While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court
In the controversy section there are two completely opposite and conflicting statements. It is the duty of an encyclopedia to present facts and present opinions and to make each clear as to which is which. Both of the positions in the section are stated as fact, thus one of them can not be true since there is only one truth, logically it must be one or the other. I would suggest rewording the section to make it more clear that either one is correct and the other is opinion or reword it to make it clear that both are opinion. I would tend to give more credence to the Cato Institute since they have many many people who work on their reports rather than just one or two like a law opinion article that is being quoted. In reading the original work that is quoted I see several problems with the article. I also see that there is absolutely no link to it to verify the quote as well, which is needed badly. Without a link this is an unsubstantiated quote that people can not verify themselves and smacks of original research rather than quoting reliable sources.
Tjung (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Cato Institute has an interest in providing biased commentary, and a track record of doing so. Their track record as of the decades leading up to 2013 suggests that Cato Institute claims cannot be treated as factual without independent corroboration, and cannot be used to corroborate other evidence.
66.168.19.165 (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
