User talk:John wesley: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:02, 25 May 2006

Welcome!

Hello John wesley, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! BDAbramson T 19:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Demonising Turks

It is obvious from certain Wikipedia articles that many people are using it as a vehicle to demonise Turks. Wherever possible articles derogatory to these people are being written, media and writings manipulated so that when a search is done of Google - only one version - a completely Christo-Armenia, Greek Othodox version can be found. It is seems that as in America, Armenian and Greek lobbying is alive and well here, too. What a shame that Jews, who found solace in the Turkish Ottoman Empire, while the rest of Europe was have progrom festivals have come on board, too. It seems that all that it needs to get the Jew and the gentile on the same wagon, is to beat the tired old donkey issue of the barbarious Turk.

It wears thin.

To be honest, I don't want Turkey to join the EU. I want you and teh editors and admin that are like-minded to carry on with your actions. We need to perpetuate the misnomers and misrepresentation of the Turks. Forget the Royal Academy's exhibition last year about these people. We need to keep isolating them. Because one day you will help in ending your civilisation by cutting such a large chunk of it out.

I do hope you get what you deserve. 82.145.231.194 14:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DB

I'm trying to navigate talk pages and discussions.

Every user has a talk page - it may show up as a red link, if it's never been posted to, but most at least have a welcome posted fairly quickly. To find a user's page, you can simply click on their username, and, when their user page comes up, click on the "discussion" tab at the top of the page. Or you can type "User talk:Name of person" in the search window. BDAbramson T 02:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Chirelstein on Learned Hand

Thanks for your message. Are you referring to: Chirelstein, Learned Hand's Contribution to the Law of Tax Avoidance, 77 Yale L. J. 440 (1968) ??

I don't have a copy of that article, but I'm interested in reading it.

I'm curious: What areas of tax law interest you? Famspear 21:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your user page showed you as an actuary and a lawyer, but someone has removed the lawyer reference. Are you a lawyer? Famspear 21:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I copied your professions linkage from the edits page/functionalty of Wiki to paste for my actuary designation. I copied it twice and only overwrote as an actuary once, thereby erroneously leaving a duplicate with a second designation as a lawyer from your page. John wesley 02:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC) Very boring explanation.[reply]

Dear John wesley: By the way, I haven't yet had a chance to find that Chirelstein article you were talking about, but I think I have a book on tax law by him somewhere in a box at home. I'm just trying to remember what the book was. I will have to dig it out one of these days. Famspear 17:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just read Daniel Shaviro's article, AN EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS OF REALIZATION AND RECOGNITION RULES UNDER THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX, 48 Tax L. Rev. 1 (1992). Great stuff, talks of the various non-recognition rules and economic efficiency. John wesley 17:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear John wesley: Just want to let you know I haven't forgotten about the Chirelstein article you were talking about. It's a little hectic right now. Also my wife pulled out tons of my old law books in my study at home because she's cleaning up to paint the walls in there. Maybe now I'll find that Chirelstein book I was telling you about. Yours, Famspear 20:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear John wesley: I finally found that Chirelstein tax book, but it was just a book on some basic concepts. Some day I'll get around to finding the Chirelstein article you were talking about. Famspear 18:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Workman's Circle

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Workman's Circle, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. For more information about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, take a look at our Five Pillars. Happy editing! AJR | Talk 17:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opps! my bad John wesley 17:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC) I rewrote it from my personal knowledge now.[reply]

Spendthrift trusts

Dear John wesley

On 23 Jan 2006 I edited certain materials from the article on Bankruptcy in the United States. Prior to the edit, the wording was as follows:

Prior to bankruptcy laws, common law courts recognized trust devices to shield from creditors of the beneficiary payments made by the trust grantor. Therefore, bankrupcty laws will not disturb such pre-existing non-bankruptcy law. An important example of such spendthrift trust are ERISA pension plans. The Supreme Court has recently held that Individual Retirement Account funds coming from ERISA pension plans are spendthrift trusts.

First, ERISA plans, strictly speaking, are not spendthrift trusts. Some (but not all) ERISA plans are, however, required to contain "anti-alienation provisions" similar to those found in spendthrift trusts.

Second, an IRA is, broadly speaking, an ERISA plan in the sense that the Internal Revenue Code provisions for IRAs (sections 219 and 408, if I recall correctly) were put into the Internal Revenue Code by ERISA. However, IRAs are not spendthrift trusts. IRAs are not required to have (and generally do not have) anti-alienation provisions.

The Supreme Court did not hold that IRA funds coming from ERISA pension plans are spendthrift trusts. The Court did hold, in Rousey v. Jacoway, that under section 522(d)(10)(E) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(10)(E)), a debtor in bankruptcy can exempt his or her IRA from the bankruptcy estate. That is a separate provision from the Bankruptcy Code provision that protects beneficiaries of spendthrift trusts (i.e., Bankruptcy Code section 541(c)(2)).

Yours,Famspear 17:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you John wesley 17:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USUFRUCT Doctrine

Dear John wesley: I saw the entries regarding Usufruct on BDAdamson's page. Yeah, I think you're right. It's Louisiana law. Since Louisiana is not a common law state, they originally did not have "trusts" -- at least not by that name, I think. I think usufruct (i.e., the "use of the fruit"??) is the Louisiana French "Code Napoleon" analog to the common law concept of an equitable or beneficial property interest in a trust. That's about all I remember at the moment. Famspear 20:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Ratajczak

The article Donald Ratajczak has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This happened because the article seems to be about a person or group of persons but it does not indicate how or why that person or group is notable. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. You might also want to read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles. howch e ng {chat} 19:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the article so you can expand it. Please note how he is notable and be sure to add the reference. Thanks. howch e ng {chat} 19:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the article now. I put the link in to your reference and stubbed it for further attention. You should probably look at WP:STUBS to see the different stubs you can use. Regards, howch e ng {chat} 19:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breyer and the first amendment

I am not defending Breyer. My only problem with the lines that were added to the Supreme Court article is that the fact that he voted like that in one case should not appear in the main article of the Supreme Court. The type of information that you have correctly pointed out should perphaps be included in the article of that particular case. In the main article about the court we should just restrain ourselves to say that the justices are either liberal or conservatives. Imagine if we include that fact about Breyer in the article, we would also have to include some observations about Justice's Scalia and Thomas' rather odd dissents in Lawrence v. Texas. That is why I do not support including you Breyer observation in the main article of the Court, but I would support it if you include it in either the Breyer article or the case article.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 20:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember other First Amendment cases where Breyer is less protective than say Scalia and Kennedy. I have to re-read the Thomas opinion in 44Liquormart which is a commercial speech case.John wesley 20:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that we should flesh out what liberal and conservative justice would mean. In Edward Lazarus' book Closed Chambers he says that the main issues that tend to divide the court into these two groups are a) the right to privacy b) abortion c)death penalty d) originalism and e) federal government power.

My opinion is that the groups should be: Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito (conservatives; though perhaps we should wait a couple of months before saying that roberts and alito are already considered conservatives in the supreme court.) Kennedy is the moderate. Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer and Souter are the liberals. Though I must agree with you that Breyer has been moving a bit to the right the last few years. I would still consider him liberal, though he might become rather moderate in a couple of years. I remember reading an article about that somewhere.

This is my opinion though. I think it's impossible to say that they will always vote in those two groups. Stevens sometimes joins the cons and Thomas sometimes goes over to Ginsburg's and Souter's side, so I don't know.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 21:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be either really really short, i.e. just a line-up of Cons and Libs or else we have to say on individual issues where they stand. Recall Scalia dissented in Brand X because he is wary of federal agency rulemaking.

Attention

You probably should be more specific about what type of "attention" you want paid to The Majority Report, otherwise someone is probably going to just remove the notice. You can give an explanation on the talk page. - dcljr (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedia not a diary or a newswire

One sentence on the whole medical episode for George Pataki might be enough, or it might be too much. patsw 15:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shortened John wesley 15:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

457 plans

Are you planning on writing separate articles on b and f plans? If not, it's probably better to link just to 457 plan and have those to links as redirects there. Personally I don't see the need for individual articles until the 457 plan article gets so long it makes sense to split up. Also it's usually considered not the best practice to put redlinks in see also sections. In any case thanks for your work on the retirement plan articles. - Taxman ^Talk 20:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Let's just put the link to "457 plan" John wesley 15:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fordham Law alums

hmmm, I don't know. notable law school alums would be either, like, judges, partners, or politicians... I was playing with the idea of contacting the admissions (?) or some other dept and offering them to provide a list... are you an alum, a student, or neither? I am a 2L. Crzrussian 15:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Football and Turk vandalism

Football pages often get quite a lot of vandalism in general as they often provoke strong feelings. In regards to the vandalism of the Galatasaray, one of the vandals can be reported to an admin for breach of the 3RR rule and/or vandalism. At the moment, it seems like a good idea to alert the Counter Vandalism Unit. As a last resort we can request protection but that could be detremental as it would prevent good edits and with the neutrality of the hooliganism section in need of work it would be a bad idea. Englishrose 15:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John, thanks for your message on my talk page. I agree that these things are worthy of mention, but I certainly don't think that this should be the first item in the Galatasaray article. Being a very tricky issue, this needs to be handled sensitively. I appreciate how frustrating it must be to see your every edit undone, but please try and refrain from sinking to the level of edit wars and vandalism of a different kind. I'm sure we can resolve this without the need for that. Cheers, Waggers 15:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok John wesley 15:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico

Yes, I was thinking of doing that eventually since that's an area certainly lacking in the article. I'll try to put together a nice section on it soon. Thanks! -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 17:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"How do we make a nation-specific notice board?"

Good question... don't know. Ask Ghirla | talk, who posted it on my talk page. Crzrussian 13:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why the vandals of the IRS article

Dear John wesley: Yes, you make a good point. In my opinion, one motivation behind vandalism of tax articles on Wikipedia is in no small part the antipathy toward the tax collector. And the vandalism is misplaced, of course. Vandalizing Wikipedia does not impair the function of imposing and collecting taxes. I think someone once said "taxes are the price we pay for civilization" or words to that effect. When people vandalize Wikipedia, they're only victimizing the users of the encyclopedia. Yours, Famspear 17:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Haytaian

Check the spelling of the name. There are a lot of Google hits. Dvd Avins 18:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Law Student Wikipedians

Don't know :) maybe it's a new template - only 2 users... thanks for showing me the template tho, I switched it. looks good. Crzrussian 02:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What, uh, is your interest? Spring Break work?the.crazy.russian ^{vent here} 02:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pension law (US)

John, could you please put the tag {{db-author}} on the Pension law (US) article. Thanks. -- Barrylb 04:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CITE

When you say bad things about people, such as what you did in Richard Todd (football player), be sure to cite your sources. Happy editing! Wh e re ^(talk) 18:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Intro' headings

Adding 'Intro' headings and the like is specifically smacked (with a bold 'not', too!) by Wikipedia:Guide to layout. (gee, that sounded harsh...) --Sam Pointon United FC 01:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bankruptcy, Deprizio, etc.

Dear John wesley: As long as I am droning on forever on my own talk page about taxes, I just want to let you know I haven't forgotten about our discussion about Deprizio and bankruptcy and writing something on that. I hope that one of these days I'll get around to it! Yours, Famspear 19:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tax Honesty Movement

Your sane opinion is requested. Cheers! BDAbramson T 14:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on tax protesters and other thoughts

Dear John wesley: Regarding your 8 April 2006 comments about the possibility of a future article on the subject of tax protester arguments, yeah, I've been thinking about that myself. I'm not sure that such an article would fit in Wikipedia but it would be a lot of fun to research and write -- regardless of where it would be published. An article could point out the thinking patterns and overt behaviors that have emerged from tax protesters as a group. Maybe someone has already written a book or article on the subject. It would be interesting to do such a project with a scholarly approach.

Also, I'm sorry I've taken so long to respond to your question about LL.M.s, etc. Despite my tax background I don't keep up with LL.M. tax programs and other graduate tax programs, and I don't have an LL.M. myself. But of course now you've given me another idea for something else to read about! Yours, Famspear 19:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chametz extended

Thanks for a good question! Chametz refers to the type of grain products we eat year-round — excluding Passover week. Kosher for Passover food products, on the other hand, can be eaten year-round — including Passover week. Therefore, there is no obligation to burn the latter after the holiday (in fact, we have to finish it up!). I added more detail to the article in light of your question. Yoninah 08:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fmous Fordham Profs

I don't think so... - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 21:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FCRA

Would you please explain and source this edit of yours? : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fair_Credit_Reporting_Act&diff=43907601&oldid=43907232 I'd say that the FCRA is certainly about CRAs. I guess it's debatable whether it's about others, but your edit suggests both are debatable.

John, got your message. I'll make edits accordingly.

Good luck to you too

Who exactly are you? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 22:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fleming still teaches, but not me. Do you go to school at Fordham? What year are you? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GAB

You are quite welcome. I want to thank you for your help on improving the article, which I have somewhat taken responsibility for. The only thing that bothers me --better yet, pains my heart-- is the your insistence on using the term "alien". As you have probably noticed, the terminology has been fiercely debated on the talkpages of many illegal immigration-related articles. I myself only recently entered the fray on the GAB talkpage. My problem with "alien", "technically accurate" (by government standards) as it may be, is that it is one of the most dehumanizing (and therefore degrading) terms available to use for illegal immigrants. IMO, "illegal" and "illegal immigrant" are bad enough (although I am willing to use "illegal immigrant" in the great majority of cases as a compromise and since it is the de facto most common term), but I strongly object to the use of "alien". I have left your edits for the moment, instead preferring to focus on combatting vandalism, but I thought I'd bring my issues to you, the primary proponent of the term "alien" in the article, and lay them at your feet for your consideration. Please let me know wht you think.--Rockero 17:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double negative is redundant, illegal immigrant could change to say maybe unprotected alien, nonresident alien, alien without rights. Maybe prospective resident alien, hopeful immigrant. John wesley 18:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you are in law. Then you can appreciate that the legal field, like any other, uses specialized vocabulary that differs in meaning, often substantially, from what the dictionary says and the way words are employed in common use. That being said, I think the information about the distinction between the legal terms "alien", "immigrant", etc. definitely belong somewhere in this encyclopedia --possibly in the article illegal alien? But I think we should simply use "illegal immigrant" hate it though I do, in the Great American Boycott article. (BTW, I'm not quite sure what you are referring to in the phrase "Double negative is redundant"--Rockero 18:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the terms captive reinsurers and alien insurance companies (like Lloyds of London, Lloyds of Lubbock Texas would be a foreign insurer outside of Texas) so are not negative terms. But applying the term illegal a negative term may be overkill, double, redundant, piling on. It's just that unless they have resident status, the law won't give them legal protection. The term asylum seeker is not a negative term. We need such a term, i.e. without either implying that they have protected citizenship status and without implying any negativity (they aren't criminals). John wesley 19:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tlatelolco Massacre

Only that it's very, very difficult when they are rich and powerful. 8)--Rockero 19:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin N. Cardozo

Hi John, I got your comment, and I think we should eliminate Category:Cardozo opinions for law school and replace it with something like "Cases involving Benjamin Cardozo". Let me know what you think. --Eastlaw 01:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wajda- Postwar Polish filmmaker

The statement refers to the time frame in which he was working. He did NOT make films before WW2; they were all made in the postwar period. I don't see HOW this might hem him in..... Vivaverdi 14:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am officially a 3L

All done... - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Villepin

John,

Why did you revert my edits in the Villepin article? "Pool" seems clearly to have been a typo for "poll", and some cites do seem needed for a number of emotive opinion bits which have crept in there.

Jack --Kessler 20:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry for that, I did preview it, no idea myself.

--Kessler 21:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just tried my edit again, of the full article, but my "show preview" only comes back with about 1/4 of the text: down to the end of "Career/Politician". Do you have any idea why this is, or who I can contact to ask about it? Never happened before. I'll try it in another article. Sorry to bother you but I'm not sure where to go to ask about a glitch like this.

--Kessler 22:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fordham law

You wrote: "*Ralph J. Marino, New York State Senate Majority Leader until stabbed in the back by Al D'Amato, George Pataki and Joseph Bruno in 1994"

Easy there on the POV language! LOL! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 12:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was 13 year old living in St. Petersburg, Russia in 1994. No, I don't remember. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 13:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah. Doesn't bother me so much... - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - What are you talking about?? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I patrol Category:stubs, which is where I found this guy in need of sorting. No interest. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rüdiger Dornbusch

Thanks for your message.

I don't really have an opinion if it should be Rudi or Rüdiger or something like that. But what was there before was incorrect for sure. Maybe we should link Rudi Dornbusch and Overshooting Model but I have several problems with both of these and I am not an expert so I left it alone. Stefán Ingi 15:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the links, it should be all right. Stefán Ingi 12:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US Bill of Rights

I reverted your change to the intro. Only the first 8 amendements count? Kaisershatner 17:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I see where you're coming from but I still think the intro should note the 1st 10 amends are popularly considered the BoR. Kaisershatner 20:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again thanks for your note. I guess my feeling is that the intro should reflect the popular and common conception of the BOR rather than the precisely legalistic view of it. If you disagree, which is obviously fine, let's take it to the talk page there and allow other opinions. If you think the article would be improved by noting the things you have mentioned, I'm sure we could agree on how to get it in there. Kaisershatner 12:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio on Brian Lehrer

Please don't directly copy and paste info from other sites onto Wikipedia articles as you did on the Brian Lehrer article from here. It goes against Wikipedia policy. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 07:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill of Rights

I have no idea; I was simply editing to restore the format (someone took out the </blockquote> code, so the entire entry from there on was shifted to the right). The actual text the I restored was simply "power to do?" followed by the </blockquote> code, since that was what existed before someone deleted it (that user, 147.72.97.132, has a history of vandalism). Thanks! » K i G O E | talk 13:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See that user's talk page. » K i G O E | talk 13:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal

Dear John Wesley, I am no mischief maker. I am a reader interested in seeing a fair article up about this current event. You seem to have a huge chip on your shoulder and are very protective of this article for some reason. Anonymous people are allowed to edit Wikipedia articles, the last I saw. There have been a handful of articles that I have helped to improve already. Yes I am ignorant of the way things are done here because I am not signed up. Concerning the article, if anything, I am trying to make it as neutral as possible. I am aware that hours of time were put in in some sections, but not all of it is relevant and much of it, as I have said before, is nothing more then political grandstanding and a media frenzy which are not appropiate for an "encyclopedia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs)

John, I'm happy to help. All I want, and most who come to Wikipedia, probably want is to read fair, informative and accurate articles. This article still needs some work, but I think it is slowly improving. If both the Editorials and Polls sections were permanently removed and the political grandstanding from Congress kept to a minimum as well as the media bombshell coverage toned town to just coverage, the article would be pretty fair and there wouldn't need to be anything to object to. We can work on this together. Even though I have my own thoughts about the program, I do try to just have neutral wording without narrative. I think that narrative is insulting to the reader as it demeans us by trying to do the thinking for us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs)

edit removed until original poster signs it

I don't how to put in the little type I see. Please re insert and sign the edit. thank you. John wesley 16:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean exactly...

... regardless, please discuss on Talk:NSA warrantless surveillance controversy and work out a compromise, if possible. The protection will only be temporary, but I need to see some good faith discussion going on first. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it was the same person? Anonymous editors can be multiple people. I think that you should focus on the issue at hand and not worry too much about that issue. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I say, for the time being I'm not terribly concerned about this. I think that if you focussed on the fact that we don't add large slabs of source material into articles (which the anon has done) and addressed the legitimate points of the anon it would be best for all concerned. Also, I do note that the anon didn't call anything myth or fact himself/herself, it is the fact sheet that says this. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a heavy press angle

to the NSA story. The article is called NSA controversy so the article should be, I think, light on the legal issues and heavy on the controversy. There is a spot-light on what the press role should be as well as whether the President assumed too much power or whether such a program is effective. Since the article is itle controversy, it gives the article license to almost talk about itself. If you can work in, if it's not already there, some statement about attempts to label the reporting on the story as if it were a crime. this is related to the Administration's attempt to apply the 1917 Esponiage act against the AIPAC reps in an earlier case as well as implying the the NYT committed a crime merely by listening to reportedly calssified information. The law so far, case law, has never held media defendants liable. If this changes, it will be an innovation in law and big, big, REALLY big news. John wesley 19:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC) We should stay tuned. John wesley 19:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

John, I understand that you want to emphasize the press in this article, but even the press tries to just cover the story instead of be the story. I think for the article when it crosses the line from coverage of milestone events of relevance to the article to coverage of the media itself covering or advancing the controversy, then it is appropiate to cover it with more press emphases on the latter.

On the other point you made about the government holding the media accountable for reporting leaked classified information, for whatever reason, being a big precedent is not true. During World War I President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat college professor from New Jersey, was much harder on the press and those citizens of German decent who had mixed loyalties and locked them up for the duration of the war.

P.S. Would be it ok if those two sections, Editorials and Polls, I asked about in the article's Discussion section were removed from the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs)

I think so, but that's very interesting about Wilson, I forgot about that. It's a good place to look for parallels to support admin efforst. John wesley 20:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC) You could ask someone else about setting up a pole about removing or merging the two sections into a Media/Poll section (and btw sharply reducing the material as it is getting too big). Hey, how about trimming some, then others will re-edit your work, and then trim some more. Then when it is say two sentences.... then merge the two into one section. John wesley 20:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Then it will become so small that it can be pruned ;) John wesley 20:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could do that--some editing and you guys can fix grammer, spelling, and anything that is off to make it neutral, easy to read, relevant but not overinclusive as to saturate the article with too much information, etc.

Also, I think the objectives of the article should be trimmed too:

Legality of warrantless electronic surveillance of U.S. persons and on citizens' right to privacy.
Constitutional issues concerning the separation of powers. (this is core of the political grandstanding angle of the article, or Congressional power grab fight. I think this should be elimated or very mininal in article as it takes away from the subject--the Terrorist Surveillance Program)
The effectiveness[2] and scope[3] of the program.
The legality of the publication of highly classified information.
Implications for U.S. national security arising from the disclosure. (this is off topic altogether and should be in a different article altogether)
Executive powers that are derived from "Use of Force" resolutions

P.S. The current IP code is when I'm at work. When I'm at home and I make changes to the article, in the memo thing that appears in History I'll just say "At home" before I say what changes I did. Thanks for having an open mind, John. And we can straighten out this article and make it less to not objectionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs)

Actuarial Outpost

No problem at all, and thanks for your contributions both on the above article and in Actuary! -- Avi 21:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I mispelled. I get sloppy. John wesley 21:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I called up the US schools to get the names of the proper people. John wesley 21:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is impressive, well done! -- Avi 21:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New York/New Jersey Highlands

You asked if the Highlands are threatened. I guess the answer is yes [1], but they're so close to New York City that to me, the miracle is that there is still as much undeveloped land as there is. At the same time, the undeveloped bits are fragmented enough that I find it hard to think of them as a "place", though that could also be because I live too close (almost in them). I take it you're suggesting an article? There is an article on the Ramapo Mountains, which is kinda the same thing. Maybe a redirect from New York/New Jersey Highlands to that article would do? Though it could certainly use substantially more. -- Mwanner | Talk 21:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... you got me curious, and I'm way off base identifying the highlands with the Ramapo Mts-- see [2]. It does seem like an article is in order, though it's one of those cases where the title is potentially messy. -- Mwanner | Talk 22:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NSA add?

Hi John. I've been doing both taking out clutter and expanding the more important stuff. I'm a little tepid doing it as I don't want to take out too much then some editors, understandably, get concerned that it's is too one-sided. Of all that I did so far in the Congressional section under Judiciary Committee, I think the questions and their excerpts are the least important (I would think answers would be more noteable) and I would not be offended if they were pruned (the Feingold questions-even though I retyped them myself from the letter and the eight Democrat member questions part) to shorten article. I didn't think it would be right just to summarize them as I thought showing samples would be more useful. The last I saw the article is over 170kb so far, unfortunately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs)

@@ Line 305: / Line 305: @@
 You asked if the Highlands are threatened.  I guess the answer is yes [http://www.tpl.org/tier2_rp2.cfm?folder_id=1808], but they're so close to New York City that to me, the miracle is that there is still as much undeveloped land as there is.  At the same time, the undeveloped bits are fragmented enough that I find it hard to think of them as a "place", though that could also be because I live too close (almost in them).  I take it you're suggesting an article? There is an article on the [[Ramapo Mountains]], which is kinda the same thing.  Maybe a redirect from New York/New Jersey Highlands to that article would do?  Though it could certainly use substantially more.  -- [[User:Mwanner|Mwanner]] | [[User talk:Mwanner|Talk]] 21:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 :Hmm... you got me curious, and I'm way off base identifying the highlands with the Ramapo Mts-- see [http://www.nynjtc.org/partners/highgis/].  It does seem like an article is in order, though it's one of those cases where the title is potentially messy. -- [[User:Mwanner|Mwanner]] | [[User talk:Mwanner|Talk]] 22:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
+==NSA add?==
+Hi John. I've been doing both taking out clutter and expanding the more important stuff. I'm a little tepid doing it as I don't want to take out too much then some editors, understandably, get concerned that it's is too one-sided. Of all that I did so far in the Congressional section under Judiciary Committee, I think the questions and their excerpts are the least important (I would think answers would be more noteable) and I would not be offended if they were pruned (the Feingold questions-even though I retyped them myself from the letter and the eight Democrat member questions part) to shorten article. I didn't think it would be right just to summarize them as I thought showing samples would be more useful. The last I saw the article is over 170kb so far, unfortunately. {{Unsigned|67.98.154.35}}