Wikipedia:Peer review/Afroyim v. Rusk/archive1

Afroyim v. Rusk

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I've just finished a major revision of the article — more than doubling its length, adding a large amount of new material (including additional sources), and generally cleaning it up. I believe this article has the potential to become a Featured Article in the next few months, and I would be grateful for constructive criticism and suggestions.

Thanks, — Richwales 06:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE — Still awaiting a review. Someone started doing a review on May 28, but they changed their mind about doing it and deleted their comments. — Richwales 22:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks pretty good to me, here are some suggestions for improvement, mostly pretty nit-picky.

• I am not a big fan of refs in the lead unless they are required for direct quotes or extraordinary claims. I note that United States v. Wong Kim Ark (which you are a major contributor to, ;-) ) is a FA on a Supreme Court case which does not have refs in the lead. As a summary of the article, the refs should be in the body any way.
• Link naturalized US Citizen to United States nationality law?
• Should the year of ratification for the 14th Amendment be given?
• I think that all Supreme Court cases are notable, so should there be red links for cases mentioned in the article, such as Mackenzie v. Hare or Savorgnan v. United States or Mandoli v. Acheson, etc.?
• Probably needs a ref for FAC and held oral arguments on February 20, 1967. and The respondent in Afroyim's case—representing the U.S. government—was Dean Rusk, the Secretary of State during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations.
• Why is there no summary of the arguments made before the court?
• "An official statement by the Attorney General in 1969 ..." Identify who - John Mitchell? Ramsey Clark?
• How is "unless he explicitly indicates to U.S. officials that this was his intention" different from " formal renunciation of citizenship before U.S. consular officials"? Under these new rules, the government assumes in almost all situations that an American who performs a potentially expatriating act did not in fact intend to give up his U.S. citizenship, unless he explicitly indicates to U.S. officials that this was his intention.[75] Exceptions to the presumption of intent to keep U.S. citizenship are limited to extreme cases such as treason, high-level employment in a foreign government, or formal renunciation of citizenship before U.S. consular officials.[76]
• I saw in the news that Michele Bachmann recently became a dual citizen in Switzerland, which seemed a bit odd for a former presidential candidate and sitting Member of Congress - not sure if that is worth a mention here or not
• Tool on this page shows some links that need an access date here
• Should the Ancestry.com refs somehow indicate it is a subscription service?
• Please let me know when this is at FAC
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Hi. Thanks very much for doing a peer review on Afroyim v. Rusk. A few comments:

• My understanding was/is that cites are expected in the lead only when a statement is likely to be disputed, or when direct quotes are involved. I added cites to the opening sentence because, a while back, someone insisted on making the article say that Afroyim protected citizenship only for people born or naturalized in the US — whereas, in fact, the Afroyim opinion included no such limitation, and it was only later (in Rogers v. Bellei) that the coverage of Afroyim was narrowed in this way. I felt (and still feel) that including the cites is appropriate in order to forestall such disputes. As for the cite in the opening sentence of the second paragraph, I added this because some might argue a wider acceptance of multiple citizenship didn't really take hold until Vance v. Terrazas, or maybe not even until the 1990 State Department policy changes — whereas there are in fact sources attributing the start of this policy shift to Afroyim. At least, this is the way I saw/see the matter; I'm definitely open to other views.

• United States v. Wong Kim Ark does, in fact, have some citations in the lead section (though not in the first paragraph) — albeit attached to direct quotes, which must have cites no matter where they are in an article.

• I had been under the (mis?)impression that redlinks were discouraged in FA's — though I tried to find such a guideline or policy just now and couldn't, so I guess maybe I was in error. Mandoli v. Acheson does have its own page now, BTW.

• Michele Bachmann's brief foray into the world of dual citizenship (she said a few days later, BTW, that she would be renouncing her Swiss citizenship, presumably after so many of her fans got their tea bags in a twist over the "divided loyalty" thing) should surely be mentioned in Citizenship in the United States, but I'm hesitant to add this or much more detail about specific individual dual citizens to the Afroyim article, especially cases which happened decades later. Do you really think something about Bachmann belongs here? And if so, where would you want to see it added?

• I'm pretty confident nothing in this article constitutes plagiarism / copyvio, but I agree with you that we need to be careful, so I'll be sure to check it again to be even more sure.

BTW, I've been in contact with Beys Afroyim's son, and I've got a bunch more source material which I'm going to sift through to see if anything more can be added to the article before I'm done with it and ready to nominate it for FA. I'll definitely let you know when this article comes up for FAC. I do wonder if, when that happens, I'm going to end up with as spirited a fight as I did at the Wong Kim Ark FAC's. :-) Thanks again for your feedback here. — Richwales 05:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• • Since there have been challenges, I am OK with the refs in the lead - I did not look at the article's edit history, but am OK with pre-emptive refs, as it were.
  • Sorry, I somehow missed the refs in the lead of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, but did note above that "refs in the lead ... are required for direct quotes"
  • I have a personal rule to not have red links in articles I bring to FAC, but I do not know of any offical Wikipedia restriction against them in FAC articles.
  • I am fine with not including Bachmann in this article (unless there is a RS that explicitly makes a connection between this case and her Swiss citizenship kerfluffle). Good idea to include it in the Citizenship in the United States article
  • The copyvio bit is included in every peer review I do - I did not see anything in this that seemed anywhere near it.

That is neat that you are in contact with his son. I usually spot check images (these all looked fine) and saw that the snapshot of him and his infant son was OTRS from the son. Is there a reason why all the images are set so small? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)