, fire-fighters, doctors and lawyers is basically not any different than "labeling" thieves, murders, burglars and pedophiles as such. The only difference actually is the latter group and their apologists consider their labels perjorative and would prefer they not be used despite the fact those labels accurately describe them... "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - George Orwell -- User:LordPathogen20:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I've taken a quick look. I think the phrase "illegal immigrant" makes sense. "Undocumented worker" creates confusion. "Anchor baby" is a prejudicial insult and the same information can be conveyed by saying "Critics accused her of having a child in order to stay in the country". Unless the usage of the term 'anchor baby' by her critics was notable itself (for example caused a media storm, or a lot of people to come defend her) then I would leave it out. It looks to me from your earlier discussions that several racial slurs were thrown her way, so I'm not sure this particular one is notable in itself. ColtsScore 18:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So, by calling it a "racial slur," are we saying that the term Anchor Baby ONLY applies to Hispanics? I am not aware that is the case and can actually point to Koreans, for example, who have done the exact same thing. I think that is narrowing the common usage of the term, which wikipedia is not supposed to be doing. User:LordPathogen21:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think both terms are offensive and we should avcoid using them in an NPOV article. --evrik (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I especially don't think illegal alien it is any more offensive than calling a criminal a criminal, frankly. It is descriptive. And even if it is, offensive (to some), it is nevertheless an accurate description of her status vis-a-vis US law. User:LordPathogen21:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "Anchor baby" is within a quote attributed to a commentator on the case and readers can make up their own minds what the usage of the phrase reflects on the lady facing deportation and on the commentator. "Illegal immigrant" as it stands is not from a quote, and although the point about the number of children of "illegal immigrants" in the US is attributed to a reliable source, it does not actually add anything factual to the encyclopedia entry on this particular case, so the sentence should go. Itsmejudith 22:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Mike McGarry, acting director I don't know if the quote by an acting director of a NN org really justifies using the term. --evrik (talk) 02:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why it makes him any less authoritative. But if you like, here is another one, "Saul Arellano is an 8-year-old anchor baby." [2]. There are plenty of others. This is actually a fundamental tenet of the Arellano case for she bases her need/right/desire to stay in the US on the fact that her son is a US citizen by birth and at the same time, her critics state that she has exploited her son for the express purpose of gaming the US immigration system. User:LordPathogen05:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • How interesting that rather than write a persuasive argument, Evrik continues his biased ranting, going so far as to edit this page to annotate each and every signature of mine so as to criticize me because I have only contributed to a few articles and those happen to clash with his world-view. Please be sure to read his comments on this page, especially the "social construct" one. Hillarious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.49.251 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 24 May 2007 editing as LordPathogen
  • You can believe what you will. --evrik (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
That's like uh... so deep man... ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.49.251 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 24 May 2007 editing as LordPathogen
I think her critics state that she has exploited her son for the express purpose of gaming the US immigration system. expresses the facts really well, without needing to quote the exact offensive language. ColtsScore 05:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of categories

It is improper to apply categories to this article that apply to the subject's son, no matter how many times he is mentioned. It would be like applying the category "Presidents of the United States" to the Karl Rove article. There is no point in edit warring over it when both participants in the dispute are incorrect. - Crockspot 17:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have created a page on Saul Arellano, in order to assist with proper categorization, in addition to making it easier to find for people who search on Saul's name, rather than his mother's name. At this point, I have just redirected it to point here, since roughly half of this page is about him rather than his mother, but perhaps we should consider moving information about Saul to that page.--Ramsey2006 17:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Using the legal brief filed on Saul's behalf, I have fleshed out this article such that there is far more information on Ms. Arellano than was prevously present. The brief can also be used to flesh out the article on Saul but I see no reason to remove any of the info about him here. User:LordPathogen19:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot, I removed the Mexican-American category on this talk page since it has been removed by you on the article itself. Not only did Ramsey2006 put it back again, he also frankly lied on his revert message where he called my change citing you "vandalism." Any suggestions on how to handle his erratic/possessive behaviour about this? User:LordPathogen20:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I really don't want to be involved in this pissing match between you two. Hopefully the Saul article will resolve the categorical problems. - Crockspot 21:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry... It is my hope about the Saul article as well... User:LordPathogen21:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ramsey2006, quit lying in your revert messages. I clearly stated my reason for the change. It was not vandalism... and you know it. You even made a new page for Saul to accomodate the Mexican American angle to this story. Furthermore, the article itself does not include the category Mexican-American so why, pray tell, should the Discussion page? Actually, what you have done is more akin to vandalism: "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." If you lie again in your revert messages and/or add information back that you KNOW to be false i.e. Mexican-American, I will seek to have you blocked. Consider this your one and only warning. User:LordPathogen20:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Scope of WikiProject:Mexican-Americans

What follows is the statement of the scope of the WikiProject:Mexican-Americans from the project page:

This project will encompass all aspects of the experience of Mexican-Americans in the United States, including culture, history, politics, business, sports, etc. It will also cover the experience of the Hispano people, the descendents of the original Spanish and Novo-Spanish settlers of the Southwest, as well. It will likewise cover the relationships between Mexican-Americans, Chicanos, Hispanos, and other ethnic groups in the United States, as well as the relationship Mexican-Americans, Chicanos, and Hispanos have with Mexico and Mexicans.

The template for the WikiProject itself reads as follows.

Elvira Arellano falls under the scope of WikiProject Mexican-Americans, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Mexican-Americans on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to Mexican-Americans as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Mexican-Americans. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Clearly, this article is well within the stated scope on the WikiProject page, as well as the wording of the template itself. In addition, this article has long been rated as an article of Top Importance on the importance scale for the WikiProject. Accordingly, I am going to restore the WikiProject template to this talk page. In the future, editors are welcome to add their own comments to the talk page, but please do not remove legitimate content placed here by other editors. If an editor believes that the template has been placed on this talk page in error, I would suggest that the WikiProject in question be consulted to get a consensus on its removal. --Ramsey2006 22:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it does not. You can see that [here] LordPathogen 23:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Ummmmmm...what you just responded to was not composed by me. It was merely copied by me from the template that you deleted as displayed on this talk page. Why are you linking to the very template that you just replied to?--Ramsey2006 01:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
You wrote, "The template for the WikiProject itself reads as follows. 'Elvira Arellano falls under...'". No, the edited project template that was on this page mentions her, but not the default project template, which I linked to. So, I'm curious... why the insistence on keeping her with the Mexican-American project when she clearly is not American? After all, she already is listed with a cornucopia of other groups. Why add her to one she really does not belong to? Is there some personal reason? In response to your no doubt already formulated counter-question, I think it should be removed simply because she is not American and is accurately listed in other groups. If I did not know much about her and just came to this article/talk page, I would be rather confused as to why a "Mexican-American" is having problems with ICE... User:LordPathogenLordPathogen 02:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I have edited nothing. What part of "includes but is not limited to" do you not understand? And what part of "anything else related to Mexican-Americans" (in this case, related quite literally!) do you not understand? What part of "the relationship Mexican-Americans, Chicanos, and Hispanos have with Mexico and Mexicans" do you not understand? Are you just trying to be cute?--Ramsey2006 03:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
*Sigh*, tired of trying to explain that one to you. As for "related," 1. that would pretty much allow everything to be classified under that topic. For example, I could put "White House" there because the White House website has a Spanish version as well as English. I could also put South Park on there as well since they have mentioned Mexicans before. Perhaps I should take it as literal as you have and annotate such pages accordingly. It would dillute the usefullness of the project tag for that group but if it is as you say, I would be complying with their stated goal, right? 2. Your boy Evrik is a member of that project, so the NPOV of the group is circumspect at best based on interaction with him. 3. Even members of the Mexican-American group itself have discussed the issue, with one writing "Mexican American is a distinct minority in the U.S. with its own history, culture, art, literature, scholarship, and cosmology. Good to see we see eye to eye on this.--Rockero 08:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)." Somewhere along the line, there was scope creep. It is precisely because of such catch-all projects that this proposal is being proffered... As for your "cute" comment, nope, I honestly believe 1. she has no reason being in a Mexican-American category/project, 2. that if the project is as broad as you suggest, it needs to be narrowed and 3. you are doing this out of spite rather than logic. I may be wrong about #3 but a this point I do not think so. User:LordPathogen04:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I have checked both the White House article and the South Park article, and I have found that neither one of them is currently listed as part of the WikiProject in question. If you feel that one or both should be listed, then you should bring the articles in question to their attention. I am not a part of the WikiProject, so I would probably not be the proper person to handle that.--Ramsey2006 06:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
"I could..." *sigh* User:LordPathogen06:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
How do you know that you could? That seems to be an assumption on your part. There is always a possibility that the folks in the WikiProject might find your claimed relations to be too tenuous. Neither one seems to me to be quite as closely related as a mother and her son, but on the other hand, you'll never really know until you try.--Ramsey2006 07:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Definition of "Childlike, Pathetic Attempts At Manipulation" see immediately above ---^ User:LordPathogen07:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Were your examples intended to be strawmen?--Ramsey2006 07:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


  • Wow!! Mucho machismo y testosterone for a simple chica like me. However, Mama Arellano is a Mexican citizen living in America. She has worked as a Mexican in America, and has participated in the American economic system for quite a few years now. Mama Arellano also has a nino who is an American citizen. Nino Saul is of Mexican-American heritage, which makes Mama Arellano the mother of a Mexican-American. And 1+1=2. So who are the locos that don't want the category Mexican-American listed? Was this locigal enough? Or was it only "cute"? Chicaneo 05:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elvira_Arellano/Archive_2&oldid=775625114"