Talk:Paul v. Clinton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] "Convicted felon"

I've removed the "convicted felon" description from Paul's first mentioning. This is a classical ad-hominem. Paul's previous convictions are quite unrelated to this case, and are adequately addressed in his article. The article is very clear about the merit of the case (or rather the lack of same). It's not our aim to discredit this suit on spurious grounds - and it's pointless anyways, as it is completely discredited by the factual representation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

While I agree the cases are unrelated, people commonly give less credibility to allegations coming from convicted felons that they do those coming from ordinary citizens. That's one of the downsides of committing felonies. Readers shouldn't have to follow wlinks to gain fundamental understanding of the present article, and I would say this is a fundamental aspect, so I don't see this inclusion as ad-hominem at all. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it may be an efficient rhetoric device for convincing people does not make it more relevant. Our aim is not to convince, but to inform. The article makes it already clear that the case has no merit - adding the bit just makes it look as if the authors have an axe to grind. The fact that he is a felon has no bearing on this case. It might have an effect on the public perception of it, but in that case we need a reliable source that actually makes that connection (not just one that reiterates the fact of his conviction). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)