Talk:Robert Giuffra

Reference to Robert Giuffra's pro-death penalty stance in Edward Lazarus' book "Closed Chambers", p. 269
"Two sentences relating to Giuffra's Supreme Court clerkship were deleted. The book on which the comments were based has been criticized as “rife with factual errors, unreliable research methods, and strong biases in its analysis and tone.”Judge A. Koz)" wrote ScotusWatch.

You'll have to do better than that, such as find an impartial critic of the book. Alex Kozinski is not an impartial critic. If you want to dispute the truthfulness of the particular sentence I inserted about Robert Giuffra, then do that, using evidence, but a blanket criticism of the book is not adequate. Nor is an accusation of "bias." Bias does not indicate inaccuracy.108.244.74.98 (talk) 03:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

2/8/16: WikiDecorumProject: Two sentences referring to Giuffra’s Supreme Court clerkship were deleted. The source was Closed Chambers, by Edward Lazarus, and its assertions are not sufficiently reliable to serve as the basis of statements of fact in a Wikipedia article. The claims on which the Wikipedia statements of fact were based were not sourced or attributed in Closed Chambers. The author breached his duty of confidentiality in a way that could not be responded to by the subjects of his allegations. Finally, critics have accused Closed Chambers of bias, errors and inaccuracies. It has been called “not a book general readers should rely upon for an accurate and dependable contemporary portrait” (David Garrow, New York Times, 1998); been the subject of criticisms “for a variety of inaccuracies and exaggerations” (Richard Painter, Michigan Law Review, 1999); said to have “numerous inaccuracies” (David Stras, Texas Law Review, 2007); and possessed of “a pronounced proclivity for errors” (Garrow, Cornell Law Review, 1999). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWikiDecorumProject (talk • contribs) 14:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)