Talk:Rose Bird

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.

This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This really should be marked as a partisan article. Terms like "egregious" do not belong in neutral articles, which is what the Wikipedia ought to be!

"Egregious" is neutral in that it is being used in this article to mean "outstanding" or "prominent." Yes, it can also mean "infamous," but I don't think that's the proper meaning when it's read in context. --Coolcaesar 06:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

That may have been the author's intent, but "egregious" is widely interpreted to mean "conspicuously bad." As soon as I hit the word "egregious," I shrugged off the entire article as biased, even though I was sympathetic to Rose Bird. Why not just say "outstanding" or "prominent," then? Good authors avoid ambiguous words when better words are available.

Fine, then, I'll change it to prominent. --Coolcaesar 06:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a political conservative, by any stretch of the imagination, but the whole thing about the overturning over Royal Globe reads to me as being put in there only to add a pro-liberal bias to the article. It might go properly in an article about Lucas or Mosk, but not Bird. Mwelch 03:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with the foregoing comments. This article has a quite clear pro-liberal bias. And for the benefit of context, I'm a lawyer at a California based firm that is well-known as one of the most liberal and politically active in the nation.

Is it Morrison & Foerster LLP? That's the only big firm in California that fits that description. --Coolcaesar 01:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, no it's not. Think about a firm that has had or currently has as partners senior level cabinet members or other high level officials for democrat administrations (big hints - e.g., a secretary of state, chief of staff for a VP, a solicitor general). Also, anyone know if the bias/opinion problems with the article are going to be addressed - e.g., I cannot comprehend why it's necessary to include part of a dissenting opinion that was not even written by Bird (except as part of viewpoint expression). Heck, and this an issue that goes more to the completeness of the article, it doesn't even say what her educational credentials were. Just trying to make that point that, if you're going to have an article about an individual, stick to facts relevant to the individual instead of treading into political opinion and viewpoints.

[edit] Referenced in the Orange County Register

Brown not cut out for top cop Orange County Register - June 4 By Steven Greenhut

In terms of law enforcement, his main "accomplishment" was appointing Rose Bird to the California Supreme Court, where she used her power to overturn every death penalty conviction ­ 61, according to Wikipedia ­ that came before her.

If anyone wants to add the regular template for such a reference please do so. I've never done it before :/

[edit] "Recluse"

This is a POV term and doesn't really belong in an NPOV encyclopedia. Additionally, it is apparently contradicted by the next line. Acting is hardly a profession for the reclusive. Rlquall 18:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It was a gradual thing, not all at once, so that's why she was doing stuff in 1987 at first. By 1994 she was definitely a recluse (especially as her cancer kept coming back and no one would hire her). I will have to go look for some sources on this the next time I am in the public library. But I am really busy this week and next, so this will take a while. --Coolcaesar 19:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture?

Is there a picture of her in the public domain or otherwise available for use here? 66.234.222.96 (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)