Talk:Richard Allen Griffin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

I see that Bkonrad has made some changes to this page. Great work expanding it and including links that I had not yet gotten around to. I would suggest that the ideological stuff is not important enough to be part of the main page, though the link at the bottom is certainly helpful. If it must remain on the main page, let's call a spade a spade. Alliance for Justice is a deeply liberal group with a history of opposition to nearly every single Bush nominee. Their opinion is not one of objectivity and expertise. --Smashingworth 18:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I really didn't think that "deeply conservative jurist" would be interpreted as anything inherently negative -- it can be interpreted as either good or bad depending on your own position. It wouldn't be at all surprising if he was actually proud of being labeled as such by a group like AfJ. older ≠ wiser 19:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It is certainly true that whether you are "conservative" is good or bad depending basically on whether or not you are "conservative." But anyone who knows the AFJ knows they think "deeply conservative jurists" are "inherently negative". I don't approve of using their statements as warning labels. However, your point is fairly made. In any case, I am not strongly opposed to the ideological comment, and the expansions are otherwise a welcome improvement.--Smashingworth 20:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)