Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Pledge of Allegiance


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator  Ron h jones (Talk) 20:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of the Pledge of Allegiance

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Request for AfD at OTRS by User:Arodb - Rationale - This is illustrative of the inherent difficulties of a very specialized procedure, use of legal precedent to describe an argument. At the least it requires an understanding of the hierarchy of courts, U.S. Supreme Court, over Federal appeals, over District. This is parallel to the similar State courts that even have different terminology IE, in New York State, the lowest court is called Supreme Court. So, this is complicated, even for the average lawyer.

And the appropriateness of citing a given precedent to advance an argument is far from self evident, as shown by split decisions by Jurists who are all steeped in professional skills and specific knowledge of the subject being contested. I happen to oppose the ritual of the Pledge, and am preparing a long argument advancing this thesis which led me to the article in question. Ironically, the case against Wikipedia trying to create this article as a group process is not unlike the words of Justice Robert Jackson on pp 333 of McCollum v. Board of Education - 333 U.S. 203 (1948):

It is idle to pretend that this task is one for which we can find in the Constitution one word to help us as judges to decide where the secular ends and the sectarian begins in education. Nor can we find guidance in any other legal source. It is a matter on which we can find no law but our own prepossessions. If, with no surer legal guidance, we are to take up and decide every variation of this controversy, raised by persons not subject to penalty or tax but who are dissatisfied with the way schools are dealing with the problem, we are likely to have much business of the sort. And, more importantly, we are likely to make the legal "wall of separation between church and state" as winding as the famous serpentine wall designed by Mr. Jefferson for the University he founded. Added for Arodb(talk) 01:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The nominator or Arodb clearly has no rationale for deleting the article rather than his own personal beliefs about the Pledge of Allegiance, I see no reason why this article should be deleted.  Jay Jay Talk to me 01:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My personal values are not at issue. If anything multiple perspectives are included in the article, but they are do not follow even the headings  IE: a decision of a lower court, along with a Supreme Court case decided in 1948 was included under the category of "1957 cases"  This could be corrected, but the inherent complexity of citation of precedent is not being followed as this is a specialized skill, one that is not even undertaken by ordinary lawyers. There are specialists in formulating briefs to appeals courts, including the Supreme Court that require extensive knowledge in both the process of such argumentation and the subject matter. The references to the cases give the appearance of authority, but they simply do not cohere, for instance one case in the article dealt with allowing time for religious study in school, which is only tangentially related to the Pledge, and the connection with the topic issue is not addressed. I do not have the skills to make this coherent if I tried, and I have some familiarity with the relevant legal issues. Arodb (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * All of these issues don't change anything, if you think something should be fixed then fix it! Per WP:IGNOREALLRULES! You still haven't given me a reason or policy why this should be deleted other then your long complex and confusing statements.  Jay Jay Talk to me 02:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I do the best that I can. Sorry if I didn't make my case clearly. Look at the history of dissension and deletions, and the IGNOREALLRULES clearly states its an individual's opinion, not dogma.  This site is a mess because the level of professional skill required to weave together disparate court decisions is not available to write this.  And, strange the No Rules thing referenced Larry Sanger as a source.  Look him up. He's the man who split with Wales because he believed all articles should have a professional in the field to have final word.  I spoke to him about it and ultimately disagreed.  Now, I see his point, at least for certain arcane subjects, like this one happens to be.  I've said about all I can.  As the article now stands, it is one of the most incoherent I've seen on Wikipedia.  At the very least let me suggest that this article be flagged as needing some professional assistance from those conversant in appellate procedure in this area. But these guys are used to making a grand an hour, and I'm not sure they are interested in seeing this alternate venue succeed. Arodb (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nomination is fatally flawed in that it fails to cite a legitimate reason for deletion. The nominator has confused this article with a legal brief and opposes based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Next, he follows with the argument "It's too complicated to be an article." Really? If we can manage articles on Quantum Mechanics we should be able to pull off a simple legal criticism sub-article. If you don't like the way it reads, please collaborate with other editors to fix it. Majoreditor (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep legal and philsophical theories underpinning a political movement citing notable and reliable sources is encylopedic. If an editor thinks the style of writing needs work that can be discussed, deleting an article over style is not a wikipedia practice. Rather than deletion wikipeida has a tag that can be placed on pages to address the nominator's concern: Template:Expert-subject I believe posting that on the page and laying out your concerns in full on the discussion page may allieviate the nominator's concerns. The nominator is not saying the information is worthless, unreliable, biased, or not notable - merely that it would be better presented by an expert - it would seem the tag would notify readers of this and I can't see why anyone would oppose the addition of such a tag.--Wowaconia (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep As the individual who suggested that this be removed, I now appreciate the value of the material that has been presented, and that there are solutions short of deletion, which is the destruction of so many editors efforts. I still maintain that the formal presentation of precedent is lacking the traditions that control this modality of technical argument. This is why briefs citing precedent in this area often run upwards to a hundred pages, with connections made between the various decisions. A tag requesting such legal specialists assistance would be appropriate, but it would take someone who could abbreviate the formal legal arguments. Such a person would have to have some sort of assurance that this major effort would not be easily removed. A suggestion for starters would be to divide the cases between pre and post "under God" and then reference the article on Legal Precedent. Given the complexity and contentiousness of this subject it is inherently a difficult one. Is there a way to take an entire article like this, and work on it, and then submit it as a provisional substitute that may be more coherent. Arodb (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.