Talk:Anna Diggs Taylor

Untitled
Okay, so maybe I've not got the best NPOV in writing about this issue, but something NEEDS to be said about the fact that Judge Taylor is essentially the liberal version of Judge Robert Bork. Even the so-called "liberal media" have more or less observed that Judge Taylor is a civil rights activist with a so-called "progressive" bias in interpreting the law. Solascriptura 01:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is the list of plaintiffs: AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION; AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION  FOUNDATION; AMERICAN CIVIL  LIBERTIES UNION OF MICHIGAN; COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS; COUNCIL ON AMERICAN ISLAMIC RELATIONS MICHIGAN; GREENPEACE, INC.; NATIONAL  ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS; JAMES BAMFORD; LARRY  DIAMOND; CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS;  TARA MCKELVEY; and BARNETT R. RUBIN.  According to your most recent edit: "the plaintiffs in the case are Muslim and of Arab descent." Please stop copying the garbage non-facts that you pick up in right-wing talk radio into Wikipedia just because Rush told you to. Hey, Mr. Rubin?  Ms McKelvey?  ACLU? Did you know you're Muslim and of Arab descent? Your entire last paragraph is unverified, does not cite sources, and is utter garbage that I'm removing.  If right-wing looneys are saying such things about this notable judge, at least have the common sense and decency to include in your wretched edits the names of the right-wing looneys that are saying it so we can all enjoy a laugh at their expense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.203.7.6 (talk • contribs).


 * PAY ATTENTION! This issue of Muslim/Arab plaintiffs is CLEARLY referenced: "Nazih Hassan of Ypsilanti, [pictured, who is clearly of Arab descent with an Arab name] a plaintiff in the NSA spy case who says he frequently places overseas telephone calls." -Detroit News Article referenced by the article.--Solascriptura 12:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Everyone, please try to be civil. I suggest text discussing the political implications of the case, the nature and intentions of the parties etc. belongs into ACLU v. NSA, and not into the judge's biography, as does the accompanying discussion. Indeed, I think the entire text on the case in this article could just as well be replaced by a mere mention that she issued the opinion in this high-profile case - any further discussion would be at ACLU v. NSA. Sandstein 13:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've paid close attention to Solascriptura's reason for writing "the plaintiffs in the case are Muslim and of Arab descent" because he read an article with a photo of a member of one of the plaintiff organizations. Now I'd like Solascriptura to PAY ATTENTION!  Here is an image of Doc, one of the Seven Dwarfs in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.  Therefore, according to Solascriptira's logic, "the seven dwarfs are doctors."

Political Issues of the NSA Ruling
I'm adressing the section "Political Issues of the NSA Ruling" inserted by Solascriptura. He or she is arguing that the insertion of this paragraph is justified because "the 'right-wing' has indeed criticized Judge Taylor as being a 'left-wing' sympathizer, which is clearly factual".

One can easily guess that this is true, but I fail to see how this requires inserting a lot of text that has no bearing on the assessment of the judge, but deals with the circumstances of the case, which are of no interest in this article. The Detroit News article cited by Solascriptura makes no mention of such criticism. What's more, the second paragraph of the section reads more like a partisan political assessment than a neutral encyclopedia article. At any rate, I submit that all case-specific material should go to ACLU v. NSA, and that only text relating to the judge herself should be mentioned here. Sandstein 15:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

_____________________________

This kind of rhetoric is hardly being "civil", Sandstein. Does no one have the right to point out the political leanings of the subject of a biography (whether real or simply alleged by their critics)?? Do we NOT note that Adolf Hitler was a brutal anti-Semitic Nazi simply because he was criticized as being such? NPOV demands that any biography not be simply a "puff piece". There are REAL and SERIOUS political issues in play with this decision and attempting to portray them from ALL PERSPECTIVES is true NPOV. Let's not eliminate the facts simply because we might disagree with what others are saying. Judge Taylor's decision is highly critical of the NSA's program and of the Bush administration and as such, she is drawing a lot of POLITICAL heat. This is fact, like it or not. It should be stated, not minimized or glossed over. FURTHERMORE, the Detroit News article absolutely quoted and named a Muslim man of Arab descent as being one of the plaintiffs. I'm just as much as a privacy-rights advocate as the next person, but I'm at least trying to be open with this issue. Let's dig people, not just gloss over this because we might not like what we find ... Solascriptura 16:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. Let's try to address these issues one by one, shall we?


 * One: I have no interest in or intent of making this biography a fluff piece. I have no objection to a statement of fact that she draws political heat, if that is the case. I very much assume it is the case (insofar as this is possible for a lifetime appointee). But the text you are adding has no sources. Nowhere in the Detroit News article do I find anything like what your text claims, namely that "the appearance of "judge shopping" and "liberal bias" for the purposes of political advantage have been leveled by conservative groups and commentators". This might be worthy of note, if we can find reliable sources for it, but even then it is a statement about the strategy pursued by the plaintiffs in the case, and not about the judge. As such, it might be relevant in the article about the case, but not here.


 * Two: The text you are adding deals with the supposed Arab descent of the plaintiffs and speculates about the case being of benefit to terrorists. Apart from the NPOV issues, I fail to see how this is relevant in a biography article. Again, it might be relevant in the article about the case, but not here.


 * PS: I appreciate that you appear to have strong opinions on the subject matter, but please remember this is not a political debating forum - this is an encyclopedia, and we're called upon to assume good faith in our co-collaborators. You'll find it easier to work on Wikipedia if you do not immediately assume that anyone who disagrees with you in editorial matters does so out of political partisanship. (Myself, I'm rather on the fence about the issue, because I know too little about the actual law involved.) Best, Sandstein 17:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

How solascriptura is abusing Wikipedia to promote a political cause
1) Using incorrect secondary sources when correct primary sources are available. The list of plaintiffs in the case ACLU v. NSA is contained in court documents (primary source) that are publicly available online. This list does not contain the name Nazih Hassan.  A quick google search, however, reveals that Mr Hassan is a member of one of the plaintiff organizations. A Detroit newspaper (secondary source) incorrectly listed Mr Hassan as a plaintiff instead of being a member of a plaintiff organization. Solascriptura knows (it was pointed out in the talk page above) that Mr Hassan is not a plaintiff, but he continues to insert the factually incorrect information in the Wikipedia article about a living person.

2) Using uncited political statements. Solascriptura continues to insert the politically charged statement "the appearance of "judge shopping" and "liberal bias" for the purposes of political advantage have been leveled by conservative groups and commentators regarding this case" WITHOUT NAMING THE GROUPS AND COMMENTATORS.  Stop it.  Stop turning Wikipedia into your personal soapbox and start thinking about this place as an encylcopedia.  Note the difference between what solascriptura keeps inserting and what ArnoldReinhold inserted: "By contrast, the New York Times concluded in an editorial published August 18 that ..." That is a CITED STATEMENT.

3) Promoting racism using living people's biographies. One of solascritura's inserted statements is particularly charged because it is racist without attributing the racism to anyone. He wrote: "...because the plaintiffs in the case are Muslim and of Arab descent, questions as to the legitemacy of the case have been raised including whether or not terrorists could be attempting to use the US legal system to stifle the War on Terror." WHO is raising these questions other than Solascriptura and should Wikipedia provide a forum for these detestable cretins to publicize this revoltingly racist POV without attributing it to anyone?  Does solascriptura really believe or does he have a verifiable statement from someone else who believes that terrorists targeted the US legal system by using American Muslims via the ACLU?  This is lunatic racist fringe crazy nutjob idiocy and it does not belong here on Anna Diggs Taylor's page, ESPECIALLY unattributed. This wacko and his vile ilk are just like Al Queda in that they promote divisions based on race and religion instead of paying attention to reality.

STOP IT SOLASCRIPTURA. Stop abusing Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia. It's not a place for what you want to do. If people who care about this encyclopedia do not stop this person then others will be able to cite this Wikipedia article as evidence for that this kind of non-reality is correct.

It is the goal of party hacks to promote whatever message further's their cause, regardless of its factual value. It is the goal of an encyclopedia to present verifiably correct information. These goals are often in conflict. Solascriptura's recent abuse of this article and defense of that abuse is a perfect example of this conflict. This POV belongs on the Colbert Report as a joke. It should not be in an encyclopedia. Just stop. 141.154.225.164 19:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, yea, this is a typical post by someone afraid to even login. It amounts and rises to nothing more than an ad homonym personal attack. How petty. This kind of pathetic response speaks for itself. Let’s hide behind an anonymous IP address and then belittle and malign anyone with an observation that disagrees with our own. Grow some backbone people … If you have something to say, then say it. You don’t need to personally attack someone. ALL of us have a political, religious, ethical or personal agenda or opinion or persuasion. It’s human nature. Get over it. It’s an exchange of ideas and understandings. If you don’t like it then fine -- get off the forum. But don’t anonymously and personally damn, malign and impugn someone you’ve never met just because you disagree with their perspectives. THAT is petty.--Solascriptura 15:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Everyone, please remember that this is not a general discussion forum, but an encyclopedia, where we must not let our agendas influence our work. Solascriptura is right in that we also urgently need to be civil to one another. (Don't feed the trolls!) Sandstein 16:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I Have An Idea
Alright, let's sort this out. I think that User:Solascriptura is genuinely trying to point out a view held by many conservatives who have followed this case. So how about this:

Political leanings: Unless cited information can be found to support "judge-shopping," leave it out. However, it would be very appropriate to say that the ruling is heavily favored by Democrats and is considered a victory for them.

Muslim Plaintiffs: This really seems out of place. By all accounts, it appears that only a few of the people involved on the ACLU side were Arab, and to imply otherwise twists the truth and could be considered a form of political propoganda. (not all Arabs are Muslims, and vice versa, to clarify)

Is there anything else in debate? I support Solascriptura's desire to represent how the court ruling has affected both parties in what I think we can all agree is an extremely polarized country (both geographically and politically), but at the end of the day any unsourced or misleading material simply cannot stay. Thanks. Let me know if there are any other issues that need to be resolved.

SwedishConqueror 03:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)SwedishConqueror


 * I agree absolutely. I just also would like to point out, that in addition to needing to be being sourced and NPOV, any actual discussion of the ruling also is just out of place in this article. It belongs into ACLU v. NSA. So, what edits are you actually proposing? I submit that the whole heading of "Political Issues of the NSA Ruling" and quite a lot of "ACLU v. NSA" be deleted for that reason. Sandstein 04:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with one exception. Many conservatives who have followed this case do NOT hold one view that solascriptura expressed.  They do not look at the plaintiffs in this case, identify them as Muslim and of Arab descent, and, because of this, raise questions about the case's legitimacy due to concerns about whether terrorists could be attempting to use the US legal system to stifle the War on Terror.  A very, very small number of conservatives (not many) raise these questions because, if expressed, these questions would be identified as racist, lunatic fringe, and based on a laughably untrue premise. These questions, if expressed, would give a tremendous amount of ammunition to people with the opposite political view by using the potent weapon of humor.  This is a polarized country, but the vast majority of people on both sides still have the ability to laugh at idiots. 141.154.50.167 14:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but your comment does not express itself on the question at issue, which is what amount of discussion of the political implications of the case we need in this article. Please remember that this is not a political discussion forum and we do not, as an encyclopedia, hold a political opinion, so we don't care to whom our content could be politically useful (or not). Sandstein 15:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've now reduced the ACLU v. NSA paragraph to a length that is appropriate for a biography. People interested in the political context of that case now have a prominently-placed link to go to the article dedicated to the case and get further information there. Sandstein 04:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ramifications of being Overturned
The issue of Taylor's NSA ruling being overturned by the appeals court BELONGS in her biography. If you know anything about a judicial career, judges DO NOT LIKE to be overturned on appeal because it speaks to their competency of their ability by their own judicial peers. It becomes part of their career path and part of who they are. Judges who become overturned, especially within high-profile cases, become icons of a sort within whatever group. Let's be honest: It's personal and any judge worth their salt will tell you this. An overturning of their decision makes it look like their "judgment" is off-base. Just my 2¢ on this ... --Solascriptura 16:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it belongs, once and if the ruling is actually overturned. Right now, it has just been suspended from taking effect while the court of appeals is considering whether to overturn or affirm it. I've changed the article to reflect this. Any more detailed procedural discussion should go into ACLU v. NSA. Sandstein 16:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's just been overturned. KeithCu 20:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Bot-created subpage
A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Anna Katherine Johnston Diggs Taylor was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anna Diggs Taylor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060827023506/http://www.judicialwatch.org/5862.shtml to http://www.judicialwatch.org/5862.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)