User talk:Tibet111

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Citizens United article[edit]

Please exercise some judgement in adding the link to the article about Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. It certainly belongs on the page for the case, but it does not belong on the page for the Supreme Court, or in the pages for the individual Justices as "Further Reading". I've reverted several of these additions as inappropriate, and I have little doubt others will revert several more (though some of the places where you have added it seem reasonable). Magidin (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please sign your messages. Use four tildes, ~~~~. As to your... ehr... "question": the OP-ED piece in question is not appropiate as "Further Reading". Look at the context: all but one of the items in "Further reading" is a book, either generally about the Court or about the law. The single exception is an article by the Supreme Court Historical Society about the building. Does an OP-ED piece belong there? No. And if you had bothered to look a bit further, you might have realized that I took that OP-ED piece reference and placed it as a reference to the Citizens United case: see here. So perhaps you can explain how I can be "practicing censorship" when the reference is still there, just moved to a more appropriate context and location. I removed it from the multiple pages for the individual justices for the same reason: an op-ed about a particular case does not belong in the individual Justices page. I'm surprised, though, that you didn't think to add it to the actual case page, where it would be most appropriate. Now, if you want to discuss improvements or changes to the articles, the appropriate place to do so is the Talk page of the articles. You might also want to look up some of Wikipedia's policies like this and this before you engage in veiled personal attacks again. Magidin (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Magidin (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not describe the article itself as spam, but rather the posting of the link to the article in multiple pages, where in most of which the link is not really germane. It was isolated and unmotivated. Why post it to the page on Scalia, for example? Did you read his concurrence? You seem to have simply added it to the page of each justice who wrote in the case... except that you missed Thomas, who wrote a partial concurrence. Should we put links to articles about each and every case on each and every page of a Justice who writes in it? An addition must not simply be verifiable (though it must be verifiable), or come from a suitable source or a notable author: it also must be appropriate and must fit with the article. Simply adding links is essentially spam (regardless of what those links point to). Your most recent claim in the Kennedy page is disingenuous as well: the "other articles" there are not about specific decisions, but about Kennedy in general, about his position on the Court, his jurisprudence as a whole, or his biography. How can you claim that this is "like other articles cited here"? The op-ed is an appropriate addition to the Supreme Court page (and to other pages) when placed in the appropriate place and context. In this case, it works as a reference associated to the specific case or where a page discusses the case in extenso. There are literally hundreds of cases on which "respected authors" in "major publications" have written. But those links don't belong on "Further Reading", or in an article that discusses them in passing; we don't have a list of links to articles about Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education, Marbury v. Madison, Lochner v. New York, and so on (though the important cases have citations, which is exactly where I placed your link to this op-ed). Every year there are at least a couple dozen major cases with major implications; we don't link indiscriminately to articles about them. Nor is it appropriate to post the link to my talk page, for that matter. I have read the article, thank you very much. (And I happen to agree, as it happens, though perhaps you thought that I "deleted" it because I supported the decision?). Hell, I've read about a dozen articles and analyses just about this decision (even though I am neither a lawyer nor a law student), and the decision itself as well as all the concurrences and the dissent. Have you? You are essentially trying to rub my face in something, not exactly the most neighborly behavior and I don't particularly appreciate it. As I said originally, what is lacking here is an exercise of judgement as to where and how the addition of the link was appropriate. Magidin (talk) 05:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)