![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Okay, so maybe I've not got the best NPOV in writing about this issue, but something NEEDS to be said about the fact that Judge Taylor is essentially the liberal version of Judge Robert Bork. Even the so-called "liberal media" have more or less observed that Judge Taylor is a civil rights activist with a so-called "progressive" bias in interpreting the law. Solascriptura 01:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm adressing the section "Political Issues of the NSA Ruling" inserted by Solascriptura. He or she is arguing that the insertion of this paragraph is justified because "the 'right-wing' has indeed criticized Judge Taylor as being a 'left-wing' sympathizer, which is clearly factual".
One can easily guess that this is true, but I fail to see how this requires inserting a lot of text that has no bearing on the assessment of the judge, but deals with the circumstances of the case, which are of no interest in this article. The Detroit News article cited by Solascriptura makes no mention of such criticism. What's more, the second paragraph of the section reads more like a partisan political assessment than a neutral encyclopedia article. At any rate, I submit that all case-specific material should go to ACLU v. NSA, and that only text relating to the judge herself should be mentioned here. Sandstein 15:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
_____________________________
This kind of rhetoric is hardly being "civil", Sandstein. <groan> Does no one have the right to point out the political leanings of the subject of a biography (whether real or simply alleged by their critics)?? Do we NOT note that Adolf Hitler was a brutal anti-Semitic Nazi simply because he was criticized as being such? NPOV demands that any biography not be simply a "puff piece". There are REAL and SERIOUS political issues in play with this decision and attempting to portray them from ALL PERSPECTIVES is true NPOV. Let's not eliminate the facts simply because we might disagree with what others are saying. Judge Taylor's decision is highly critical of the NSA's program and of the Bush administration and as such, she is drawing a lot of POLITICAL heat. This is fact, like it or not. It should be stated, not minimized or glossed over. FURTHERMORE, the Detroit News article absolutely quoted and named a Muslim man of Arab descent as being one of the plaintiffs. I'm just as much as a privacy-rights advocate as the next person, but I'm at least trying to be open with this issue. Let's dig people, not just gloss over this because we might not like what we find ... Solascriptura 16:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
1) Using incorrect secondary sources when correct primary sources are available. The list of plaintiffs in the case ACLU v. NSA is contained in court documents (primary source) that are publicly available online. This list does not contain the name Nazih Hassan. A quick google search, however, reveals that Mr Hassan is a member of one of the plaintiff organizations. A Detroit newspaper (secondary source) incorrectly listed Mr Hassan as a plaintiff instead of being a member of a plaintiff organization. Solascriptura knows (it was pointed out in the talk page above) that Mr Hassan is not a plaintiff, but he continues to insert the factually incorrect information in the Wikipedia article about a living person.
2) Using uncited political statements. Solascriptura continues to insert the politically charged statement "the appearance of "judge shopping" and "liberal bias" for the purposes of political advantage have been leveled by conservative groups and commentators regarding this case" WITHOUT NAMING THE GROUPS AND COMMENTATORS. Stop it. Stop turning Wikipedia into your personal soapbox and start thinking about this place as an encylcopedia. Note the difference between what solascriptura keeps inserting and what ArnoldReinhold inserted: "By contrast, the New York Times concluded in an editorial published August 18 that ..." That is a CITED STATEMENT.
3) Promoting racism using living people's biographies. One of solascritura's inserted statements is particularly charged because it is racist without attributing the racism to anyone. He wrote: "...because the plaintiffs in the case are Muslim and of Arab descent, questions as to the legitemacy of the case have been raised including whether or not terrorists could be attempting to use the US legal system to stifle the War on Terror." WHO is raising these questions other than Solascriptura and should Wikipedia provide a forum for these detestable cretins to publicize this revoltingly racist POV without attributing it to anyone? Does solascriptura really believe or does he have a verifiable statement from someone else who believes that terrorists targeted the US legal system by using American Muslims via the ACLU? This is lunatic racist fringe crazy nutjob idiocy and it does not belong here on Anna Diggs Taylor's page, ESPECIALLY unattributed. This wacko and his vile ilk are just like Al Queda in that they promote divisions based on race and religion instead of paying attention to reality.
STOP IT SOLASCRIPTURA. Stop abusing Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia. It's not a place for what you want to do. If people who care about this encyclopedia do not stop this person then others will be able to cite this Wikipedia article as evidence for that this kind of non-reality is correct.
It is the goal of party hacks to promote whatever message further's their cause, regardless of its factual value. It is the goal of an encyclopedia to present verifiably correct information. These goals are often in conflict. Solascriptura's recent abuse of this article and defense of that abuse is a perfect example of this conflict. This POV belongs on the Colbert Report as a joke. It should not be in an encyclopedia. Just stop. 141.154.225.164 19:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Alright, let's sort this out. I think that User:Solascriptura is genuinely trying to point out a view held by many conservatives who have followed this case. So how about this:
Political leanings: Unless cited information can be found to support "judge-shopping," leave it out. However, it would be very appropriate to say that the ruling is heavily favored by Democrats and is considered a victory for them.
Muslim Plaintiffs: This really seems out of place. By all accounts, it appears that only a few of the people involved on the ACLU side were Arab, and to imply otherwise twists the truth and could be considered a form of political propoganda. (not all Arabs are Muslims, and vice versa, to clarify)
Is there anything else in debate? I support Solascriptura's desire to represent how the court ruling has affected both parties in what I think we can all agree is an extremely polarized country (both geographically and politically), but at the end of the day any unsourced or misleading material simply cannot stay. Thanks. Let me know if there are any other issues that need to be resolved.
SwedishConqueror 03:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)SwedishConqueror
I've now reduced the ACLU v. NSA paragraph to a length that is appropriate for a biography. People interested in the political context of that case now have a prominently-placed link to go to the article dedicated to the case and get further information there. Sandstein 04:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The issue of Taylor's NSA ruling being overturned by the appeals court BELONGS in her biography. If you know anything about a judicial career, judges DO NOT LIKE to be overturned on appeal because it speaks to their competency of their ability by their own judicial peers. It becomes part of their career path and part of who they are. Judges who become overturned, especially within high-profile cases, become icons of a sort within whatever group. Let's be honest: It's personal and any judge worth their salt will tell you this. An overturning of their decision makes it look like their "judgment" is off-base. Just my 2¢ on this ... -- Solascriptura 16:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Anna Katherine Johnston Diggs Taylor was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot ( talk) 23:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Anna Diggs Taylor. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)