Talk:Thomas Rex Lee

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Thomas Rex Lee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081010033411/http://www.law2.byu.edu:80/news/item.php?num=97 to http://www.law2.byu.edu/news/item.php?num=97
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100210135749/http://www.law.byu.edu:80/Law_School/Faculty_Profile?130 to http://www.law.byu.edu/Law_School/Faculty_Profile?130
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100624221929/http://www.law2.byu.edu/news/item.php?num=793 to http://www.law2.byu.edu/news/item.php?num=793

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Problems with themes section
Re this edit of mine, I want to explain here since this deserves some explanation:

He is notorious flip flopper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.30.181.132 (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The second and third paragraphs are still uncited, and I've removed them. Please do not add or restore unreferenced material, even if you plan to come back later and add references. See also Verifiability (WP:BURDEN): "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution...Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."


 * As to the lengthy first paragraph, I've removed that too. This paragraph cites solely to Lee's original work (his judicial opinions, which are primary sources) in order to advance a novel argument about "three themes" in Lee's work. There are a cluster of related problems with this. The content is a classic violation of our rules on original research, and particularly the synthesis of previously published material to argue a new point. Note that my concern is not with the quality of the essay, but with the fact that it is an essay; it reads like a student's term paper. Wikipedia is not a publisher or original thought. If you'd like this published, then perhaps try a law journal or other legal publication. Then Wikipedia could perhaps cite it as a reliable secondary source, attributing it where necessary.  For example, if we were to write "John Doe, writing in the Utah Law Review, identifies three themes in Lee's work... [citation to law review]" that would be fine.  However, "There are three themes in Lee's work [cites to primary sources]" is not.


 * Separately, the text in this first paragraph violates our policy on a neutral point of view in writing, because it states as fact, in Wikipedia's own voice, what are highly contested assertions in law. See WP:WIKIVOICE ("Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts"), WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV ("statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution"). For example, referring to "activist doctrines that have been accepted orthodoxy" and "activist doctrines of liberal orthodoxy" is exactly the kind of thing that cannot be presented as unquestioned fact. Similarly, the phrase "Lee has identified theoretical deficiencies in some of the Court's decisions" presupposes that there are theoretical deficiencies. This kind of language isn't appropriate; even if cited, it must be hedged appropriately (e.g., "Lee has criticized what he believes to be activist doctrines....") --Neutralitytalk 15:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * As someone who's added maintenance templates and requested further editing of the article, I also have questions as to whether the cases listed during Judge Lee's career as an attorney have been proven notable, or, more to the point, whether his involvement has received substantial coverage from reliable sources. A lot of this still looks like a very nice CV, with a possible COI concern. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)