Talk:State Bar of Michigan

New article 2008
New article on State Bar of Michigan. 7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Stan

William Fletcher connects to the wrong person
The internal link to William Fletcher goes to the cricketeer, not the first Chief Justice. Need an article here.7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Stan

Henry Hart connects to the wrong person
Need an article. 7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Stan

James Campbell connects to the wrong person.
Is a Hawaiian landowner, not the superme court justice. We need another article.7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Stan'

State Bar watchdog
Revetteed the following: "This is a pet project of Frank Lawrence due in part to his faliure to pass the Michigan Bar. His faliure to pass the bar left him believing that the instution is fundamentally corrupt and is bent on proving his case. He will pay for information that is intendend to humilate members of the Michigan Bar. Not an encyclopedic bit of conent. If thre is a need for this, it should be discused.  7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Stan
 * StatebarWatch is not encyclopedic either, it is true there is no need for that but nor is there a need for a false "Controversy".
 * I assume that the existence of a "controversy" is in the eyes of the beholder. I dono't think it's necessarily out job to decide the merits of the claim, but it is our job to report its existence.  FWIW, I would agree that the State Bar Watch is not much of a source for 'the truth of the matter asserted,' but it is proof that the statements were made.  17:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Stan

I would think the recent agreement that Mike Cox made between the State and the Tribes in Michigan is far more controversial, I think there is real controversy out there and it dosen't involve a guy with a agenda ...I guess its like stating Microsoft is a bad company and then linking it to the apple ad on youtube, this guy cites his own case as the reason for the exixtance of this watchdog group, its not controversal because nobodys heard of this guy.


 * And you could put that in if you have a source and its notable enough.
 * I don't have an agenda, and was simply trying ot deal with additions that were made to this article (quite some time ago, I might add). I am definitely not 'pushing a position.'  And I won't undo your edis for now WP;3RR.  I prefer that we colme to a reasoned conclusion.
 * BTW, plesae sign y our posts using four tildes. Happy editing.    7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Stan

Actually, I agree.24.10.255.151 (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Just adding my opinion ... I'm not an expert on the subject by any stretch ... but I glanced through it, and here are my thoughts. Take 'em or leave 'em. In the form it was written, the reference to StateBarWatch did not identify a specific criticism and only seemed to be an advertisement for the organization, so I see no problem with it being removed. If sources for specific criticisms can be found (preferably ones that are corroborated by third-party news organizations of other reliable sources, and ideally ones which have led to investigations) then those would seem to be a better fit as a criticism, and a mention of the person or organization that brought up the specific criticism would be appropriate. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)