Talk:Scott Bullock

what makes this lawyer particularly noteworthy
I am not sure what makes this lawyer particularly noteworthy. Please explain. Pharmboy 19:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just alerted to the fact that this wikipedia page might qualify for 'speedy deletion.' While the entry may not reflect this as of yet -- the page is not yet complete with references and links -- Scott Bullock is absolutely qualified and important enough to have his own Wikipedia entry. Mr. Bullock is a nationally prominent litigator, having been lead co-counsel in the landmark Supreme Court case Kelo v. City of New London. Bullock works for the Institute for Justice, which obviously has its own page and was co-founded by another attorney of Scott's stature, Clint Bolick, who has his own Wikipedia page as well. In its current state, the page may not meet Wikipedia's necessarily strict criteria, but that is due to the content not yet added to the page and not the entry's subject.

Jake315 19:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Important enough" or "qualified" are subjective terms, and have no effect here. You really should read WP:notability before contesting to see if the person *really* meets the criteria. They may, but if what you wrote was the most important cases, I would say not.  There are tens of thousands of lawyers in the US (I know, I worked in a firm).  Most argue "first amendment issues" and the like, daily, so that is not notable by itself.  Being lead council on a SCOTUS case would quality (co-council, it would depend)  What matters isn't what WORDS you use, it is if the person fits the notability policy, period.  Extremely well written and researched articles are deleted every day because they were not notable enough.  It may be that you need to instead merge all these lawyers into the main article, and have a subsection for each one.  I would argue that would likey be the solution.  Unless they are truly notable....they are not.  Pharmboy 21:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If "being the lead counsel in a SCOTUS case would qualify" and Scott Bullock was one of two co-counsel and made the oral argument before the Court in Kelo v. City of New London, which was one of the most influential and divisive Supreme Court cases of this decade, I believe you just made the case that he qualifies.

Jake315 00:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And the problem was that you DIDN'T make that case in the article, requiring someone to follow and research to learn this. This is why you must ASSERT NOTABILITY in the article, and not rely on the links.  Whatever it is that makes the person notable, you need to make that perfectly clear in the article, or this happens.  Simply "argued before the US Supreme Court in..." would have sufficed just fine.  Remember, THOUSANDS of articles are added regularly about ordinary people and don't belong, and need to be weeded through.  Thousands.  It is a huge task, and is done 100% by volunteers.  Pharmboy 14:17, 7 August 2007

(UTC)

"He was co-counsel in and argued the landmark case, Kelo v. City of New London, one of the most widely discussed Supreme Court decisions in decades." I guess I'm confused as to what further research you needed to conduct to learn this other than reading the article. If there is a standard wikipedia method to asserting notability other than directly writing it in the article please let me know.

Jake315 15:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Grinding away
There has been systematic trimming of this article from this June 2016 version to this October 2016 version. References have been removed. The lede paragraph has been gutted. What Bullock is known for -- being lead attorney in Kelo v New London has been removed. What's going on? Somebody out to get Bullock? The lede section has been trimmed from this...--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * "Scott G. Bullock is an American civil rights lawyer who focuses on property rights issues such as eminent domain and civil forfeiture which often involve disputes between the government and private persons.[4] He is notable for defending Susette Kelo in the landmark eminent domain 2005 Supreme Court case of Kelo v. City of New London,[5][6][7] and for defending numerous persons who lost property because of asset forfeitures by local and federal authorities.[8] He is a prominent advocate for property rights and economic liberty.[4] He is senior attorney at the nonprofit public interest law firm in Arlington, Virginia entitled the Institute for Justice."

to this:


 * "Scott G. Bullock is an American lawyer who focuses on property rights issues such as eminent domain and civil forfeiture.[4] He is President and General Counsel at the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit public interest law firm.[4] He represented Susette Kelo in Kelo v. City of New London, an eminent domain case decided by the Supreme Court in 2005."

So, sure seems like there's somebody with a political axe to grind has been grinding away. Please try to explain these changes or else this should be reported.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I claim responsibility - I did most of the "grinding down" over the last few months. But please try to do some due diligence and assume good faith before levying such accusations. If you look at the edit history, you'll see I tried to include explanations for all of my trimming. Most of the deletions in the lead section were due to verification problems. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Verification problems? Everything was sourced. Looks like you've got an axe to grind against Bullock.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I repeat, please assume good faith. Are you here to improve the article or to attack your fellow editors? You can see which content I removed based on failed verification by checking the edit history. If you keep insulting me and discussing content in generalities then we're not going to get very far. Tone it down please and edit constructively. You are an experienced and capable editor and we've worked well together in the past, so I know you're capable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * How can you explain grinding this June 2016 version down to this October 2016 version?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Read the edit history. Would you like me to cut and paste it here? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Let's start with your first grind-away. You removed two good references saying they were "unnecessary" based on CITEKILL -- which is not a policy but an essay. On what basis are the references 'unnecessary'?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Our verifiability policy, which only requires one reliable source for an unexceptional content such as the statement that Bullock represented the Kelos. We don't need two secondary sources and one primary source for that fact. What was wrong with that removal? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Where is a policy saying that only one reference is needed? References bolster article content. It is my experience in Wikipedia that when contributors strip out good references such as this one it is usually a prelude for stripping out content, which is what you've been doing here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The very first sentence of WP:V, which says that content is verifiable if anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Tell me, why do we need three sources for such an uncontroversial point? I don't want to "strip out" this content. Why not ask what my intentions are before attacking me? I am feeling personally attacked. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You did strip out content. If you feel personally attacked, that's your problem, but I'm pointing out that you've been gutting this article -- on what basis?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * On the bases identified in my edit summaries. There are actually good reasons for removing content from time to time.
 * Evidently we're not communicating well, since you're asking questions and lodging accusations over and over again and not listening to my responses. This doesn't seem like a collaborative process to me. I'm not going to waste more time being bullied like this. So how would you like to proceed from here? Mediation? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your 'edit summaries' are vague. For example, you stripped down a clear sentence which included a direct explanatory quote into a short spineless sentence here, and then added as your so-called "edit summary" the words 'conform to source' -- well you'd already chopped out the Boston Globe source earlier, so there are fewer sources to conform to. This seems like premeditated paring. What is your agenda here?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My agenda was to conform the content to the sources, which is another way of saying I was trying to enforce our verifiability policy. Was that unclear? Did I miss something in the sources? If so, please identify what I missed, and I apologize for my error. Can we please move beyond the agenda questioning and get to the article improvement phase of our discussion? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)