Talk:Lynne Stewart/Archive 2

When does she finally go to jail?

Some more information about the appeal, and dates of hearings, plus when final descions in this case might be made, would be helpful. Does anyone know?

Another point that needs clarifiying: if her appeal should succeed, and reverse the guilty verdict, would it also reverse the automatic disbarrment that follows under New York law? 81.199.102.34 (talk) 06:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Classification? More to add after appeal.

The development of this page seems to be going quite nicely. I imagine that there will be quite a bit to add after Stewart is sentenced and her appeal is filed. I do have a question about the classification of this page under "American lawyers": As Stewart is almost guaranteed to be disbarred soon, will the category cease to be appropriate, or can the article remain in the category as the profession for which she became famous and a defendant?

• Well, we could check the description on the Cat page (but if we don't like it we could change it!). My argument would say "still appropriate" for both her and Oliver Wendell Holmes, who ...uh... stopped being a lawyer decades ago. [smirk]

NYTimes says disbarring is automatic, but i guess that doesn't mean immediate...

--Jerzy(t) 03:32, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

Wrong: by New York law disbarment is automatic from the return of the jury verdict of guilty, although there may be paperwork to be done to record the disbarment, from that point on she could not act as a lawyer. IMO, the category should be applied to all people who are or have been lawyers. A sub category "Debarred lawyers" should be added and articles should be placed in both. The lack of subset relationships between categories is a shortcoming of the wiki software. Mr. Jones 04:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Revert of changes by JillandJack

I am removing the two recent pieces of editing by the user JillandJack. I am firstly suspicious of the changes due to the fact that JillandJack is apparently the new account of someone whose account was previously banned.

Also, the changes are not appropriate. Lynne Stewart is a radical lawyer. Her radical politics do not only manifest themselves in her choice of clients, but also in her advocacy on their behalf (as was seen in Abdel Rahman's case). If you support Stewart, then you likely believe that she was punished for expressing her radical politics in defense of her client. If you support the government, then you think that her radical politics caused her to cross the line in her practice of law. Thus, if she does not belong in the category of radical lawyers, then nobody does.

Furthermore, the change in phraseology of the first paragraph is wrong. As rephrased, the new sentence implies that Stewart is still practicing law. As she is now a convicted felon and cannot possibly avoid disbarment, she should not be described as one who is presently practicing law, but rather someone whose occupation has been in law.

This seems incorrect, in part. She has right to appeal: if successful she would surely avoid disbarment? Mr. Jones 04:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

You're both incorrect. When the jury verdict of guilty was returned, Stewart was disbarred by operation of New York law. Any further proceedings were only paperwork -- by law she was barred from acting as a lawyer from that moment on. Finally, the change to "defend the rights" is not viewpoint neutral because it assumes that Stewart's actions have constituted effective, lawful defense of rights rather than simply acting as counsel.

Please sign your messages using ~~~~. Paragraphs are good, too. Mr. Jones 04:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

LYNN STEWART DIDN'T REPRESENT HERSELF

I was there. There's an opinion by the judge denying her attempt to represent herself.

Quotes

These quotes are propaganda for lynne stewart's view of the world, and should not be included in the article.--Henrybaker 13:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Thread?

Where's the NPOV thread? How is it not NPOV?

MSTCrow 11:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

what is the source for this statement - "Indeed, the evidence showed that, after Stewart issued the press release, she was told that Rifai Taha, a militant terrorist in Egypt who was associated with Osama bin Laden, viewed the press release as support of Taha's desire to return the Islamic Group to violence."? Doldrums 16:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Jewish or not?

Someone added a category at the bottom saying Lynne Stewart was Jewish. She is not, according to her web bio at http://www.lynnestewart.org/bio.html. I've been following her saga very closely and I've never heard her described as Jewish. If the person who added the category knows something I don't, he/she should prove it. Syntacticus 00:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC) She is not Jewish68.230.130.87 12:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Tommy

She looks like Buddy Hackett in that pic at Lynn Stewart org

Duplicated paragraph

This paragraph:

Although a self described civil rights advocate, Stewart endorses the use of state power to imprison people considered dangerous by their governments and said she has no problems "with Mao or Stalin or the Vietnamese leaders or certainly Fidel locking up people they see as dangerous"[2].

Appears at the end of both the introduction and the section Support and opposition. --Wfaxon 18:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Leaning hard on Lynne

This page is rather biased against Lynne Stewart, as is evidenced by the amount of hysteric pandering about Stewart's so-called relationship to the War on Terror. Perhaps someone would like to take this up. Ptcollins 05:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ptcollins: Lynne Stewart is a convicted felon who was found by a jury to have provided material support for a terrorist group. If anything, I think the article goes too easy on her so much so that it might be a pro-Lynne Stewart NPOV violation. What exactly do you object to? Some of the statements in the article may sound harsh but I've been following the case very closely and do not see anything in the article that is inaccurate. Syntacticus 22:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

((material later deleted by Lestrade)).Lestrade 17:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

NPOV doesn't apply to posts on talk pages. If someone brings up a concern of bias, you don't respond by mocking them. Andrew Levine 18:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. What a wonderful way to run an NPOV system.. by expressing bias against someone who doesn't like bias. --OMG LAZERS 19:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

((material later deleted by Lestrade)).Lestrade 19:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

I removed a reference to Stewart as a "mob lawyer" and the "Madame Defarge of the left." The paragraph lists a reference, which does make either accusation.

Whoever wrote the above: I put in the "mob lawyer" and the "Madame Defarge of the left" phrases which I found in the Matthew Vadum article sourced at the bottom of the wikipedia article. I thought providing a brief excerpt would help the reader. Did I violate a rule without being aware of it? Syntacticus 22:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you got it right. I used the wrong link, because the page didn't scroll all the way down.

How in the world is this article even remotely biased against "Lynne"? It's not. And just a little hint: if you want to avoid the appearance of bias, you probably shouldn't act as if you are on a first name basis with someone.

Prison Term

She was given 28 months, more details at CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/16/terror.trial.ap/index.html) --OMG LAZERS 18:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ta frick...

This article does not contain a clear and chronological account of her life. It just merely talks about controveries and various other prominent recent events in her life. Anyone care to actually write a biography section for her? The other stuff can stay, but this article needs to give a sense of what this woman has done in her very long life. She was born in 1939 after all....UberCryxic 19:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

UberCryxic: You may find her bio at her defense fund's website at: http://www.lynnestewart.org/bio.html Syntacticus 22:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

??? I personally don't care about her or her bio. I just think that it should be in her Wikipedia article. It's great that a site has some information on her, but we need that here too.UberCryxic 22:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, so if you care so much, put the details in. I am trying to help. Syntacticus 22:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not want to nor will I put that information up. I was just giving that as a heads up. Somebody who is involved with this article and interested in the subject should probably do it.UberCryxic 00:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Tampering with references and external links

Someone has purged the article of helpful references and external links that painted an unflattering picture of Lynne Stewart. I will restore them. Syntacticus 22:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Teaming Up With a Great Many Begging of the Question

In the "Breast cancer diagnosis" section of the Wikipedia article , Lynne Stewart is quoted as saying, "The government and the probation department have teamed up as only they can, with very little reason and with a great many begging of the question, to ask for a 30-year sentence … ." I wonder if this is a correct quote. As it is, it is a very ungrammatical, almost illiterate statement. The phrase "begging the question" means to presuppose what you are trying to prove.Lestrade 22:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Lestrade: Yes, that is absolutely a fair question. The quotation appears in a radio interview that Stewart granted. A copy of the interview is available here: http://lawanddisorder.org/media/lawanddisorder07242006.mp3. The interview is somewhere around the two-thirds or three-quarters mark on the MP3 file. I guess sometimes people don't speak clearly or grammatically. Maybe she was experiencing what we older people like to call 'brain farts.' Even though the sentence was awkward, I thought it best to be accurate so I inserted the rambling verbatim version of the sentence in the article. Editing direct quotations when dealing with controversial subject matter is often a very bad idea. I hope you agree. Syntacticus 00:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible Inclusion

Lestrade: The more I read of your insights, the more I like you. I especially enjoyed your comment about LS being able to seek damages for having her wrist slapped. I am not one for conspiracy theories, but I thought it strange that as soon as LS was in the media spotlight earlier this week (during the sentencing) suddenly all these references and links to the Communist, anti-American lawyers' group, the National Lawyers Guild, magically appeared in the LS entry. Perhaps these "people's lawyers" are doing what they can to shape public perception of their comrade. Syntacticus 00:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It was somewhat disconcerting to come on the discussion page of this woman and read that "Someone has purged the article of helpful references and external links that painted an unflattering picture of Lynne Stewart."

There are currently a dozen outside sources, most of which are heavily in favor of Lynne (the others are, at best, neutral). The following is to correct the balance (somewhat).

• O.J. trials for terrorists by Ann Coulter ˜˜˜˜

You believe that Coulter's snark somehow provides "balance?" The main thrust of her article is not about Stewart, anyway, it's about what wimps democrats are, as Coulter struggles to turn this criminal matter into a political one. The legitimacy of the case against Stewart rests in the criminality of her actions, not her politics; if Stewart were actually a political prisoner, as Coulter's stance indicates she is, then there would be no case against her.

Politics is not the issue here, though it does seems to be your issue. Bustter (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Please remove duplication

Much of the information is duplicated (e.g. the sections on "Controversy" and "Felony Conviction") from different points of view. May I ask that the duplication be eliminated and some "sections" merged in an attempt to get a NPOV? I don't know the subject well and can see that any attempt to NPOV this will be controversial, but I hope somebody will make the effort to try. Thanks Smallbones 10:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

discover the networks

Discover the networks is not an acceptable external link per our policy at WP:EL. Consider removing it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

In what way does it not meet the guidelines?

-- Randy2063 22:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

From WP:EL - Any site that misleads the reader by use of ... unverifiable research. See Reliable sources. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

DTN is ideological but that's a far cry from deliberately misleading. If a site's ideology makes an article out of bounds then it could be argued that an article on Amnesty International's site would be prohibited. (Yes, Amnesty does indeed shade the truth once in a while.) Fortunately, that's not what the policy guidelines actually say:

"The websites, print media, and other publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief is in itself a reason not to use a source."

Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Partisan and religious sources

I'd agree that readers should understand what they're getting, and so there should be another link to an article on DTN. A quick look shows that people are trying to censor Wikipedia's information on it. But even if the delete wins, I'm sure it will be redirected elsewhere and the reader will still be served. After all, serving the reader is the reason we have external links.

-- Randy2063 17:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I just added the link to DTN. -- Randy2063 17:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the DTN article was deleted. Linking to DTN redirects to DHFC, which is also up for deletion, last I looked. Stalinist un-personhood survives on Wikipedia, apparently. Andyvphil 02:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw that but figured it's best to let the redirect handle it wherever it may wind up eventually. DTN may very well get another article one day anyway.

And, yeah, this place is becoming more 1984 everyday.

-- Randy2063 04:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Or, 1940. [1] Andyvphil 12:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. Discover the Network is not acceptable as an external link for an encyclopedia, but a site soliciting funds for Lynne Stewart's defense is? Christ, you can't make up a double standards this blatant and ridiculous. Seriously, every time someone tries to claim this site is non-biased and encyclopedic, I can just point to stuff like this to rebut such ridiculous assertions. Common sense should dictate you don't link to a site that lionizes Stewart and attempts to raise funds for her defense in an article about her that is supposed to be neutral and encyclopedic in nature. What a joke. This "encyclopedia" should just stay away from political discussions, because the articles almost invariably favor one side of the political spectrum and the entries often times read like left wing jeremiads or Democratic Party broad sheets.

Request for Comment: Validity of sources

This is a dispute about the validity of information sourced to Discover The Networks.

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• User:Hipocrite has taken it upon himself to comb through the encyclopedia and delete any references sourced to DTN. Hipocrite claims that DTN is in violation of the guideline WP:RS. The only evidence presented by Hipocrite is here where he states "I looked at the website, and determined it was not a reliable source." I posit that until we have reached a consensus about the reliability of said source, Hipocrite should cease his deletion of sourced material from this and many other articles. Cheers. L0b0t 15:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• I suggest that editors job is to evaluate the reliability of sources, and the barrier to entry for sources about living people a reasonably high one - a high one that is not lept by sites that gather their information from anonymous tips presented via web interface. I also suggest that no good-faith edit is ever vandalism, but labeling such is not a good faith edit. I further suggest that stalking good contributors like myself from article to article using edit summaries of "rvv" to revert all of their changes is a violation of WP:STALK. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• What, exactly, have you contributed to this article? Andyvphil 13:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• DTN isn't a wiki that can be modified by anonymous editors. The source you've removed appears factual. There's even a reference list on the side that readers may find useful. As I said, there's a link to DTN (or, there was) so readers may see what DTN is all about. As for the matter of living persons, Lynne Stewart isn't some minor player. She's famous enough to be fair game for a reasonable number of critics, and David Horowitz has sufficient status for his take to be worthwhile. If you want something that only takes one point of view then I suggest you take it over to dKosopedia. -- Randy2063 03:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

David Horowitz is a polemicist, whom none would argue espouses a neutral point of view. Bustter (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Blogs

"Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority," are rarely acceptable external links. Why are [2] and [3] being consistantly reinserted? Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As I've told you, you've exhausted your assumption of good faith. I'm not willing to put more effort into examining your deletions than you are willing to put into discussing them. As far as I am concerned you are a recidivist POV vandal and I now assume bad faith for any deletion you make. Perhaps the blog links are inadequate cites for material in the article, but point the way to finding wp:rs cites. The correct procedure is to add a {{Fact}} tag to the material and move the blog links to the talk page. Or find better cites yourself. Or remove the material if your research shows it to be untrue, documenting your actions on the discussion page. All too much trouble for you, apparently. Andyvphil 15:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Those are not sources, they are external links. They are blogs, and do not appear to be written by a recognized authority. Are you saying you were reverting them back in because you were blindly reverting every change I made? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"It is a violation of policy for you to assume bad faith with respect to my changes. If you believe I am out to harm the encyclopedia, I reccomend you file an arbitration case (WP:RFAr) or request a community ban (WP:ANI). In the absence of such, I must insist that you at the very least, make no assumption, and at best assume that a contributor, that, unlike you, has edits to articles that have nothing to do with politics that date back more than three months, is operating in good faith. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)"

As usual, you have it wrong. WP:AGF is a guideline, not a policy, and it allows for the "occasional exception" (that's you). And there's nothing "blind" about assuming that any deletes you perform aren't worth the effort of examining in detail. That's just experience. Do it the right way and I won't revert you. Do it en masse and negligently and I will attempt devote no more effort to undoing your damage that you are devoting to doing it. Andyvphil 16:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The Horowitz as a source dispute is an open one on a number of articles. I tend to lean toward including him as a mildly notable conservative opinion on some issues (including this one) but never as a source of fact. As to the "blogs," this one seems definitely not a WP:RS, and the "Gothamist" might be OK if it had some unique source of NPOV info, but it don't, so just substitute the NYTimes and NY Post articles it references if the breast cancer info is deemed important (I had edited out a overlong section on her medical condition a while back).

But more importantly, Andyvphil—you really need to tone down the hostile nasty attitude and PA's. It's way over the top. BabyDweezil 16:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If Hipocrite were doing things like substituting the NYTimes or NYPost references for the Gothamist I wouldn't be nearly as dismissive of him. Instead he has defined an overbroad criteria for deletion of material and is applying it in a POV-selective and negligent manner. If, for example, he explains why he thought the David Horowitz Freedom Center article was suitable for deletion while the Political Research Associates article was suitable only for the evisceration of its Criticism section I will again attempt a civil discussion with him. Since he refuses anything of that nature I decline to continue to assume his good faith in the teeth of the evidence. Andyvphil 16:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Lotta grey areas on Wikipedia; for articles like this, it's all grey, so the only hope is to take each article on a case by case basis and discuss the merits. Pointing to what happened on other articles, RFD's and all that will only make you insane, since there is zero consistency on WP and most disputes of this sort subject to the whims of admins whose involvement you probably will not enjoy (what with Wiki admins, like our university system, being plagued with liberalism and commie sympathizers :). BabyDweezil 16:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Am I a liberal POV warrior or a conservative POV warrior. I'm so confused. I remove links to talkleft, ("The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news") so I've got to be a conservative POV warrior. I nominate David Horowitz Freedom Center for deletion, so I must be a liberal POV warrior. Perhaps I'm just not a POV warrior? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

On Why have you nominated X for deletion but not Y or Z on the same grounds? questions

I once heard a story that may provide a useful illustration.

A man was driving down the highway, making good time, led and followed by several other cars. Passing through a town, he saw flashing lights in his mirror, and obediently stopped on the shoulder of the road; a police car pulled in behind him. The police officer stepped out of his car, and walked slowly up to the driver's window. He said, "Sir, you were doing eighty in a sixty zone. I'm afraid I'm going to have to give you a ticket."

Watching dozens of other cars roll past, the driver asked in frustration, "Why did you stop me? All those other cars are going just as fast as I was!"

The officer paused a moment to frame his reply. He finally asked the driver, "Sir, do you ever go fishing?" The driver, somewhat perplexed, replied, "Of course...."

The officer then asked, "When you go fishing, do you ever catch all of the fish?"

Wikipedia has more than a million articles, some of which probably don't belong here. No one person is responsible for weeding the whole garden, and it would be impossible for a single editor to try.

The flip side of this, of course, is that the argument "We have an article on Y and Z, so we shouldn't deleted X because it is at least as important" (which is sometimes seen on AfD) has very limited weight.

If you believe that an article has been nominated for deletion in error, then make your argument (clearly, concisely, politely, and where possible with reference to policy and guidelines) at AfD. If you believe that a nomination is legitimate but that other, similar articles have been missed, then make the nominations yourself. (You can ask at the Help Desk if you're not sure how.) Whatever you do, don't nominate an article for deletion – or demand that someone else do it for you – just to try to make a point.

Hope that helps. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

following xferred from H's talkpage: "...Hope that helps. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope this helps. Suppose said officer is stopping only the black drivers?

I'm not talking about X, Y, or Z. Hipocrite nominated (right-wing) David Horowitz Freedom Center for deletion as non-notable. He attempted to eviscerate the Criticism section of (left-wing) Political Research Associates and is writing on its discussion page. He is quite aware of the article. These are not two anonymous "fish". I've asked him to explain why PRA is notable but DHFC is not, and I'm not going to be satisfied with parables. Andyvphil 16:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I also nominated Americablog (when it was unsourced and looked like this) and Template:Disinfo. If it were not for the reliable, third party source on PRA ([4]), I would nominate it as a non-notable organization also - except, it is notable, because a reliable, notable source wrote an article about it. I am not here to fight about politics. Please stop assuming I am. I am here to write an encyclopedia. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, your comparison of my nomination of some garbage Wikipedia article to Driving While Black is evidence of a dramatic overraction - if you are taking things that out of scale, perhaps you need a break? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hipocrite, please don't suggest to people with whom you have a dispute that they may "need a break". Even though I'm sure you mean well, that sort of remark can often be taken poorly, and might be misinterpreted as either a threat or a slight. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Struck. It was certainly neither of the above. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything about whether or not any of the articles you're talking about are notable or belong in Wikipedia. I'm actually pretty indifferent to political blogs and far left or far right pressure groups. What I am telling you is that there are better and more productive ways to handle a deletion nomination that you think is in error. The right way is to make polite, reasoned arguments on the AfD. The wrong way is to show up at the nominator's page full of bluster and demand that he nominate other articles for deletion to prove to you that he isn't biased.

Frankly, it's not the nominator's responsibility to demonstrate that an article's subject is notable, nor does making one nomination compel a nominator to nominate all non-notable articles in the field. If you think that PRA is non-notable and doesn't belong in Wikipedia, then nominate it for deletion yourself. Demanding that someone else do it solely to make some kind of point is disruptive and potentially damaging. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The decision on the DHFC AfD was keep before I "showed up" on this page. I "showed up" on this page because it was the appropriate place to respond after Hipocrite showed up on my user page to demand that I stop calling his deletions vandalism. I did not demand that Hipocrite nominate PRA or any other article for deletion -- what I demanded was that he explain why 'he had not nominated PRA -- not "all non-notable articles in the field", but specifically one article I knew him to be deleting material from and presumably had some familiarity with -- for deletion when it seemed clearly no more notable than DHFC. There is nothing "incredible" about the hostility engendered by his repeated refusal to explain himself.

The explanation he finally offered seems pretty lame. The PRA article had one "reliable source", a critical mention in the National Review (reliable for what?), and that made all the difference? His nomination of David Horowitz Freedom Center for deletion didn't say "delete article unless its editors dig up more sources", it said "non notable organization". On what basis other than the quality of the article it is hard to know, since Hipocrite did not return to the AfD to defend his thesis.

Did you inadvertently leave out the second "not" in "it's not the nominator's responsibility to demonstrate that an article's subject is not notable"? If you didn't, then the sentence makes no sense to me. If you did, then I disagree with you wholeheartedly. For anything other than appropriate speedy deletions the nominator of an AfD is staking a claim on other editors' resources. It's supposed to be a discussion, not a vote, and if the nominator isn't prepared to devote some time to defending his thesis that the article should be deleted he should not launch the process. Nothing made me angrier with Hipocrite than the feeling that I'd been dragooned unnecessarily into devoting time to defending the existance of a work I'd contributed to by someone who couldn't be bothered to devote any of his time to the argument. I've made the same comment about his deletions -- if he won't take the time to fix what can be fixed, I won't take the time to examine them in detail either. I'll just negate him and we can both leave the task to more interested editors. Andyvphil 15:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I nominate article for deletion on the grounds of notability when I come across them and find that they lack reliable sourcing and I have not heard of the subject of the article, or I have heard of the subject of the article and believe it is not notable. Providing reliable sourcing the the duty of every editor to an article. If an article has a reliable source, I do not nominate it. If I know an article <nowicki>I presume you mean '''subject''' -Avp </nowicki> is notable, I will provide reliable sources if I know of them. I know that you have put in a great deal of time and effort in the two and a half months you have been editing the encyclopedia. Perhaps you could acknowledge in the two and a half years I have been doing so I may have put some work in also, and perhaps, just maybe, I know what I'm doing, and I'm not out to vandalize? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)"

You have a tendency to try to escape into generalities. Which was it, in the case of DHFC? It is presumptively fairly reliable about itself and the content should have put you on notice that it was probably notable. I have not stalked you -- doing so seemed justified, but I did not find the time -- and so may have erred in conflating you with the POV warriors I'd encountered at the DTN AfD. Perhaps you are merely a deletionist extremist. You could have corrected my impression by responding to the questions I put to you about your actions.

I find it quite difficult to search Wickipedia policies and guidelines and can't lay may hands on the cite, but I know I've read that the recommended procedure for dealing with good faith but inadequate content contributions is moving them to the talk page. This is not your procedure. Please comment.

The DHFC foodfight was an enormous waste of time. Not as enormous as Common Dreams, e.g., but a waste just the same. At least when Disavian nominated FrontPage he stuck around for a time to defend his thesis, and even modified it in response to the criticisms it receiverd. As I've said, nothing has made me angrier with you than your unnecessarily and casually starting a POV dogfight and blithely going on your way. If you have nothing other than your nominations to contribute to the "discussions", spare us. Andyvphil 00:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a tendancy to cite policy. I consider the "David Horowitz Freedom Center" to be non-notable. If the only source for the article is the subject, it has no external reliable sources. The content looked like standard politics crap when I nominated it. I don't respond to hostile questions. The policy you are trying desperately not to find is WP:BRD. There is no rule against deleting "facts" without citations. I consider my nominations fully formed as written, and I have no obligation to get into shitfests on deletion nomination pages like you appear to enjoy. Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Finally, I note you admit to stalking me, but still no apology. Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The only thing more breathtaking than your arrogance is your inability to read plain text. My admission to stalking you, like my enjoyment of shitfests, is entirely a figment of your imagination. Or maybe your arrogance is even more breathtaking than your miscomprehension. You delete other editors' material but won't entertain being questioned about it if you deem their reaction to be unfriendly? You nominate their material for deletion but deem your statements about it so "fully formed" that there is no need for you to respond to rebuttal in the resulting "discussion"? Why isn't your picture at m:dick? Andyvphil 00:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This Article renamed "Lynne Stewart Trial", formerly "Lynne Stewart"

Seems odd to have a "Lynne Stewart Trial" article without a "Lynne Stewart" article. Did this just happen?[5] Anyway, renaming it (back??) would give a home for pre- and post-trial material on her. Andyvphil 13:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes it just happened :) I made it happen. This is the furthest thing from being a bio of a notable attorney. Note also (if you gamble) that should this become a bio, commentary by Horowitz and that sort of thing would likely get excised per WP:BLOP as it has elsewhere. And please put new topics like this at the bottom of the talk page. BabyDweezil 16:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This article should definitely be "Lynne Stewart" not "Lynne Stewart Trial" Lynne's accomplishments and history are bigger than the limit imposed by this current title.Robert B. Livingston 20:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Also, I would like to add a photo I took of Lynne Stewart which I think would benefit a biography article for her. The picture is Image:Lynne Stewart.JPG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lynne_Stewart.JPG)Robert B. Livingston 20:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the protected-edit request. Please make sure there is a consensus for this edit before you replace the request. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Felon or activist?

Can the article objectively attribute criminal felony to her or should it characterize her as an idealistic, romantic, leftist political activist who "sticks it to the Man" as well as "robs from the rich to give to the poor?"Lestrade 17:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Retorical question; does the US have civil felonies? Otto 20:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Lynne Stewart is a convicted felon is a verifiable fact, and one that is quite independent of any opinion of her.

Convicted is a fact, felon is POV. Otto 20:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

A felon is a person who has committed a crime that is worse than a misdemeanor. Is it a POV that she was convicted of a mere misdemeanor or was she convicted of a felony? Is it a misdemeanor to be guilty of conspiracy, providing material support to terrorists and defrauding the U.S. government? Lestrade 12:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Lestrade, as a Dutch citizen, not being a resident of the US, I don't care about US laws. So someone who defrauds the U.S. government is not per se a felon because of that. The same holds for "conspiracy" and "terrorist". Wikipedia is not intended to favorite a US view (whatever that may be) of the fact that Lynne Stewart is convicted, but be equally representative of the view of a Saudi militant who does not regard the support as a felony but as a duty. Otto 20:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It is possible that Wikipedia is guilty of favoring the Dutch view in its article Theo van Gogh (film director). Instead of describing Mohammed Bouyeri's act as an act of duty, it uses the words "murder" and "assassination." In accordance with Otto's statement, Wikipedia should not make declarations that may be the view of one culture or nation and are in opposition to the views of another culture or nation. We should not allow assertions per se but should include the views of all people, including Saudi militants. Your posting wonderfully explains the light sentence that was given to Lynne Stewart. She simply was not a felon per se. She was merely guilty of misdemeanors. Of course, if she was a Dutch citizen and performed her actions in Amsterdam, she might even have been applauded and rewarded. It is quite possible that someone who defrauds the Dutch government and conspires with terrorists can be considered to be one of its best and most admired citizens. But, since I am not a Dutch citizen, I am unfamiliar with the laws of Amsterdam. Do you think that Lynne Stewart would have been freed by a Dutch court? How would her actions have been viewed in Holland? Are all judgments regarding human behavior merely relative to local regions? Can there be any laws that are standard and conventional with reference to all humans?Lestrade 15:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Lestrade, you gave an interesting response with a lot of questions I cannot reply on quickly. My comment on first sight is to note that the Netherlands (Amsterdam, Holland) and the United States are culturally much more similar then the US and Saudi-Arabia. Second, murder and assassination see I as a description of facts more then as a moral judgment as the term felony. E.g. the attempts to murder Ayman al-Zawahiri have been defended by US senators John McCain and Evan Bayh (see Damadola airstrike#Responses). So we see an attempt of murder accompanied with collateral killing of people who were merely at the wrong time at the wrong place described by senior US politicians as a duty whereas the Pakistan government judges it as a felony. Otto 17:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

All that we can do, then, is describe facts. We cannot make moral judgments. There is no real difference between felony and duty. As an example, Lynne Stewart's client, Omar Abdel-Rahman, should only be recognized as a man who performed certain actions that resulted in the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing. The collateral killing of six humans in that bombing cannot be praised or denounced. They were merely at the wrong place at the wrong time. Simple. There is no further need for a justice system with its judges, lawyers, courts, etc., because justice assumes that moral judgments can be made regarding rightfulness and lawfulness.Lestrade 19:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Due to the relative nature of criminal activity, the solution to this problem is as follows. In the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York, it is judged to be a felony when a person commits criminal conspiracy, provides material support to terrorists, and gives fraudulent representation to the government. However, in other locations, such as Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands, or many other places, such activity may be only a misdemeanor, or, possibly, not at all criminal. In fact, actions such as these can be applauded, encouraged, and celebrated. Therefore, Lynne Stewart can be designated as a felon only in relation to the judicial court in which she was convicted. Other court systems, such as Vehmgericht, Volksgerichtshof, Supreme People's Court of China, or Islamic Sharia, may not consider her actions to be felonious. The solution expressed here is absolutely categorical, explicit, and direct. It is not subject to doubt or contradiction.Lestrade 13:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Fine, then she is a felon. According to the legal system of her country, and the court of which she is (was) an officer. She must think she is a convicted felon herself, or she would not be appealing her designation as such. 84.69.173.228 (talk) 10:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced "Terrorist conspiracy", "Murder conspiracy", and "Militant Terrorist"...

What is a "terrorist conspiracy"? What is a "murder conspiracy"? What is a "militant terrorist", and what reliable source called an individual that? What specific acts was Ms. Stewart charged with, which charges were dropped, and which charges was she found guilty on? (Yes, please identify which statutes were alleged to be violated, and which statutes the jury held to be violated, in the U.S.C..)

Terms like "terrorist conspiracy", "murder conspiracy", and "militant terrorist" are extremely vague and pejorative terms, and ought not to be bandied around with abandon. Though some might not like the subject of the article, or what they allegedly did, perhaps myself included, there are 2 issues to consider:

1. WP: Neutral point of view
2. WP:Biographies of living persons

These policies are necessary to uphold. It would be wise for everyone to familiarize themselves with these policies prior to making statements not backed by reliable sources.

Katana0182 (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious what prompted the above. Stewart is a convicted felon. A court found her guilty of participating in terrorism. She violated her own profession's code of ethics and was automatically disbarred upon conviction. Libeling her is a near impossibility. Syntacticus (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think terrorist conspiracy is self-explanatory thus: an old time stalinist crone conspired with prisoners to unleash terror on new york; (conspiracy = met to plan mass murder). Miltant terrorist: from wiki, Militant = "A militant engages in violence as part of a claimed struggle against oppression." Terrorist, from wiki = "Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants." So, the militant communist crone conspired with muslim terrorists to kill non-combatant capitalists and/or jews in the WTC. Thereby making her a militant terrorist. Does that do it for you, Katana? or do we need to continue playing the Leninist word game? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.64.51 (talk) 05:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

External links

Bali ultimate made a destructive and apparently not good faith edit to the Lynne Stewart article wiping out a great deal of valuable info from reliable sources in one fell swoop. I corrected the edit [[6]] and urge others interested in this article to be vigilant and protect it from such edits. Bali ultimate has a history of behavior inappropriate to Wikipedia (see my talk page). Syntacticus (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The external links section was quite long, and contained blogs and a site that you keep spamming across many articles. Please remember that this is a biography of a living person. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a biography of a living person who is complicit to terrorism and who has been found guilty of same. She is a felon and in earlier times would likely have been executed for treason. As such it is nearly impossible to defame her. In any event, there were some good sources in the items removed. I do not spam but you certainly do enjoy reverting my edits it seems. Syntacticus (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles about any living persons, whether sinners or saints, are covered by WP:BLP. I didn't revert your edit, but I did remove some inappropriate websites and spam that you restored. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:EL seems pretty clear cut to me. I certainly didn't appreciate syntacticus' false, inaccurate charecterizations of what i did on my talk page. I'll take a look at the state of play and make a call on what's appropriate. By all means, syntacticus, make whatever "reports" you feel are appropriate.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The only links i could see an argument for are the one to the interviews involving this woman (not sure what the policy is on those). The rest of them pretty clearly should go. I'll sleep on it. Per WP:EL the only one that should remain, in my current opinion, is the one to her website.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

On-trimming external links per WP:EL; i can't really see an argument for the radio interviews and the NRO piece either but leaving them for now. I guess links to the two legal cases are of some value there.

Blatant BLP and NPOV violations in this article

I've rarely seen an article this biased and unsourced, with shrill and hysterical personal attacks substituting for reference material. Some sections contain outright gibberish, as if the people writing them were too berserk even to pay attention to basic grammar and spelling. For example, the "support and opposition" section opens with this mess: "Stewart's most outspoken opposition was from the militant Jewish Defense Organization that had protests at her house during the trail calling her an ally of Shaeik Rahmn and an enemy of Jews,Israel and America." Support came from the far-left communist National Lawyers Guild of which she was a member." There aren't even spaces after commas in this, it has a lonely quotation mark with no partner in it, it misspells a simple word like "trial" and then goes on to describe the National Lawyers Guild as "far-left" and "communist" which is not NPOV and value-laden. Give me one reason why there should not be one or more banners on top of this article contesting its neutrality or violations of BLP. I'm not personally editing it, because I am a member of the National Lawyers Guild myself and, unlike some fanatics, don't edit in blatant violation of conflicts of interest. However, I can certainly find people without such conflict to edit it if it isn't fixed in an orderly manner and promptly. muldrake (talk) 17:24, 3 Apr 2009 (EST)

Good call, I've excised the entire section. Please check out our policy on conflict of interest, your membership in the NLG should in no way preclude your ability to edit this article. BLP violations should be removed on sight, by all editors, from any article. Thanks for pointing out the problems. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Lynne Stewart Website

Is very POV, of course, but gives you the subjects views directly. I think it should be put in the 'Links' section as an aid to researchers.

http://lynnestewart.org/

The website is called 'Justice for Lynne Stewart', and personaly, I hope she gets it. 84.69.173.228 (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Note, everybody probably hopes she gets justice. Get it?

The top and the box

I've removed "convicted felon" from the first sentence, because I think it clearly pejorative and obviously agenda-laden. That she was convicted of a crime is clearly covered in the next paragraph. Same goes for the box. The way it was it appears someone is really trying to lay it on that she was convicted of a crime (conviction date?) when it is obvious from the rest of the article. as a summary, however, it seems totally agenda-laden. Baxter42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC).

It belongs there. She *IS* a convicted felon.

That you consider it "pejorative" to call a spade a spade---or to call a person convicted of felonies in a legitimate trial a "felon"---simply speaks to your own non-neutral agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.152.206 (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Enough of that, please. Discuss the content, don't make accusations against other editors. As for your changes to the intro, she was convicted of "Providing material support for terrorism", she is not a "convicted terrorist". None of those people listed in the linked article are called a "convicted terrorist" in the intro of their articles. I have removed this change per the rules at WP:BLP. If you persist in that change, I will lock this article. Please discuss the matter here before you change it again. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)