Talk:Paul Diamond (lawyer)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article. 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 not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.   Religion Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. Paul Diamond (lawyer) is part of WikiProject Atheism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide atheism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. For more information and how you can help click Show → If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details. Quick help: See changes to: Main talk page Article layout Links to Atheism information and Wikipedia:Research resources Writing about religion and Article development Citing sources, Verifing Sources and Original research Assume good faith and be civil Core articles Atheism article New atheism articles To Do List: edit - history - watch - purge Join WikiProject atheism and be bold Show off a userbox with {{userWPA}} or {{userWPA2}} and attract potential members Help with articles. See this month's adopt an article. Help out with the To-do lists Be consistent Use a "standard" layout for atheism related articles (see: atheism layout style, The perfect article, and Featured articles) Add Atheism navigation template on the bottom of all atheism articles; (use {{Atheism}} or see navigation template) Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{Wpa}} or see info box) Add {{Category:atheism}} to the bottom of all atheism related articles, so it shows up on the list of atheism articles Maintenance / Etc Find/cite sources for all positions of an article (see citing sources, and atheism references). Try to expand stubs, however, some "new" articles may be neologisms, as this is common with positions on theories on life and may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process) Watch the list of atheism related articles and add to accordingly (see atheism articles) And always write for an encyclopedia. Article to improve for the month of November Agnosticism Create Notable atheist articles Shorten / merge into others false choice into false dilemma - discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Expand an atheism stub Your immediate attention false choice into false dilemma - discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Clarify references in Atheism, using footnotes.

[edit] Any winning cases

Does anyone know (and have references for) cases that Paul Diamond has actually won? I know there's at least one person (Etherington12) who has noticed this page already, and probably could tell us a few things. It would be preferable to do that than keep cutting out stuff in the page. Wikidea 18:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soapbox ??

I have been looking over the history changes, and it would appear that Wikideais maybe using this article as a soapbox, as they are presenting the case briefs in a negative way, instead of a non-baised way..

For example Wikidea wrote "McClintock v. Department of Constitutional Affairs [2008] IRLR 29, Mr Diamond's client, a magistrate who did not want to sit on cases where gay partners might foster children"

Whereas it was updated to "McClintock v. Department of Constitutional Affairs [2008] IRLR 29, the first sitting Judge to sue the Lord Chancellor over the placement of children in same sex unions." by another user.

Which was they reverted by Wikidea.

I am not sure what is happening, but the wording of Wikidea's text comes across in way that seems to suggest that Wikide ahas some kind of beef with the subject of the article.

The reason I raise this is because Wikipedia articles are supposed to present neutral and non-biased facts, and in my opinion this is not the case here.

Looking again at the history of the article, Wikidea has consistently changed the content of other users, esp. when the other uses reword Wikidea's content to present a more neutral view. This is a prime example of an EditWar[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.82.80.54 (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You tell me one thing that is counterfactual that I had written, and you're welcome to change it. I think that on the contrary, I'm interested in putting information on a public encyclopedia, and unregistered users who do not like impartial, accurate information are insisting on reverting it. As usually happens in these sorts of cases you are duly following up these reversions with a soapbox rant of your own attacking my neutrality, as a diversion from the real issue, which is whether the page is accurate. I think that you won't find much sympathy in this forum for deleting, obscuring and obfuscating valuable information that should be easily accessible to the public. That's what Wikipedia is about. And I can guarantee you that the only beef I have, is in the occasional sandwich I get at lunchtime. Wikidea 17:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikidea, I would like to know what exactly you object to in the aforementioned example that should cause you revert it? The edited statement is purely factual and free of any underlying emotive tones. Far from being a reversion itself, I would suggest that it is worded in a superior, unbiased manner. There is quite a difference between presenting "impartial, accurate information" and seeking to subtly word an article in order to influence the reader's opinion. I note also that you do not seek to defend your neutrality, but then I guess some things are beyond defence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.181.111 (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop being ridiculous. When I wrote that Mr McClintock did not want to sit on cases as a magistrate where he would have to place foster kids in homes with gay couples, this tells you exactly what happens in the case. It is one hundred per cent neutral. Maybe you are uncomfortable with the word "gay" but that does not make it not neutral. I think you should stop wasting time. Wikidea 09:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting citations, conforming language to the Manual of Style, etc.

Wikidea and I have been bumping heads here, both with the best of good intentions. I'm not going to mess with the citations at all (although in their current format they do not conform to our normal standards) for the time being. I do, however, wish to start removing the non-encyclopedic language from the article: the use of honorofics, the gratuitous use of the plaintiffs' and judges' names and other legalistic furbelows and fustian, etc. I'm trying hard to continue to do this in a wholly collegial manner, seeking always for consensus. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)