Talk:Stephen Halbrook

Harcourt material
Is there any evidence that the opinion of one lawyer/professor (absent a pattern of similar RS criticism) is an appropriate addition to a BLP? Should the criticism from Harcourt be included at all? I am doubtful. It seems WP:UNDUE Capitalismojo (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have the same reservations. Could be construed as libel particularly where the source was coming from.....looking at white supremacists.  We might want to consider removing. The criticism came in one paper in 2002-4 where Halbrook is lumped with white supremacists and interestingly the JPFO.  I'd like to get consensus here before we remove.  -Justanonymous (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed the content given that this is a BLP. Putting the halbrook criticism here for discussion:

Issues:
 * 1) Undue- this appears to be a minority held viewpoint, there aren't a lot of WP RS that claim this that I could find.  Maybe someon else can
 * 2) Libel - the article that mentions this lumps Halbrook with white supremacists....I think that could be libelous.professor Halbrook has given testimony in Supreme Court appointments and won 3 cases against the Supreme Court.  It could be seen as a smear campaign to lump him with white supremacists.

Since this is a BLP, let's be extra careful as the policy requires. Being RS is not enough.-Justanonymous (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The issue is that it helps readers to understand how Halbrook's work has been received by the legal community. Since Harcourt's article is the only really good academic piece about Halbrook's work, keeping the Harcourt material -- in its previous non-butchered state -- is helpful to the reader. The source is reliable and academic. It discuses Halbrook's academic work in a professional manner. It does not assassinate his character, it does not attack him personally, it makes no accusations at all about Halbrook. It simply responds to his academic work. This is what academics do. Please return the content to the article as it will help readers gain an understanding of the academic reception of Halbrook's work. &mdash; goethean 00:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That is incorrect. He is covered in detail in several of the encyclopedia type gun control sources. Guns in american society I know has an extensive article, as well as several others. Beyond that, a one line statement from a single paper by a single author that is about halbrooks argument and not halbrook - tells us about that one authors opinion, not a general understanding of his academic reputation.  Gaijin42 (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

A few of the sources covering halbrook personally.
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=QeGJH48PT0kC&pg=PT532&dq=stephen+halbrook&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OALKUvy6H4bJ2wX62YHoCw&ved=0CGEQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=stephen%20halbrook&f=false
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=DhRzjUeZK4oC&pg=PA249&dq=stephen+halbrook&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SQLKUvDmKuaw2QX7noCQAQ&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=stephen%20halbrook&f=false
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=Pay2y0nvVDEC&pg=PA265&dq=stephen+halbrook&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SQLKUvDmKuaw2QX7noCQAQ&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=stephen%20halbrook&f=false
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=iYMYAAAAIAAJ&q=stephen+halbrook&dq=stephen+halbrook&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YQLKUpiTD4jt2wXkl4CwAQ&ved=0CF0Q6AEwCDgU

Gaijin42 (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=hVMqAQAAMAAJ&q=stephen+halbrook&dq=stephen+halbrook&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lgPKUp38EIfP2QWxmYH4Cw&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCDge