Yes, I forgot to address the amendment to include criticisms issue. Based on my reasoning concerning Clinton's statement, the criticisms are equally irrelevant and should not be included (in my humble opinion). To Mdiamante - I realize this is not Lexis. However, I think we can set a good precedent in the legal articles by refraining as much as possible from POV editing. I've always criticized Wikipedia based on its lack of reliability and blatant bias, but when I came across this article I thought "Wow, maybe this is a topic I can help contribute to without all of the POV nonsense." Then, of course, I saw the Dred Scott section and thought "shit." It's not so much that I don't think ANY cases or legal topics should include sections/statements from groups/individuals unconnected to the legal community. Indeed, it would be insane to make such a claim, given the almost-revolutionary impact of some cases - not just on society, but on legal thought. See, e.g., Roe (which, by the way, I was pleasantly surprised with). Rather, I just think some are not, and this happens to be one of them. Perhaps my opinion would be different if old Bill had supported his statement with some sort of reasoning, but he clearly did not. It was just a conclusory assertion; something my mother might say in a fit of anger. But alas, this is not a battle I'm going to wage. I will continue browsing legal articles when I get some time and decide if the POV is decidedly less prevalent than in other areas. If so, I'd love for Wikipedia to become a hobby.65.247.226.99