Talk:Geary Act

Untitled

What happened in the end? How did the Geary act get overturned? Dyshidrosis (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 12 March 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn, fully conceding error as to any reason for requesting moves with respect to anything other than Tydings–McDuffie Act, yet I do not intend to pursue a requested move for such at this time. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

---

• Geary Act → Geary Act of 1892Geary Act of 1892
• Filipino Repatriation Act → Filipino Repatriation Act of 1935Filipino Repatriation Act of 1935
• Emergency Quota Act → Emergency Quota Act of 1921Emergency Quota Act of 1921
• Chinese Exclusion Act → Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882
• Tydings–McDuffie Act → Philippine Independence Act of 1934Philippine Independence Act of 1934

– For most, this simply adds the year of enactment. As for the Philippine Independence Act, such is the name of the Act as used in reliable sources such as the Statutes At Large. I have only made this request because a single user, Remsense got mad and said the moves were undiscussed. Unfortunately, an administrator agreed with them, so here I am. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose – there's no reason to do this; these articles are already under their WP:COMMONNAME, and affixing an unneeded disambiguator goes against WP:CONCISE for no actual benefit. Remsense ‥ 论 00:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Your claims have no merit whatsoever for the following reasons:

1. The trend of adding dates of enactment to legislation has been done for Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, and many other pieces of immigration legislation. Therefore, this argument fails.
2. In fact, adding the year of enactment is important for many reasons. If everyone followed your way of doing things, there would be more disambiguation. Consider the Naturalization Act of 1802 and Naturalization Act of 1870. Following your suggestions they would share the same page name, so a disambiguation page would have to be created.

Rather than decreasing disambiguation, your suggestion would only create more of such thing. Simply put, your suggestion in opposition is frivolous. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Au contraire: I'm the one citing actual site policy, and you're the one gesturing only to your personal feelings and a flimsy precedent that wouldn't be convincing even if it actually existed—again, we generally use WP:COMMONNAMES. Remsense ‥ 论 00:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

So, is the Naturalization Act of 1802 the same as the Act of 1870, or am I blind. Moreover, as to your silliness on site policy, according to Google Scholar the term "Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882" yields 10,200 results whereas "Chinese Exclusion Act" yields 5,590 results when done to exclude the added "of 1882" portion. It's also the name used by reliable sources such as Santa Clara University, National Parks Service, National Archives, and so forth. You can point at site policy all you want, but you have produced no actual evidence (unlike me) to actually suggest these are not common names. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Also, NPR uses the phrasing with 1882 in it, so again, I wish to see what evidence you have to disprove this other than simply crying "site policy" ad infinitum:

In 1880, the Chinese were the biggest group of immigrants in the western U.S. But Sinophobic sentiments crystallized into racist policies and eventually the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. The rationale was that banning Chinese laborers would boost job opportunities for U.S.-born workers. Today, an economist explains how the Chinese exclusion laws affected the economies of western states and what it says about our current debate over immigration and jobs.

Until you can present any actual evidence in favor of your thus far baseless assertions, or rebut my cited ones, I am forced to dismiss without evidence what you have asserted without evidence. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Another data point, if you must. See, it's not only pointing to site policy, but reading it and internalizing why it makes the recommendations it does (here, recommendations of recognizability, concision, etc etc.) Not sure why you're also pulling in other articles that aren't even subject to this RM to argue about—but I'm not going to indulge you further if you can't chill out, sorry. You started mowing away doing something you thought in good faith was merely technical but was in practice a bit disruptive, and you got caught mid-mow—it happens to the best of of us, but please don't take your frustration with it out by frothing at me. No one else wants to deal with posts like the one above either, so get over yourself a bit, please. Remsense ‥ 论 01:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Your ngram search was faulty and did not properly seperate, but here is the actual one anyway. As one can see, the usage of 'Chinese Exclusion Act' without the added 'of 1882' only became more common around the year 2000. On Geary Act I will concede you are correct and thus shortly remove it, and reorient the move discussion if possible. As for civility, I don't see any issues, I simply articulated as I have in the past, for instance in this discussion on moving a page back to Ghost Gun, that I don't deal with common name disputes by those who can't cite evidence other than them saying it is the common name and assuming everyone else buys such claims. Why was this done on Geary Act? Well, because it is a multi-page move request and that was just simply the one I chose. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

As for Tydings-McDuffie Act, the term only gained an edge on Philippine Independence Act around 2007, with most of historic usage being the latter.. From around the time it was enacted until then, it was mostly just called the Phillipine Independence Act. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose as per the policies that Remsense has pointed out. I'd also like to point out that the archives.gov link has About the Chinese Exclusion Act as its title with the added "of 1882" in the lead like the current Wikipedia article. I do see a lot of sources using both names, like the nytimes using the full name in the first mention and omitting the year in the second. I think WP:CONCISE strongly supports the current name, where it is the "most concise title to fully identify the subject" and I do find google books somewhat convincing in most sources using the name with the year omitted, making it also the common name. Justiyaya 02:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.