Talk:Flag Protection Act of 2005

Error: This article lists Senator Bennett as a Democrat. Actually, he was always a Republican.
The article should read Bennett R-UT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.216.198 (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

SPONSORSHIP
Hillary Clinton was the only original sponsor of the bill at the time of its introduction with nearly a year until additional sponsors were added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B110:D1AB:4DDC:598E:CE6F:7362 (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a credible source on this? If so let the people who locked the article know. There is so much misinformation going around that it is important to be accurate with the facts.Sy52 (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Obviously there are people who want to see Clinton's involvement here emphasised and de-emphasized according to their own political views. Those views should not be relevant on Wikipedia, so the question is what is the normal Wikipedia standard for such articles and series. Sponsorship seems significantly over-emphasized in this article:


 * the external link to congress.gov is directly to the sponsor page instead of the summary. I'm tempted to simply remove this, as the summary page is already linked in the text.
 * most Congressional Act pages I click through at random (e.g. starting from ) don't even mention sponsorship. If they do, co-sponsors are only mentioned by number. It's rare to emphasise one co-sponsor over the others as has been done here (multiple mentions of her name, even). It doesn't seem likely that Wikipedia's standard for an Act which was never read in Congress would be to re-construct the entire history of sponsorship. As it stands there were 4 co-sponsors and most likely the number is enough. If there is some Wikipedia standard which suggests naming co-sponsors under a certain amount, they should all be mentioned equally.
 * being part of the Hillary Clinton series. I'm not familiar with the guidelines for series, and I don't really know if it was a significant part of her career, so no strong view on this. It seems unlikely that it was significant given the lack of progress it made.

As it stands, arriving at this article gives the impression of being more about her than the Act.

Sam Brightman (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2016
Flag Protection Act of 2005 article shows on side panel that one of the senators who sponsored this bills is "Shillary", it should read the Senator's proper name "Hillary" 148.75.1.39 (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, thank you for pointing that out. That was vandalism, and has been fixed. The page has recently been semi-protected by an administrator, to help prevent this from happening again. Sunmist (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Conflating S. 1370 with S. 1911
There's a lot of confusion going on in the recent edits as the history of these two similar bills are being conflated. -- Kendrick7talk 21:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2016
Re add this article to the Hillary Clinton series. Hillary Clinton was the original co-sponsor of this bill, and it is a crucial part of her history as a senator. There were not that bills that Senator Clinton co sponsored... so the ones she did choose to put her name on are important. I think people who dislike Hillary are trying to make it look like she doesn't think people who burn flags should go to prison... but the record shows that she does, so people need to know that. Mpatc (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 22:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * https://edspace.american.edu/clocksandclouds/tag/flag-burning/ Its intent was that the criminal aspect of flag burning was that it was done specifically to incite violence. A single person burning a flag in their yard vs somebody at a large disruptive unlawful gathering — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.181.81.233 (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Done Moved this back to where it was before today's vandalism. Compared the page to the Family Entertainment Protection Act, which places the series infobox in the same place, just below the main infobox. Vir4030 (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

"Hillary Clinton series" navbox
has repeatedly reverted removals of the navbox Hillary Clinton series by myself and. I am of the view that the navbox should be removed because the topic is not primarily associated with Clinton and the article is not listed in the navbox. What do others think?  Sandstein  14:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have repeatedly reverted alterations that have removed a part of the article that has been present for almost a year. I responded that a talk page consensus is required to remove it. The navbox is consistent with the Family Entertainment Protection Act page. ThaiWanIII (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not an argument for inclusion. Per WP:NAVBOX, "Navigation templates located in the top-right corner of articles (sometimes called a "sidebar" or "part of a series" template) should be treated with special attention, because they are so prominently displayed to readers. (...) Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional." Because Flag Protection Act of 2005 is not included in Hillary Clinton series, the article should not include the box. That other articles may also erroneously include the box is not an argument to repeat the error.  Sandstein   20:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Remove. (1) It's clutter. The article is so small and Hillary's name is already mentioned enough times that if the reader wants to know more about her, they can click her name one of the many times it appears and find the series template there. (2) Different editors will want to either magnify or play down her involvement in the bill based on their political views, but she was not the only senator who sponsored this bill, and in fact Bob Bennett was a more key figure. By adding the series box and throwing her face on the article, we are violating NPOV and pushing undue weight. TarkusAB  20:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Clutter, POV, absolutely--and, I just reminded the editor of various discretionary sanctions, and am not convinced of their neutrality. See recent edits. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Remove per all of the above. Highly undue. Neutralitytalk 03:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2016
This entry currently states "the bill was intended, according to the New York Times, to take the issue back to the Supreme Court which was more conservative in 2005 than it was in 1989 in order to overturn that earlier decision" and cites http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/07/opinion/senator-clinton-in-pander-mode.html, an opinion piece from the New York Times. The current wording suggests that the intent of this bill is an established fact, but reading the citation clearly shows that this is the opinion of the writer at the time.

Therefore, this paragraph should read:

Although the Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson (1989) that flag-burning was protected by the First Amendment, in the opinion of a New York Times editorial, the bill was intended, to take the issue back to the Supreme Court which they claimed was more conservative in 2005 than it was in 1989 in order to overturn that earlier decision.[4] Since the law was not passed or even considered by the United States Congress, its constitutionality was never challenged in the Supreme Court.[1] Jadowns79 (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: This article is no longer Semi-Protected, so you can now edit the article yourself, but please ensure that any additions are properly sourced, to reliable sources and you maintain a neutral point of view - Arjayay (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)