User talk:Lesley Fairbairn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, Lesley Fairbairn! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Wikisigbutton.png or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! LittleOldMe 10:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Contents

[edit] Hullabaloo

  • Unfortunately the article did not contain any assertion of notability, which means it was speedily deleted. It seems you may also have a conflict of intrest. Community choirs are not generally included in Wikipedia - mine is Reading Festival Chorus, we went to Dusseldorf last year to perform Beethoven's Missa Solemnis, we are still not notable per the Wikipedia definition. Guy (Help!) 15:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • How do you explain the inclusion of the London Gay Men's Chorus in Wikipedia then, who do very similar work to Hullabaloo, with a similar sized choir, in similarly notable venues and in collaboration with similarly notable productions/festivals/artists? In fact, Hullabaloo took part in a co-production with them at the Theatre Royal, Brighton, (a venue of international repute) way back in 1992. Since then, Hullabaloo has grown in stature and reputation. --Lesley Fairbairn 23:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, I don't quite understand the "conflict of interest" you refer to. Would you mind expanding that a little for me? Many thanks. --Lesley Fairbairn 00:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Earth Jurisprudence

I saw your article in the AfD debate and would be willing to help improve it to pass the AfD. I am not a lawyer but may be able to assist with writing style and such. The key for this kind of article is that it have verifiable, independent sources and criticism. Some things that might be helpful would be...

  • Names of respected legal scholars who have written about the topic, especially if they are independent of the actual board, promoters, etc.
  • Non-trivial mention in legal publications, including university law reviews, etc.
  • Classes being taught in law schools that include the subject.

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or research, often this is as much a matter of writing style as anything else. Unfamiliar terms, especially those that sound like neologisms are difficult to work with, it is up to the creator of the article to give them context. I am going to create a page, User talk:Killing sparrows/Earth jurisprudence, where we can work on a draft that will be accepted. Feel free to communicate with me or make comments there, especially if you can point me to further info on the topic. I do not have access to Lexis/Nexis or any resources outside the web so stuff like that would have to be posted to the page I create.

Article for Deletion debates generally last at least 5 days and there is a backlog at present so we really have no time pressure. Even if deleted as it stands, a better article can always be created at a later date. --killing sparrows 16:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

AS a first step, perhaps you could read the article Environmental law and tell me briefly how Earth jurisprudence differs. --killing sparrows 17:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your pointers. We can easily provide all the evidence you suggest (names of respected legal scholars who have written about the topic, non-trivial mention in legal publications, classes being taught in law schools. (Please also see the recent additions to the History, with the many names of significant and respected independent academics, politicians and leading thinkers involved in the development of Earth jurisprudence since 2001.) I will consult with my colleagues and get back to you with further specific evidence.

Merging with the Environmental law article is not an option as the concept of Earth jurisprudence is not a branch of law but a radically new and separate branch of thinking which requires a reform in the present legal system. In the meantime, while I gather evidence, I refer you to two recent leading newspaper articles - Stephen Harding, 'Earthly rights', The Guardian newspaper, London, April 2007, and Simon Boyle, 'On thin ice', The Guardian newspaper, London, November 2006. --Lesley Fairbairn 00:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Great! I had already found the Guardian article through my own research into this. I'll look over the other refs and we'll go from there. Its better to discuss this here tha on the AfD page as that is strictly about deletion and only peripherally about improving the article. Remember that even if the article is deleted it can be recreated at any time. If I had to guess I would say the result will be 'No consensus, therefore Keep.' Which lets it stand but does not mean it should not be improved. Stay in touch! --killing sparrows 01:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


Cheers, I will. I appreciate your support as it has been my responsibility to place this article on behalf of some leading lawyers practicing in this field who need this Wikipedia article to refer to in their publications. Therefore the threat of deletion has worried me a lot. Following your suggestions, further improvements are in the pipeline. --Lesley Fairbairn 01:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Just a note of caution here. Someone needing this article to refer to is NOT a good reason for this article. This article should not be used to give credibility to EJ, rather, publications should be used to give credibility to this article. I would not want to see some sort of tail-chasing exercise where WP is a source for something that then becomes a source for this article. Each must stand on it's own merits. WP is not a publisher of new thought or original research. I hope you have looked over the pages, WP:NOT, what WP is not, WP:NOTE, what constitutes notability, WP:OR, about original research and especially WP:SYN, about the synthesis of ideas to make an article which is a big no-no. If anyone (leading lawyers or not) has concerns that you have not done a good job if this article is deleted, refer them to me. The quality of your writing and the effort you have put forth are not being questioned here by anyone. This is a matter of what is and is not appropriate for Wikipedia! If it's not, it's not, no matter who writes it. I told someone once that it didn't matter if they had truly found the solution to the Unified Field problem in physics, until it was peer-reviewed and reported in reputable journals I would vote to delete it.
Having said that I'll proceed with some ideas for an intro and post them on the project page we have. References that specifically mention 'Earth jurisprudence' and any university classes that use that term are the most valuable. Someone saying that this or that book is about EJ, or helped lay the foundation, or whatever, that don't specifically use the term will have much less value. WP:ATT and WP:RS are especially good guides.
Any new thing has a hard time gaining acceptance here, with good reason. You might want to look at this where I wrote about this in some detail regarding a more trivial matter, but it covers almost all the problems we have here, and this where I talk about similar issues, including getting slapped down in an AfD debate!

By the way, most of the pages I asked you to read are pretty short and to the point and reading them may save you work and frustration so take the time if you can.

--killing sparrows 03:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


I have been misunderstood: The “need” I referred to for an EJ Wikipedia article is not to lend credence to anyone’s publications – far from it, given their calibre. A Wikipedia article on EJ would not be used as a source but would be a useful and appropriate point of encyclopedic reference for the growing international network of lawyers, activists, academics and concerned others, who are working to develop and implement Earth jurisprudence and community rights.
Nor is the concept “original thought”. People interested in the ideas are and have been promoting the very practical implementation of governance based on Earth Jurisprudence, and exchanging the different aspects of EJ for about the last 5 years (for example the Centre for Earth Jurisprudence which is co-sponsored by Barry and St. Thomas Universities, Florida; the annual international Earth Jurisprudence conferences organised by the The UK Environmental Law Association (UKELA) and the The Environmental Law Foundation (ELF);and the monthly forums in the UK, Kenya and Ethiopia).
I will shortly post further evidence of the wealth of independent coverage and verifiability (in addition to the secondary sources already cited in the Earth jurisprudence article). And I thank you for the links to the guidance pages which I have now read and will be helpful.
--Lesley Fairbairn 10:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparative edit of first section

Hi Lesley,

I did a copyedit of the first 4 paragraphs, trying for a more concise and encyclopedic style. Let me know if I have retained the meaning and not lost any important points. It is important to write for the average reader, not the expert or even, unfortunatly, the intelligent. I don't mean to say we should 'dumb it down' but we are writing to the average reader and then supplying sources and bibliography for those wanting a deeper view.

Good writing seeks to express the point with as few words as possible and to use shorter, direct sentences. 'However','although','therefore' and such are not good ways to start a sentence in this type of writing so I've gotten rid of them. Parenthetical statements, terms set off with 'i.e.', and more than 2 commas in a sentence (excepting serial commas in lists of examples) are to be avoided, two of which rules I have violated in this sentence!

Please don't be offended that I have thrown many of your babies off the end of the pier! That's what editing for style is all about. Do look that I have retained the meaning and see if there are other ways to make the writing direct and concise. Perhaps leave your comments at the end of each pair of paragraphs.

On another note I have done some research on the criticism of Cullinan's theory of Earth jurisprudence in Wild Law as outlined by Linda M Warren. Are you familiar with this work and can you point me to any other critiques of EJ? We will want to have a section on criticism of EJ and references/bibliography on that also.

Yours, --killing sparrows 05:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


That was a tasty cookie, and I thank you!
Am away from home and don't have access now to other criticisms. Well done for finding Prof Warren's, and yes, I heard her give that response at the EJ conference held at the University of Brighton in November 2005.
Thank you for all your work. Due to pressures of my paid work it will take me a few days to respond in full. But the way forward is much clearer now.
--Lesley Fairbairn 09:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem, I am going to be out of town Thursday thru Sunday also. I'd say the article will likely pass the Afd anyway, primarily because you've done a great job improving the article. We'll look at things next week. --killing sparrows 17:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Wild Law (book)

An editor has nominated Wild Law (book), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wild Law (book) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 19:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have now added to the article, names of respected scholars and thinkers who have written about the topic, non-trivial mention in legal publications, and conferences based on the actual book itself. --Lesley Fairbairn 12:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your request for comments on why your article was deemed "spammy" and "too promotional in nature": The section titled "Critical responses" was a big problem, in that it reads like those blurbs you see printed on the inside leaf of the book's dust jacket. The fact that most have no citations makes matters worse. Plus, there's just an overall tone to the article that gives them impression that it is a publisher's press release for the book, and not a dispassionate encyclopedia article about it. Realkyhick 17:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Lesley, I'll be glad to take a look at Wild Law (book), I wouldn't worry too much about the AfD, I think it will be kept. I do agree with the 'promotional feel,' comments but that can be tweaked. We should take a look at other 'book' articles and use that as a guide. It is difficult to write objectively about things you feel passionately about, but no harm in that.
As far as the tags on EJ, which I assume you've noticed, again, no big deal, we're working on it. I really don't know where the complaint re: sources is coming from, I will ask the person who posted the tags to explain what s/he sees as lacking. I do think a criticism section is needed to balance it though, any luck on finding additional sources for that?

--killing sparrows 20:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Lesley, I've reduced the article to stub - I would suggest you have a look at the verifiability policy. My advice would be not to use external links in the main body of the article, not to create multiple reference sectons and not to include external links in your reference sections. Addhoc 17:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: changes to EJ

Hi Lesley,

I'm going to sub in the changes I made to the first four paragraphs if you have no objections. I see the 'beings' edit you made and agree. There are still a few words I might change but nothing substantive, just style and readability stuff.

Have you found any other critiques of EJ other than the one I referred to in my previous message, I've started a 'Criticism' section for the article but have only the source mentioned.

Congrats on passing the Afd! Feel free to eat another cookie, the lemon iced ones are particularly tasty! --killing sparrows 04:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for subbing in the changes. Good to see the article cleaned up. I'm waiting to hear back from my colleague who has softcopies of the papers presented at the first conference (including Prof Warren’s) which will provide us with a volume of critiques for you to look at. I’ll dig out others too.
P.S. Time-out with one of those lemon-iced cookies is just what the doctor ordered. How about you? Can you be tempted by one of those with a cherry on the top?
--Lesley Fairbairn 09:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Lesley, I am familiar with Earth Jurisprudence. I was at the Conference at St.Thomas last April and know some of the people named in your article. I am new to Wiki. and don't know all the ins and outs. As I read about neologisms, I am concerned that it is being used as a knife to cut down what is less understood. But more on that concern another time. I read some of the comments in the discussion to delete and found some without merit and I am glad that the article remains. I do not agree with its listing as a Stub. At this time, I do not have much time to edit what you have written. It does not read as too personal to me. I would, however, footnote more of the body that seems to be taken from Berry and others (Swimme?) and consider expanding the article's explication of terms. There is a course listed at Barry U. for Earth Jurisprudence. The syllabus may be online. The Center for Earth Jurisprudence website has a lot of resources listed and some student papers. http://www.earthjuris.org/publications/studentpapers.htm

There is some validity to the term in that CEJ is jointly recognized by two law schools. Keep working and when I understand the Wiki process more and have more time I will join in on the editing process. Peace --LucenThoughts 04:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adoption

Hi, you're currently in the category for users requesting adoption under WP:ADOPT. Can I adopt you? Walton Vivat Regina! 17:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir, thank you for your kind offer. My area of interest is focused at the moment on aspects of environmental law. May I ask what your areas of interest/expertise are and what articles you are most proud of contributing to? Many thanks,
--Lesley Fairbairn 13:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I mainly edit articles on political science and historical topics. Probably my best article contribution is Politics, which I substantially rewrote, and is now listed as a GA. Aside from article-writing, I'm active in many other areas of Wikipedia: I'm a member of WP:AMA and WP:ASSIST and I participate in a lot of policy discussions. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
As of yesterday (April 20) I'm also an administrator. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adoption

If you're interested checkout my user page and my talk page to see if you'd like to be adopted.Sam ov the blue sand 00:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adoption

Hi, Lesley Fairbairn. I noticed you were offering adoption, so I'd like to offer you my services. If you accept, please respond on my talk page. Thanks, - G1ggy Talk/Contribs 02:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:1903998352.02. SS500 SCLZZZZZZZ .jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1903998352.02. SS500 SCLZZZZZZZ .jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Sussex county flag.JPG

Image:Sussex county flag.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)