You must find a reliable source to establish verifiability, or your edits may be reverted. If you need any more help on this, feel free to ask me. And yes, before introducing a controversial statement such as
|“||The gag order is generally considered unconstitutional, as it is an infringment of free speech with no rational basis.||”|
I did not violate the NPOV policy.
I have improved the edit, however. The citations are within the text of the article -- it was ruled unconstitutional. That is a very notable aspect and belongs up top.
Please stop committing vandalism.
- Find me the source, and then we'll discuss whether such a comment is appropriate. Edit warring is not the way to go. --Flewis(talk) 06:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Source is citations 17, 18, 19, and 20 on the VERY SAME PAGE. It is not good encylopedia practice to repeat all four citations up top. I agree that "generally considered" was bad, opinion-prone. language. Hence the change to "was ruled unconstitutional". I don't see your justification for reverting that. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
My apologies for not "assuming good faith". It's been a trying day, and getting reverted for attempting to answer what seemed like an eminently reasonable discussion request.... well, sorry anyway. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 06:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.