Talk:Connick v. Thompson

Neutrality
There is a large paragraph of references to opposition to the opinion, but nothing from the other point of view. I personally strongly oppose this decision, but still, the article at this point is slanted to one point of view. As such, I have labeled it appropriately. Safiel (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I fairly summarized all of the articles that I could find on the subject. I did not find a single positive comment about the decision in any publication, even a weblog. Predictably, conservative weblogs ignored the decision. I invite you to find a counter-example. Rather than simply tagging the article and walking away, please look at the media coverage of the decision and attempt to improve my wording. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not being overly critical of your efforts and as I said before, I strongly oppose the Opinion of the Court. I agree there is not much out there in support of the opinion, so I am going to try to summarize reasoning from the Opinion of the Court and the Scalia concurring opinion in order to provide some balance. Safiel (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was depending on secondary sources, which I think is appropriate. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 13:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you feel that I summarized the media coverage of the decision fairly, I think that you should rmove the template. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Naming The Plaintiff
The plaintiff himself (Johnathan Thompson) is never named here and I feel his story--which would contribute to the article--is lost to history here. Is there a place to give him a name within the article? His own section? Is the man himself notable enough for his own article to link out? Birkwad (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply, Hi Birkwad, I believe he is notable. He is now an activist, and also is the founder of two organizations. One of them is Resurrection After Exoneration. Karl Twist (talk) 08:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)