Talk:Ambulance chaser

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Bad redirect

This is redirecting to "personal injury". Ought not it to redirect to attorney? ChristinaDunigan 01:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No more warranted than calling you a jerk.Jance 03:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it originally redirected to personal injury lawyer but some ambulance chaser objected, and changed it. If you look at its use in articles under "what links here" it is apparent to me that the "personal injury lawyer" would be a better redirect. Legis 09:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the redirect altogether. What is wrong with you guys? There are real estate lawyers, corporate lawyers - all kinds of lawyers. An English barrister would know this. And in fact, it was not a personal injury lawyer who objected to the term 'ambulance chaser'. Not all personal injury lawyers are 'bad'. Calling people names - even attorneys - is not civil, and it surely violates Wikipedia rules. The article "ambulance chaser" was deleted in its entirety after it was determined by a majority that it belonged in Wiktionary, and not here where it had become more of an attack on lawyers than a legitimate discussion. That is why it was deleted as an article - there really isn't enough to write an article on the origination of the derogatory term, without turning it into an attack on an entire profession. Someone clearly re-started this page and should not have. It is too bad that some attorneys do not show more courtesy to their colleagues. Jance 03:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

only if quack redirects to Doctor. At best it should redirect to wikitionery where there is a definition of amublance chaser. What you two are engaging in is non-neutral point of view, but you two know that already. Then there is the issue of denigration of other wiki editors, by calling them derogatory names. Pathetic.

If that is what you believe then surely the appropriate course of action is to list it as an AfD rather than delete it yourself? Opinions can differ, but follow the appropriate protocols. For my own part, I have little doubt that the original redirect was correct. It is not a question of courtesy, it is a question of etymology. See Answers.com "ambulance chaser" "Whore" redirects to prostitution without complaint about the offensiveness of the terms. Legis 14:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

For a fellow lawyer, your logic is flawed. If you can't tell the difference between terms like whore, prostitute, personal injury lawyer and ambulance chaser, I would hate to see the quality of the arguments used in your briefs. Do you really think all service professions are the equivalent to prostitutes? Are all lawyers are postitutes and are financial sector lawyers "high class call girls", whereas personal injury lawyers and criminal defense attorneys are the equivalent of street walkers? I suppose one could make the argument (that prostitution is no different than other service professions) in a neutral way, but that obviously wasn't your intent when you began with "I think it originally redirected to personal injury lawyer but some ambulance chaser objected." That is hardly neutral on the subject of tort law and personal injury lawyers. At best it is what is known as a snark, but snarks are never value neutral. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:67.35.126.14 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 26 November 2006.

Please make sure you sign your comments. I hear what you say but it doesn't change my view that (i) if you disagree with a redirect the appropriate step is to list it as an AfD, not to "blank it" (which is considered vandalism in Wikipedia - see WP:VANDAL). (ii) It is not saying that X is equivalent to Y when you have a redirect - it is saying that for anyone looking for X, Y is the most closely related article on that subject in Wikipedia. Where the term is "ambulance chaser", I don't think there is a better article to send people to - that's my view which is why the redirect was there. If you feel that there is a more relevant article - change the redirect to that article. It is not taken as an endorsement or approval of the term or the terminology. I don't approve of the term "nigger", but I wouldn't dream of deleting (or blanking) the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is a much happier place when we all follow the basic rules. As for my briefs - best leave me to worry about those.... Legis 12:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

First, I deleted the redirect. I did not write the unsigned comment. Second, this is not vandalism - I checked. There is a good reason to delete the redirect because it is redirecting a derogatory term to a profession. And no, "prostitution" is not a profession, so redirecting "whore" to "prostitute" is very very different. At one point, there was a photo of John Edwards under "ambulance chaser" and that was removed for a similar reason. I also explained the reason in the discussion. For both of these reasons, deleting the redirect to "personal injury lawyer" is NOT vandalism. Please see WP:VANDAL. An Afd is not necessary under these circumstances, although it had already been once deleted. Thank you.Jance 21:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

In a (probably vain) attempt to stop the bickering and revert wars on this page, I removed the redirect and replaced it with a stub (most of which is plagiarised from Wikitionary). Now everyone can bicker and have revert wars over the terms of the article instead. Or, if anyone really feels strongly, they can list it for an AfD and solicit outside opinions on the subject. Legis 13:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I like what one person did and redirected to Wikitionary. I saved this version, because it is the most appropriate. That is why the "article" was deleted to begin with. It doens't belong here. A redirect to Wiktionary may not be a bad solution. A secondd article is redundant and contrary to what had been previously decided.Jance 09:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that I find your approach a bit confusing Jance. There was a stub (albeit not a very good one). You make 3 edits to it to try and improve it, and then 6 minutes later remove the whole thing and replace it with a template saying that: there is no article on this yet, but instead look at the entry on Wiktionary. Very confusing. Legis 12:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I should have just stated the obvious rather than try to improve what had already been deleted once for good reason. So that is why I stated what I did, after 3 edits. There is no way to 'improve' an article that has no reason to exist, and was deleted previously for that reason...and thus the Wiktionary entry. A redirect to Wiktionary works. Anything more than that is either redundant, or lawyer bashing, which is not what WIktionary is about. Jance 01:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)