Talk:Anna Diggs Taylor

Okay, so maybe I've not got the best NPOV in writing about this issue, but something NEEDS to be said about the fact that Judge Taylor is essentially the liberal version of Judge Robert Bork. Even the so-called "liberal media" have more or less observed that Judge Taylor is a civil rights activist with a so-called "progressive" bias in interpreting the law. Solascriptura 01:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the list of plaintiffs: AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION; AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION; AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MICHIGAN; COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS; COUNCIL ON AMERICAN ISLAMIC RELATIONS MICHIGAN; GREENPEACE, INC.; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS; JAMES BAMFORD; LARRY DIAMOND; CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS; TARA MCKELVEY; and BARNETT R. RUBIN. According to your most recent edit: "the plaintiffs in the case are Muslim and of Arab descent." Please stop copying the garbage non-facts that you pick up in right-wing talk radio into Wikipedia just because Rush told you to. Hey, Mr. Rubin? Ms McKelvey? ACLU? Did you know you're Muslim and of Arab descent? Your entire last paragraph is unverified, does not cite sources, and is utter garbage that I'm removing. If right-wing looneys are saying such things about this notable judge, at least have the common sense and decency to include in your wretched edits the names of the right-wing looneys that are saying it so we can all enjoy a laugh at their expense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.7.6 (talk • contribs)

PAY ATTENTION! This issue of Muslim/Arab plaintiffs is CLEARLY referenced: "Nazih Hassan of Ypsilanti, [pictured, who is clearly of Arab descent with an Arab name] a plaintiff in the NSA spy case who says he frequently places overseas telephone calls." -Detroit News Article referenced by the article.--Solascriptura 12:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Everyone, please try to be civil. I suggest text discussing the political implications of the case, the nature and intentions of the parties etc. belongs into ACLU v. NSA, and not into the judge's biography, as does the accompanying discussion. Indeed, I think the entire text on the case in this article could just as well be replaced by a mere mention that she issued the opinion in this high-profile case - any further discussion would be at ACLU v. NSA. Sandstein 13:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I've paid close attention to Solascriptura's reason for writing "the plaintiffs in the case are Muslim and of Arab descent" because he read an article with a photo of a member of one of the plaintiff organizations. Now I'd like Solascriptura to PAY ATTENTION! Here is an image of Doc, one of the Seven Dwarfs in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Therefore, according to Solascriptira's logic, "the seven dwarfs are doctors."

Political Issues of the NSA Ruling

I'm adressing the section "Political Issues of the NSA Ruling" inserted by Solascriptura. He or she is arguing that the insertion of this paragraph is justified because "the 'right-wing' has indeed criticized Judge Taylor as being a 'left-wing' sympathizer, which is clearly factual".

One can easily guess that this is true, but I fail to see how this requires inserting a lot of text that has no bearing on the assessment of the judge, but deals with the circumstances of the case, which are of no interest in this article. The Detroit News article cited by Solascriptura makes no mention of such criticism. What's more, the second paragraph of the section reads more like a partisan political assessment than a neutral encyclopedia article. At any rate, I submit that all case-specific material should go to ACLU v. NSA, and that only text relating to the judge herself should be mentioned here. Sandstein 15:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

_____________________________

This kind of rhetoric is hardly being "civil", Sandstein. <groan> Does no one have the right to point out the political leanings of the subject of a biography (whether real or simply alleged by their critics)?? Do we NOT note that Adolf Hitler was a brutal anti-Semitic Nazi simply because he was criticized as being such? NPOV demands that any biography not be simply a "puff piece". There are REAL and SERIOUS political issues in play with this decision and attempting to portray them from ALL PERSPECTIVES is true NPOV. Let's not eliminate the facts simply because we might disagree with what others are saying. Judge Taylor's decision is highly critical of the NSA's program and of the Bush administration and as such, she is drawing a lot of POLITICAL heat. This is fact, like it or not. It should be stated, not minimized or glossed over. FURTHERMORE, the Detroit News article absolutely quoted and named a Muslim man of Arab descent as being one of the plaintiffs. I'm just as much as a privacy-rights advocate as the next person, but I'm at least trying to be open with this issue. Let's dig people, not just gloss over this because we might not like what we find ... Solascriptura 16:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. Let's try to address these issues one by one, shall we?

One: I have no interest in or intent of making this biography a fluff piece. I have no objection to a statement of fact that she draws political heat, if that is the case. I very much assume it is the case (insofar as this is possible for a lifetime appointee). But the text you are adding has no sources. Nowhere in the Detroit News article do I find anything like what your text claims, namely that "the appearance of "judge shopping" and "liberal bias" for the purposes of political advantage have been leveled by conservative groups and commentators". This might be worthy of note, if we can find reliable sources for it, but even then it is a statement about the strategy pursued by the plaintiffs in the case, and not about the judge. As such, it might be relevant in the article about the case, but not here.

Two: The text you are adding deals with the supposed Arab descent of the plaintiffs and speculates about the case being of benefit to terrorists. Apart from the NPOV issues, I fail to see how this is relevant in a biography article. Again, it might be relevant in the article about the case, but not here.

PS: I appreciate that you appear to have strong opinions on the subject matter, but please remember this is not a political debating forum - this is an encyclopedia, and we're called upon to assume good faith in our co-collaborators. You'll find it easier to work on Wikipedia if you do not immediately assume that anyone who disagrees with you in editorial matters does so out of political partisanship. (Myself, I'm rather on the fence about the issue, because I know too little about the actual law involved.) Best, Sandstein 17:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)