Talk:Philadelphia Lawyer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Several problems here
I'll concede that this obscure term does exist (I just looked it up and it is in Black's Law Dictionary), but Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so this article should be transwikied out to Wikitionary. No West Coast lawyer uses this term! It must be an East Coast thing.
Another problem is that the description of Portia as a Philadelphia lawyer is original research in violation of Wikipedia:No original research. There is NO WAY Shakespeare himself would have described Portia with this phrase because the city of Philadelphia was founded 70 years after his death! Therefore, the assertion that Portia is the "quintessential Philadelphia lawyer" is unsupported original research which either needs to be cited to a reliable, verifiable source or deleted. So this article should be transwikied as a dicdef or deleted as original research. --Coolcaesar 23:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Coolcaesar, I was shocked that Wikipedia didn't have a definition for this very common term. The word 'Shyster' is a part of Wikipedia, and refers to lawyers who are considered unscrupulous or unethical. FYI, many terms have been concocted since the Bard was on this planet. As for Portia being the very essence of a Philadelphia lawyer, that's too obvious for further discussion. I am a lawyer and this is a very common term within our fraternity, even on the West Coast, where I used to live. Agriffinny 00:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
To quote my former Lawyering Skills instructor: What's your authority for that assertion, counsel? Please familiarize yourself with core Wikipedia policies such as Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If you're a lawyer then you must know the importance of citing authority for your assertions (unless you are licensed in one of those rural states where the bar exam passage rate is well over 90%). For an example of a properly sourced article, see my work at Lawyer. Also, if you really are a lawyer, you should know about how to use Lexis, Westlaw, ProQuest, Infotrac, and other databases to find supporting sources. --Coolcaesar 01:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
(reply to Agriffinny jostled by edit conflicts) The point with the Shakespeare/70 years bit isn't that it's a new word, precisely- rather that if -you- describe portia that way, it's considered Original Research which doesn't go here. As for shyster, that word isn't slang, and also it has information such as other (non OR) examples and etymology. It's a 'real' word, including potential slander/libel charges for describing someone as such. "Philadelphia lawyer" is at best an uncommon and possibly regional euphemism for it. I've retagged it for prod, although if you like i can change it to AfD for more debate. If this does belong anywhere, it belongs on wiktionary.Cantras 01:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Cantras, your distinction between Philadelphia lawyer and shyster is unpersuasive. Calling an attorney a shyster would be insufficient to support a defamation claim. Likewise, calling a lawyer a 'Philadelphia lawyer' could not give rise to a cause of action, either. If Philadelphia lawyer is inappropriate for Wikipedia, the latter is also. Coolcaesar is trying to make a point I suppose, but it remains a mystery. The Portia example is an analogy, not original research. FYI, analogy is a powerful tool in polemics.Agriffinny 02:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
That's precisely why it has to go. Polemics have no place on Wikipedia. Again, please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, particularly the part about how Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you are unable to conform your edits to the neutral, properly sourced (and yes, bland) style as required by Wikipedia policies, you will be blocked by the administrators and all your edits will be automatically reverted on sight. Take a look at User:Ericsaindon2 to see what happens to editors who can not or will not conform to Wikipedia core policies. --Coolcaesar 03:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
