Talk:American Bar Association

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Law Portal

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.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

High

This article has been assessed as High-importance on the assessment scale.

I added back a modification of language related to the 1925 formation of the National Bar Association to put the whole discussion into perspective. See [1], although I am sure there are more scholarly sources for a citation. -- DS1953 ^talk 21:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bricker Amendment

For some time I have been working on revisions to the Bricker Amendment article. I finally posted it and have a PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bricker Amendment/archive1. I'd welcome comments. I know all those references may seem extravagant, but I'm hoping to get it as an FA and those voters want lots of footnotes. PedanticallySpeaking 16:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations for criticism

The citations provide no comparison between nominees, nor do they provide evidence for the ABA giving out different ratings for similarly qualified nominees based on political orientation. Rather, the first citation merely links to a blog post (by whoever) making the same unsourced, unreferenced claim as the the text in the ABA article. The second citation shows ratings for Reagan nominees next to ratings for Clinton nominees, with no comparison of nominee quality or objective standards (showing that each President's nominees received dissimilar ratings proves nothing). Therefore I am eliminating that portion of the criticism and replacing it with a citation-needed tag. Heforgotpoland 22:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur with your analysis. Wikipedia should use only high-quality published sources, not blogs. See the citations at Lawyer (mostly my work) for a good example of a properly researched article. --Coolcaesar 04:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to improve the references. What else should be done? Rkevins82 15:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation four (federalist society) is still unacceptable. The claim made in the wiki article is that judges with similar resumes received dissimilar ratings, while the citation shows no such proof. (Where is it shown that Guido Calabresi = Ralph Winters, or that Abner Mikva = James Buckley?) Until that claim can be backed up, it's gotta go. Heforgotpoland 1:17 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a citation that notes the way conservatives view the process, as the article is only noting the claim, not verifying or denying it. Rkevins82 03:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose merge from Law Practice Magazine

I strongly oppose the merge from Law Practice Magazine into this article. The magazine is notable (reasons provided here and also here) and, as explained on Wikipedia:List of missing journals, "While some of the journals [from the List of missing journals] are obscure, having articles on them would be invaluable. " (emphasis added) --Edcolins 19:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)