Talk:United States v. Wong Kim Ark/Archives/2007

Wikify "v." abbreviation?
Should the abbreviation v. in United States v. Wong Kim Ark be wikified for the benefit of non-lawspeaker readers who might not remember what it means? I thought it should, but at least one other editor evidently thinks it should not. And if there is a consensus that v. should be wikified, should the link go to  v. , or to  versus ? What do others think, and why? Richwales 18:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That was me :-) None of the other Wikipedia articles on court cases seem to use the convention of linking the "v."  It struck me as visually jarring and I'm not sure it's that useful: how many people don't know what "v" means in the name of a legal case, or can't quickly intuit it?  I'll link V to List of legal terms so that a reader who looks up "v." on their own will find the reference -- I think that's a more appropriate way to handle it. Tim Pierce 13:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Better cites to opposing views?
Right now, the "external links" section of this article cites three "blog" articles belittling/denouncing the ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case. While I believe that blog articles are not generally appropriate as references in Wikipedia articles and have been sorely tempted in the past to edit them out of this page, I'm worried that if I (or anyone else) were to simply remove these blog links without putting some more mainstream opposing references in their place, this would likely lead to accusations of POV and perhaps a revert war. Can anyone come up with any references to something more acceptable than a blog article which attempts to present a case that Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided and ought to be overturned? Perhaps a law review article, or testimony before a Congressional committee, or even a news story? Richwales 00:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)