Jump to content

Talk:Priscilla Richman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Religious Faith

[edit]
  • What is the religious faith of Judge Priscilla Owen?

Blogs as sources

[edit]

I'm going to edit this article to eliminate the use of blogs as sources. According to WP:RSEX, "Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should…not be used as secondary sources." Likewise, according to WP:ATT/FAQ, "Are weblogs reliable sources? In most cases, no."Ferrylodge 22:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, blogs can't be used as sources to prove that, say, "the Earth is round" anymore than TV can. But blogs CAN and, indeed, MUST be used as sources to prove that bloggers tend to think something (just as citing a TV show is appropriate to prove that "X happend on this TV show"). In this case, the blog sources (which included things like NRO and the EPPC--major tentposts of the conservative movement) were being used to show that the reporter in question is much-admired by conservatives. Incidentally, some of the sources you deleted weren't even blogs... Please don't remove further citations. --72.229.128.185 20:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about Owen, not Greenburg. There is a separate article on Greenburg, where you can describe her. I disagree that it's appropriate to describe here in this article what bloggers think of Owen, much less of Greenburg. Please do not insert material against consensus.Ferrylodge 20:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess first of all, you've used "consensus" here to refer to an opinion voiced only by you, which is, to put it lightly, not what the word means. But I can move past that. The issue with the Greenburg quote is that it's analysis from an arguably biased POV which, by virtue of the way it's presented, comes across as objective fact. I added FIVE SOURCES and two words to show that, at least, the right tends to cheerlead for her (whether or not that is reciprocated is a matter of opinion and thus best left out of the article). I did research into whether there was any equivalent cheerleading from the left, and I found exactly squat. While Greenburg isn't a "conservative pundit" or anything like that (she may not even be conservative personally--who knows?), her fan base is, without question, overwhelmingly conservative. You're deleting legitimate research and numerous sources--and you've done it twice. The sources (again--intended only to prove that "many conservatives think X") included the NRO, a meeting announcement from the EPPC, and several blogs being used as PRIMARY SOURCES (i.e. to prove ONLY that "the bloggers think X"). You even deleted the non-blogs! Now, I can think of three ways to solve this: 1) restore the sources and research; 2) simply get rid of all reference to Greenberg and replace with "some pundits believe" or somesuch; or 3) delete the sentence altogether. What currently stands is clearly intended to mislead the reader into viewing biased analysis as certain fact, and I really don't think that's appropriate. I'll give this 24 hours for discussion before reverting. --72.229.128.185 10:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your attitude is counterproductive. You say you'll allow 24 hours of discussion before doing what you wanted to do in the first place regardless of the discussion. Please chill out a little bit.
There was no statement in the text about what blogs think. The statement was that Greenburg is a "conservatiove favorite." If you cannot find anything except some stray blog entries to support this statement, then maybe it's best to not make the statement. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia.
I understand that you are trying to impeach Greenburg's credibility, but there are other ways to do so (assuming she is not credible) besides pointing fingers at some people in the blogosphere who may admire her. There may be some communists and anarchists who admire Linda Greenhouse, but that would not justify you (or me) in linking to communist and anarchist blogs in some Wikipedia article that briefly mentions Greenhouse.
I deleted the EPPC entry because it says nothing about Greenburg being a conservative favorite, and, even if it did, you have not explained the relevance. Do you think she is a favorite of National Public Radio because she did an interview with NPR?
Please try and think of a way that addresses both your concerns and my concerns, without simply threatening to do what you want after 24 hours. And, by the way, inserting material that one person opposes and one person favors is not an insertion by consensus.Ferrylodge 15:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Getting past the personal stuff--I'm really not sure what kind of sourcing would prove, to you, that Greenburg is a "conservative favorite." I offered five sources, including two of the largest, most prominent conservative organizations in existence. How many do you want? 20? 50? 100? Seriously--what do you think would be required to adequately support the statement? Or do you simply deny that the statement could be true at all? If that's the case, why?
You write that some anarchists and communists "could admire Linda Greenhouse," which could, indeed, be so. But anarchists and communists aren't major players in national politics, and the point of drawing out such an association would only to be to stigmatize the source (which, to be clear, is not the case with "conservative" and "liberal," as those don't represent fringy ideologies). If, however, one noted an arguably biased claim by Greenhouse, it would probably be fair to call her a "liberal favorite," with proper citations. (Caveat: "favorite" isn't my, um, favorite word in either case--if you have a better word, let me know).
Re: the EPPC. I'm not sure what's not to get here--the EPPC is a well-known far-right organization, and for a supposedly neutral reporter to give a speech before that group... well, I think that sort of speaks for itself. Check out their recent and upcoming events: it's folks from the American Spectator, the Bush administration, the Institute for American Values... and Jan Crawford Greenburg. That's not exactly like giving an interview to NPR.
I appreciate that you're trying to turn down the heat on our parley, and I respect that. For what it's worth, I didn't mean I was going to "do what I wanted" in 24 hours regardless of the discussion. I meant that I was going to revert in 24 hours if there WAS NO discussion. Obviously, I won't do anything until we reach either a stalemate, or, hopefully, an agreement. --72.229.128.185 20:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Please note the comment below by Tony Sidaway. No one is trying to pick on you here. It's just not good form to cite blogs (such as Bench Memos, Volokh Conspiracy, and Patterico) at Wikipedia. I've tried that on occasion myself and been reverted, which is how I deserved to be treated.
Moreover, I just don't think your approach of proving conservative bias by association is helpful. A person (e.g. Greenburg) on a book tour will give speeches in lots of places. If you think that the statement quoted from Greenburg's book is inaccurate, then certainly you can put contrary, well-sourced material in this article. Ted Kennedy is already cited rather liberally (pun intended) in the section on "Opposition", and we cited Kennedy in a straightforward way without calling him an ultra-leftist or a socialist or what have you, and without noting his meetings and speeches with far-left groups like MoveOn.org, or People for the American Way, or Alliance for Justice. If you want to focus on Greenburg, we've linked to a separate article about her. That Jan Crawford Greenburg once gave a speech to the EPPC is just not related to Priscilla Richman Owen in a meaningful, encyclopedic way.
I hope you'll stick around and keep a critical eye on this article, because the more eyes the better. When I get a chance, I'd like to incorporate some of the neutral material in the advocacy pieces that Tony Sidaway recently and appropriately unlinked. So by all means keep watch to ensure this article stays on the straight and narrow. But citing blogs is just not the way to go. Nor is it particularly relevant that Greenburg gave a speech once to the EPPC. George W. Bush has given speeches to the NAACP, but I doubt you'd want to draw any conclusions from that.Ferrylodge 22:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would really urge you to try to reach consensus here in this article, rather than edit-warring. This edit is not helpful. There is no reason for you to delete a perfectly valid footnote to Greenburg's book.Ferrylodge 20:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry abt that--it was accidentally lost during the revert. --72.229.128.185 10:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously blogs cannot be regarded as a reliable source on anything much except what a single person, the blogger, believes. I've also removed some excessive external linking, choosing to remove those which were explicitly marked as advocacy (for or against). --Tony Sidaway 16:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Molly Ivins' "Bushwhacked" (2003) has a substantial section on Owens' decisions (written when the latter was still a nominee for the Court of Appeals) that I expect (I've only heard the audiobook version as of this moment) is rather better-sourced. (I don't doubt she is a partial source, but she does treat these cases and more of them in greater detail, so if most of what people have been depending on to date has been blogs, fgs, I'd suggest having a look at her footnotes, and the footnotes of their footnotes, for starters. Ivins had plenty to say and good reason from Owens' opinions to that point... Schissel | Sound the Note! 03:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overrides

[edit]

This article was recently edited to change this:

"Owen was criticized for voting against judicial overrides of Texas's parental-notification law, and for joining a majority decision on overrides only once."

to this:

"Owen was criticized for upholding Texas's parental-notification law, and for joining a majority decision on overrides only once."

The latter sentence is incorrect. According to abortion rights organizations, "Owen has not had the opportunity to interpret either Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey." Thus, Owen's opinions about parental notification did not involve upholding or overturning any statute, but rather involved merely interpreting and applying the statute.Ferrylodge 23:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ABA

[edit]

I have deleted a reference to the ABA as a "left-of-center" organization. This statement represented partisan political advocacy; for years, the right has complained that the ABA is controlled by the left, while the left maintains that the ABA is non-partisan and represents the legal mainstream. An encyclopedia entry should not take a position on this debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.28.102 (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot-created subpage

[edit]

A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Priscilla Richman Owen 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) 21:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Priscilla Owen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Priscilla Owen. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move Article

[edit]

I suggest moving this article to "Priscilla Richman" with a link to any searches for "Priscilla Owen" to reflect name change (which the article has been edited to demonstrate). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expelliarmus Main (talk • contribs) 17:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Priscilla_Richman&oldid=1208144956"