Talk:United States v. Wong Kim Ark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Asian Americans, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Asian Americans on Wikipedia. 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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

NPOV problem: The article needs editing to reflect the fact that there was sharp disagreement between the court's majority and minority regarding the applicability of English common law on citizenship in the US, and regarding the meaning of "jurisdiction" in the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause. As written, the article presents the dissenting opinion of two of the Supreme Court's justices pretty much as if it were unquestioned fact. Richwales 02:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It would also be good to include references to subsequent Supreme Court cases that cite Wong Kim Ark (such as Perkins v. Elg and Afroyim v. Rusk). Richwales 02:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and did a major rewrite of this article. I hope readers will agree that I've presented both sides fairly, even though I, personally, happen to agree strongly with the majority opinion of the court and feel the minority was grasping at straws in a desperate, futile attempt to justify an untenable position. Richwales 05:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I would love it if someone who knows Chinese could add the Chinese characters and pronunciation details for Wong Kim Ark's name (in the "Facts" section). Any volunteers? Richwales 05:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand that some Chinese immigrants who left the US were allowed to return — the Chinese Exclusion Act apparently excluded specifically "laborers". Also, Chinese immigrants already in the US were allowed to sponsor their children for immigration — a loophole which was widely exploited via "paper children" schemes. Richwales 06:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I found an article in SF Weekly (1998-11-04) about a great-granddaughter of Wong Kim Ark who went to the National Archives office in San Bruno, California (a San Francisco suburb) in search of information about her famous ancestor. This article mentioned that Wong "spent most of his life as a cook in various Chinatown restaurants" in San Francisco. Richwales 06:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I spent a few hours today (Fri. 25 Nov. 2005) at the National Archives office in San Bruno, CA. I was able to photocopy material from Wong Kim Ark's immigration file, as well as the files of three of his four sons — Wong Yoke Fun, Wong Yook Thue, and Wong Yook Jim. This material includes some biographical details on Wong and his family, and it contains Wong's name written in Chinese. I've added a 1931 photo of Wong, plus his signature. As soon as I can get a transcription of his name in his native See Yip (Taishan) dialect, I'll add that to the article. Richwales 02:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

A Usenet acquaintance, who speaks Cantonese and has some familiarity with the Taishan dialect, provided me with a transcription of the pronunciation of Wong Kim Ark's name. Richwales 16:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The same source also provided me with Cantonese and Mandarin readings of Wong's name. Although I'm not totally sure how relevant these are in this case (since there is no evidence that Wong ever pronounced his own name in either of these languages/dialects), I've added this additional information for the sake of completeness. Richwales 23:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The material I photocopied from the Wong immigration files at the National Archives also includes birthdate info for Wong Kim Ark's sons. I'll add this when I get a chance. Richwales 08:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Chinese custom of reckoning newborns as "one year old"? 2 lost footnote or plagiarized 3 "Federalist" blogs 4 tones 5 Wikify "v." abbreviation? 6 Better cites to opposing views?

[edit] Chinese custom of reckoning newborns as "one year old"?

I've read and/or been told, in the past, that the traditional Chinese custom is to say that a newborn baby is "one year old" — effectively making the Chinese reckoning of a person's age one year more than what we would say in the west. I mentioned this, in passing, while discussing the conflicting info re: Wong Kim Ark's birthdate and age. Can anyone come up with a citation to a source for this Chinese custom? Or is it just an urban myth? Richwales 08:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I added a link to the article on East Asian age reckoning. Thanks to Kusunose for pointing out this article after I asked in Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities. Richwales 14:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] lost footnote or plagiarized

There is reference to a footnote 10, page 211. There is no footnote 10. Was this copied from another source?

No, this text wasn't copied from anywhere; I wrote it myself. I'm looking at the FindLaw copy of the Plyler v. Doe ruling, and there is, indeed, a footnote #10 in the majority opinion — right after the following sentence: "Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment supports that constricting construction of the phrase 'within its jurisdiction.'" The text of the footnote itself begins with: "Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase . . . ." Richwales 04:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I think I see now. You were saying that the Wong Kim Ark article itself doesn't have a footnote 10 (or a page 211). No, I was referring to a footnote in the Plyler v. Doe case, referred to in the Wong Kim Ark article. I see how the footnote reference might be confusing to some, and I'll take it out. And just to make it absolutely clear — no, I didn't plagiarize this material, I wrote it myself. Richwales 04:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Federalist" blogs

Several "federalist blog" links are found throughout 14th Amendment-related articles. Can anyone verify the bona fides of the author ("PA Madison, former research fellow in constitutional studies")? His "scholarship" is misleading at best, and completely wrong at worst. For example, see http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/constitutional_law/.

The link to P. A. Madison's blog was added by someone on December 19, 2005. I moved the link to the end of the article on December 25 and added a descriptive comment in an attempt to preserve NPOV. Although the quality of the legal scholarship on this blog may certainly be in question, I would suggest it's probably better to keep the link more or less as is — not only because the material does reflect how a vocal group feels about this subject, but also because trying to delete it is likely to trigger a nasty revert war. Richwales 06:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tones

Does Toisanese really have at least 33 tones? John Riemann Soong 18:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

My understanding was that the source of my info on Toisanese pronunciation intended "33" to refer to a sustained mid-level pitch on a long syllable (i.e., starting at "3" and ending at "3"). Similarly, I believe "11" was supposed to mean a sustained low-level pitch on a long syllable. The third syllable had just "3" because it ended with a stop and was therefore too short to have more than a single pitch. If a standard tone-numbering scheme exists for the Toisanese dialect, by all means I'd encourage someone who knows this dialect to update the article accordingly. Please note that I, myself, do not speak Toisanese (or any other Chinese language/dialect) and was relying here solely on an informant. Richwales 18:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikify "v." abbreviation?

Should the abbreviation v. in United States v. Wong Kim Ark be wikified for the benefit of non-lawspeaker readers who might not remember what it means? I thought it should, but at least one other editor evidently thinks it should not. And if there is a consensus that v. should be wikified, should the link go to [[Wiktionary:v.]], or to [[Wiktionary:versus]]? What do others think, and why? Richwales 18:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• That was me :-) None of the other Wikipedia articles on court cases seem to use the convention of linking the "v." It struck me as visually jarring and I'm not sure it's that useful: how many people don't know what "v" means in the name of a legal case, or can't quickly intuit it? I'll link V to List of legal terms#Versus so that a reader who looks up "v." on their own will find the reference -- I think that's a more appropriate way to handle it. Tim Pierce 13:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Better cites to opposing views?

Right now, the "external links" section of this article cites three "blog" articles belittling/denouncing the ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case. While I believe that blog articles are not generally appropriate as references in Wikipedia articles and have been sorely tempted in the past to edit them out of this page, I'm worried that if I (or anyone else) were to simply remove these blog links without putting some more mainstream opposing references in their place, this would likely lead to accusations of POV and perhaps a revert war. Can anyone come up with any references to something more acceptable than a blog article which attempts to present a case that Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided and ought to be overturned? Perhaps a law review article, or testimony before a Congressional committee, or even a news story? Richwales 00:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)