User talk:Libracarol

Libracarol, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Libracarol! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 18:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aggravated felony, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Davis v. United States (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aggravated felony, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cardinal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alien (law), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Migration (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aggravated felony, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Directive (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Primary sourcing to court documents

You've made significant improvements to the readability of aggravated felony, thanks for your efforts. I think you've answered some of my concerns, but I'm not totally sold on the way you've sourced the article. In general, Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is a tertiary source, relying on published secondary sources that discuss the subject - in cases like this, it would be newspaper accounts, law review discussions, and the like that in turn discuss cases and court opinions. Primary sourcing from court documents and opinions would typically be used sparingly. Curated direct quotes from the legislation are usually fine, and quotes from opinions are generally OK, but you may be introducing original research by stringing together primary sources and citing them alone. I may ask some editors more familiar with legal topics to have a look and to offer suggestions. In the meantime, please look at Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources, Wikipedia:Frequently misinterpreted sourcing policy, WP:LAW is the central law project coordination page.

There are still a number of references to the intentions of Congress that are red flags for original research - those kinds of statements should absolutely be sourced to secondary commentary and review, not to the law itself, except possibly in cases where a court opinion is cited - and even then, there should be a secondary source available to make that assertion. An example: "The plain language of § 1408(4) demonstrates that it was not exclusively written for the 55,000 American Samoans but instead for every "person" who statutorily and manifestly "qualifies" as a national of the United States" or more plainly "Congress is clearly and unambiguously saying that 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(8), 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), and 1427(a) must be overridden by § 1101(a)(43) ... " I would expect to see clear-cut secondary sources for those statements, not (solely) references to a legal opinion. That's what I mean by reading like a law review article.

I would also observe that readability is compromised when referring to US Code references like "8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(8)" and "§ 1408(4)", but I don't have a good remedy that wouldn't introduce bloat.

Thank you for your efforts, you've done quite a lot of work, and I'm trying to stay out of your way and let you work. Acroterion (talk) 02:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I thank you and appreciate your concern. Before I go on, the "aggravated felony" concerns around 100 million aliens (i.e., approximately 75 million legally-admitted visiting aliens [1] [2], 13 million permanent residents [3], and 13 million illegal aliens [4]). This article should be written very accurately by citing only "published" opinions of judges and BIA members, who are lawyers and jurists (legal scholars). You quoted two of my statements above, as an editor who is very familiar with the subject, I should be able to make such statements to the readers. It's like stating to the readers that earth (as we all know) is round. See In re Partida, 862 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2017) ("That is the function and purpose of the 'notwithstanding' clause."); Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 1073, 1083 (9th Cir. 2014) ("As a general matter, 'notwithstanding' clauses nullify conflicting provisions of law."). [5] The entire article is about the term "aggravated felony", which is defined under Immigration and Nationality Act sec. 101(a)(43), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(4). Every statement that I made in the article is backed by reliable "authoritative" sources (Supreme Court, appeals courts, and the BIA). See WP:PROVEIT. The sources I cited are all "published" opinions of nationally acclaimed judges and BIA members (lawyers and jurists). They do all their legal research and then publish their opinions. See generally WP:PUBLISHED; WP:SCHOLARSHIP; and WP:RS/AC. You can't get anything better than that when citing sources for subjects such as "aggravated felony" here. The only way to challenge the opinions of these judges (legal scholars) is to argue in a court.--Libracarol (talk) 04:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I understand, and don't necessarily see a problem. The usual case in which court documents become a problem on Wikipedia is when editors start quoting from filings, reporting allegations in court as facts or framing them in a way that introduces bias. This creates obvious problems. Court opinions are another matter. In general, I think policy would still favor references that discuss the court's opinions at arms length. However, that may itself start to swing things in a non-neutral direction, since analysis of court opinions is usually taken from a point of view.

I think it would be good to be careful to frame statements of legislative intent away from statements in Wikipedia's voice and more in favor of "the court held that Congress's intent was" or something perhaps less passive-voiced. Acroterion (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I hope I'm not misgendering you by using "she?" The default assumption of maleness on the Internet doesn't look like it should apply given your username, but I've been wrong before. Acroterion (talk) 11:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

You're not misgendering. "We are bound by precedential opinions of our Court unless they have been reversed by an en banc proceeding or have been adversely affected by an opinion of the Supreme Court." [6] Court opinions are excellent for articles such as "Aggravated felony" or "National of the United States" because they all involve the law. The opinions of ordinary people are meaningless when it comes to these terms of law. I agree, documents written by parties to a case should not be used in Wikipedia because they have no force and are often erroneous. Only precedents (published opinions) should be cited and quoted. If you prefer "references that discuss the court's opinions" then you'll run into many problems. E.g., the reference not being on point or it misinterprets the court's opinion and that could be fatal. Those "references" are usually news reporters or private lawyers, and many times they misinterpret the law just to win a case, see, e.g., here.--Libracarol (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)