Yes I forgot to address the amendment to include criticisms issue Based on my reasoning concerning Clintons 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 Ive 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 Its not so much that I dont think ANY cases or legal topics should include sectionsstatements from groupsindividuals unconnected to the legal community Indeed it would be insane to make such a claim given the almostrevolutionary impact of some cases  not just on society but on legal thought See eg 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 Im 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 Id love for Wikipedia to become a hobby