| Revision as of 02:20, 20 July 2005 editPile0nades (talk | contribs)905 edits Subheadings← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:26, 20 July 2005 edit undoBedford (talk | contribs)30,292 edits →Abortion v. Reproductive Rights v. Abortion and birth controlNext edit → | ||
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
| I can see something of an edit war brewing over this section and what it should be titled. It should be noted that John G. Roberts Jr. which means that if he follows the Churches teachings he will not only regard abortion as "sinful" but also any form of birth control. So personally I think we should go with "Reproductive rights". ]∴] 02:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC) | I can see something of an edit war brewing over this section and what it should be titled. It should be noted that John G. Roberts Jr. which means that if he follows the Churches teachings he will not only regard abortion as "sinful" but also any form of birth control. So personally I think we should go with "Reproductive rights". ]∴] 02:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
| How about just saying "Roe vs. Wade"; that's as neutral a term as we'll probably find. ] | |||
| == Subheadings == | == Subheadings == | ||
Revision as of 02:26, 20 July 2005
Talk:John G. Roberts Jr./Archive 1
Considering that this page is about to become very busy, I think we need to create a Talk page for it.
Resources
A few resources:
- A Pictureat the
Drudge ReportWashington Post . - AP story confirming his nomination.
- There's a good reference on Roberts here, for whoever's editing the article right now. Adam Faanes 23:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
(From which someone has currently lifted the entire paragraph beginning "In the unanimous ruling last October in Hedgepeth v. WMATA" to this page Cromis 00:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC))
more resources:
google news digs up articles here and here.
POV
Let's get ready to rumble!!! Now, fellows, let's try to keep in mind Point of View in this article. Neutralityyy please! I'm sure this will turn out to be a controversial decision, but let's try to be professionals with this article. Happy writing!<<Coburn_Pharr>> 00:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
PROTECTED
Protected the article page temporarily to clean up massive anon edits that had reduced the article to one paragraph. Please be patient, and USE SECTION EDITING AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO AVOID EDIT CONFLICTS! If an edit conflict happens, please do not just hit "save" on your version to quash existing text. Thanks. Fuzheado | Talk 00:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- This reason is in violation of Misplaced Pages:Protection policy, and subverts the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Edit lock. - O^O 00:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Although the reason seems to follow the following guideline "Protecting a page or image that has been a recent target of persistent vandalism or persistent edits by a banned user.". Falcorian 00:16, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- O^O, "assume good faith." If you look at the 7 July 2005 London bombings page and other fast moving news pages, they were all protected dozens of times to fix up problems of lost edits and quickkly unprotected again. Fuzheado | Talk 00:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
UNPROTECTED - Fuzheado | Talk 00:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Past Campaign Contributions
also... interesting history here, he seems to be a former bush campaign contributer. he represented the legal firm he worked for (Hogan & Hartson), whose Hogan & Hartson Political Action Commitee (H&H PAC), is listed as one of the larger PACs in Washington, and it's history can be found here, qualifying on this list, according to the , having donated $163,000 in a less than one year stretch between 2003 and mid-2004. source (pdf)
We need a public domain picture of Roberts ASAP
Can someone find one?
It is good to see an article that I created has finally hit the big time. :) NoSeptember 00:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Good luck. PD pictures of judges are rather hard to find on the internet. --tomf688 00:28, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, none of the sites I checked had any, nor did any of the major search engins turn up any. Falcorian 00:31, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Forget PD, find a picture where he is one of a dozen people in the pick and clip him out of it - that would be a fair use. :-D -- BDAbramson 00:38, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, none of the sites I checked had any, nor did any of the major search engins turn up any. Falcorian 00:31, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
As I understand it, that image is PD since it's provided by the DC Court of Appeals. ^_^ Cookiecaper 00:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Kudos to whomever shrunk that first image of Roberts -- the article looks better now without it taking up so much of the screen Rast 01:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Past Court Cases
- "In his role on the Court of Appeals, Roberts wrote the unanimous decision for a three-judge panel rejecting the civil rights claims brought on behalf of a 12-year-old girl who had been handcuffed, arrested and taken away by police for eating one French fry in the D.C. Metro" source.
Archiving already?
Did we really need to archive discussion so soon? It's not as if the discussion page was overflowing...
- I put it back. --pile0nades 01:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Abortion v. Reproductive Rights v. Abortion and birth control
I can see something of an edit war brewing over this section and what it should be titled. It should be noted that John G. Roberts Jr. which means that if he follows the Churches teachings he will not only regard abortion as "sinful" but also any form of birth control. So personally I think we should go with "Reproductive rights". Evil Monkey∴Hello 02:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
How about just saying "Roe vs. Wade"; that's as neutral a term as we'll probably find. Bedford
Subheadings
Neutrality, how are the subheadings messing up your browser? And is it only in this article? What browser do you use? --pile0nades 02:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)