"Illegal Immigrant" Isn't the Only Controversial Term the Times Has Endorsed

A rundown of some of the words the paper has found "fit to print."

TED HESSON and CRISTINA COSTANTINI

October 2, 2012, 8:41 PM ET

2 min read

Oct. 3, 2012— -- On Monday, an influential opinion maker at The New York Times took a stand in favor of the newspaper's ongoing use of the controversial term "illegal immigrant."

Margaret Sullivan, the public editor, defended her position by saying the phrase was "clear and accurate." She did not, however, address the concern that many of those referred to as "illegal" find the term dehumanizing, or that the country's leading linguists say it's not neutral. In addition, nearly half of Hispanic voters (who are U.S. citizens) find "illegal immigrant" offensive, according to an unvetted Fox News Latino poll.

Certainly, the Times is not alone in the use of this word, but it is considered a leader in the industry, and it sets a tone. If it does decide to retire the phrase, as undocumented journalist Jose Antonio Vargas is advocating, "illegal" will join a host of other terms that the paper has dropped during its (mostly) storied 161-year history.

A quick search through the Times archive turned up a gaggle of present-day aspersions that were once considered acceptable by the paper. As you would expect from any institution with the longevity and stature of the Times, the style guide has changed throughout the years, dropping a host of terms that readers -- often minority groups -- found offensive.

DRYING UP THE "WETBACKS"

Published Nov. 4, 1951