Talk:Aggravated felony/Archive 1

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aggravated felony. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Removal of legal commentary edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Large portions of the article have started to stray into legal commentary more appropriate for a law review than for an encyclopedia. I've removed the most obvious cases of argument/analysis. Editors are reminded that their personal analysis is not permissible, however amply cited. I'll also add that the article is far too technical for ordinary encyclopedia readers - our target audience is laypersons, not legal professionals, and the article should not read like a court filing. Acroterion (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for coming here. I agree with you but consider that this particular article is about something that has been widely challenged in all the courts, and has been debated by so many since the 1990s, which simply never ends. See the last page (20) here. It is one thing today and it is another tomorrow. An aggravated felony conviction can easily be suffered and it can easily lead some of the sufferers to death. It is sort of like cancer. I think this particular article should be written in such a way so that everyone gets to know everything about the aggravated felony, and we as editors are suppose to promote Wikipedia. If the best information on aggravated felony is presented in Wikipedia, that's promoting Wikipedia.--Libracarol (talk) 02:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I suggest that you read WP:GREATWRONGS and more specifically WP:NPOV, since from your comment above and some of your analysis you appear to be working from a position of advocacy. That is praiseworthy from the perspective of legal advocacy, but it doesn't lend itself to a neutral discussion, since it leads you to offer critiques of legal decisions and words like "obviously," just before you draw conclusions in Wikipedia's voice. Speaking as a non-lawyer who is not unacquainted with the law, the article at present doesn't offer an accessible summary of the state of the term, and it is narrowly drawn to include only the United States. While the primary coverage has much to do with current events in the US, it has some application elsewhere, which is ignored by the article.

It really reads like a legal discourse, which is fine in that context, but isn't appropriate in an encyclopedia. While you don't need to write as if to eighth-graders, it does need to be reasonably understandable to those without legal training, some of whom may be in a situation where they urgently need clear understanding of the concept. This is successfully done by Wikipedia in medical articles with rigorous sourcing standards, and it can be done with legal topics. However, the writing needs to be approached as explication rather than as advocacy or analysis.

Please resist the urge to present analysis to draw conclusions in the encyclopedia's voice. I think much of the content is too far down in the legal weeds to be very helpful to anyone but legal scholars. Acroterion (talk) 03:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

The main point I made in the article was that, according to the Immigration and Nationality Act, it not only affects aliens but also nationals of the United States, and that there are now various forms of relief available to certain aliens. The article completely lacked this. I added all the latest relevant sources, and there's no contention. [1] That's a precedent, which must be obeyed by all immigration officers (including immigration judges), unless in the future it is superseded or reversed. I'm not criticizing or taking sides but simply pointing out a major legal conflict and legal errors that average people fail to notice. For example, when a form (notice to appear) contains all information but missing only a date, that does not nullify the entire form. If that was the case then almost every form or application that every person filled in the past is nullified because they are all missing something. That's the difference between a "defective" notice to appear and a "nullified" notice to appear. I have every right to point out this obvious error. See Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 362-63 (2010) ("Our precedent is to be respected unless the most convincing of reasons demonstrates that adherence to it puts us on a course that is sure error."); see also Al-Sharif v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, 734 F.3d 207, 212 (3d Cir. 2013) (en banc) (same).--Libracarol (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

This article contains very serious issues. The whole page is awash with bias and with very generous legal interpreting. It is filled with emotive vocabulary which heavily favors certain opinions or legal interpretations over others. It also uses stylistics (bold, italics, underline, etc.) to an excessive degree. For instance: "It is obviously an absurd result to presume that [...]", "Congress is clearly and unambiguously saying that [...]", "some plainly incompetent immigration officers began deporting longtime LPRs (i.e., potential Americans)," etc. are definitely not Wikipedia language. Almost the entire article appears to be written in the form of an immigration attorney writing a defense brief. I should also note there are quite a few spelling and grammar issues. This entire article needs a substantial rewrite. 216.81.81.82 (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Add topic