Talk:George Davidson (attorney)

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York (state): Columbia University Low‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Columbia University (assessed as Low-importance).

Notability[edit]

I've removed the PROD template. I believe that the Presidency of the Legal Aid Society (for which I have provided a reference) and the assertion of other notable positions held (which I have not had time to source today) indicate that the subject of this article meets the notability guidelines. If others disagree, I suggest it goes to Articles for Deletion.--Plad2 (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Davidson (attorney). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090419133838/http://www.legal-aid.org:80/en/aboutus/boardofadvisors.aspx to http://www.legal-aid.org/en/aboutus/boardofadvisors.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 20:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Removal of Edit Re: USSC Case Representation[edit]

Hi @Maltice and fellow contributors,

I am writing to discuss a recent edit I made to the article concerning the USSC case that Davidson argued. I noted that "Davidson defended the anti-gay practices of the Boy Scouts of America." This addition was removed with the reasoning that "Legal representation is not equivalent with personal endorsement." I understand the principle behind this rationale but, my intention was to factually state his professional involvement in the case.

This can be nuanced but lawyers often choose clients and cases based on personal beliefs or step aside when they are misaligned, e.g. withdrawal for cause. This doesn't necessarily equate to endorsement but does speak to the larger context. For example, some lawyers have declined to represent certain figures or causes due to personal convictions, while others might align more closely with the clients they choose to represent. Since this was a non-criminal cases there wasn't a constitutional guarantee for representation.

To avoid any misunderstanding, would it be better to revise the statement with a direct citation from the USSC syllabus? For instance: "Davidson defended the Scout's position that 'homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values embodied in the Scout Oath and Law, particularly those represented by the terms "morally straight" and "clean."[1]

That would factually represent Davidson's professional stance without inferring his personal beliefs. However I believe it's important to reflect the specifics, especially in areas that have had significant cultural and legal impact.

I invite @Maltice and others to discuss this matter further so we can reach a consensus on how best to represent this information in the article accurately.

Best, Jamesdale101 (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jamesdale101. Thank you for the thoughtful response. I'm sorry that I may have used the reversion tool hastily or been flippant in my edit summary. My disagreement boils down to not having a source speaking to his personal motivation for taking on the case. The fact that lawyers are often selective about clients is not enough to imply that this lawyer was in this case. It is possible that either:

1) He did not agree with the "clean/morally straight" reasoning, but took the case because of the first amendment grounds in the case's argument

2) He does not personally agree with those first amendment grounds, but took an arguable case for the money

Without having a source that speaks to his motivation, it would be editorializing to infer any rationale. Between the original edit and the suggested compromise I feel the original edit is better. Saying that he defended the reasoning that "morally straight" means heterosexual only implies further agreement. It also doesn't acknowledge the legal basis for the appeal. The appelants did not argue, and the court didn't rule on the validity of that interpretation, only that the organization was expressing an opinion through its policies. This is one possible reason a lawyer might have taken that case, it may or may not have been his reasoning.

I feel that the goal of accurately representing his professional involvement is accomplished simply by stating "Davidson represented the BSA in BSA v. Dale", with a link to that case for further information. Giving further details about the controversial and unattractive past positions of the BSA only serves to paint Davidson as a figure on the wrong side of history.

However, I acknowledge I'm focusing too much on this point while the rest of the article reads like a testimonial. You offered a compromise solution, mine is to replace this paragraph:

"A respected litigator, Davidson has been involved in many landmark cases, including his 2000 victory before the Supreme Court in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, where Davidson represented the Boy Scouts of America"

with this paragraph:

"Davidson represented the Boy Scouts of America in the landmark case Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, where the appellants argued that excluding openly gay scout leaders implicated the First Amendment" (Then citing to the existing sources, as well as the oral argument on Oyez)

Also, I can't help but ask given your username if by any chance you are the James Dale who is the Scoutmaster in the case. Not a big deal if so, but the guideline is just to make a note of it before editing.

Thanks for your time, Maltice (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]