User talk:Smith190
Plyler v. Doe
[edit]Thanks for your thoughts on the Plyler v. Doe article and the proposed inclusion of a cite of U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez.
In addition to the basic question of whether or not Verdugo-Urquidez ought to be mentioned in the Plyler article, a second question is developing — namely, how much (if anything at all) can be said by way of context or background regarding Verdugo-Urquidez without crossing the line into synthesis or original research. If you feel you have more to say on this, I (and hopefully others) would be grateful for whatever more input you might want to offer.
The anonymous (IP) editor in this situation is insisting on quoting (in the Plyler article) a line from Verdugo-Urquidez which added a requirement for "substantial connections with this country" as a prerequisite for an alien in the US to claim constitutional protections. I feel that, if that quote is included, we should also add an explanation of the context of the quote — i.e., that Mr. Verdugo (a Mexican who was arrested in Mexico and extradited to the US to face drug lord charges) was claiming in part that his presence in the US was enough to give him Fourth Amendment protection against search and seizure on his home in Mexico by Mexican and US DEA officials, but that the Supreme Court rejected this argument by saying that his presence in the US was solely a result of his extradition and was thus not a sufficiently substantial connection to allow him to invoke the Fourth Amendment.
The anonymous editor is refusing to accept such an explanation, insisting that any attempt to analyse Verdugo-Urquidez would constitute original research. See the second-to-last section on the Plyler talk page (the section entitled "Entire section on US-born children of illegal immigrants should be removed"). My concern here — and the reason I strongly feel that the Verdugo-Urquidez cite requires context if it is to be included in the Plyler article at all — is that this "substantial connections" snippet, absent any context, could mislead the reader into thinking that Verdugo-Urquidez constituted a fundamental shift in legal thinking about the rights of immigrants that probably is not really there.
I think this anonymous editor and I have both reached a point where each of us is convinced we are obviously right and that the other is either wilfully blind, has a hidden agenda, or is just plain stupid. I'd love to see some sort of resolution of this impasse without descending into an edit war, but I really don't see how to do it except by getting some more people to check out the cases involved here for themselves and contributing their thoughts (whichever side they might decide to line up behind). Even if you, after looking into this further, end up opposing my view and supporting his, I'd still rather get more, informed input out there in hopes that some sort of well-reasoned conclusion can come about. Richwales (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Arsenal_optimus.jpg
[edit]
Thank you for uploading Image:Arsenal_optimus.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Jusjih (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
