Talk:James Ware (judge)

message: This needs attention, for POV and updates. Charles Matthews 08:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with it? Equinox137 09:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: It should be fair commentary to note facts in the articles already referenced concerning the REASON Judge Ware told the fabricated story to hundreds of audiences over a twenty-year period after law school.  The reason cited in all of these articles is that this fabricated story is what motivated him to pursue a law career.  Therefore, it is also fair commentary to question whether this same fabrication that he told for 20 years after law school was part of Judge Ware's personal statement in his application to Stanford Law School, as anyone who has ever applied to law school knows that what motivates you to pursue a law career is the CENTRAL QUESTION in one's personal statement.  The lack of a more thorough investigation into whether Judge Ware told the same fabrication in his personal statement to law school is a CRITICAL ITEM that should be part of the commentary, as it is more likely than not that he did tell the same fabricated story, which would make his law degree fraudulent subjecting him to immediate disbarment.  Obviously, those who would know that this fabrication was on his personal statement would have complete power over this judge's career, making him incapable of delivering justice in particular cases if those with power over him want a different result.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.0.212 (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: At best, that qualifies as original research, which runs afoul of wikipedia's rules. Find a reliable source, or you have no case. Billyboy01 (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Beyond that, it's simply speculation that this makes his degree "fraudulent". Possibly libelous too, but I'm no expert. Hairhorn (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fraudulent Law Degree 

message: A published opinion of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rebuking Judge James Ware for usurping power should be fair commentary, and a link to the opinion should be allowed.  A Writ of Mandamus is an "extraordinary" writ, only reserved for extreme cases where a judge essentially thumbs his nose at the law.  To keep this out of Judge Ware's bio gives the distorted impression that this judge is a rather normal judge, when the reality is he is probably the worst judge on the bench who thinks he is above the law.  The Ninth Circuit opinion says as much in much gentler terms, and therefore the published opinion should be part of the Judge Ware's bio.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.0.212 (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This needs a third party source as well as the first party one given. I've removed the invented, POV-pushing title of the reference. Hairhorn (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just a summary posted online, not a third party source. If it's so non-notable an event that no publication has mentioned it, it doesn't merit being included in an encyclopedia; a quick look through Gnews turns up nothing. Hairhorn (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

text: You and I are not debating the same matter, I have no issue with using primary sources. My only concern here is notabilty of this event, notability is never established by primary sources alone. This butts up against the no original research policy. Hairhorn (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Given that my only edit to this entry was to retitle a reference, I'm not clear on what the goal of mediation would be. If your issue is with my opinion here on the talk page, your best option is simply to ignore it. Mediation won't change my opinion and it won't help "the public" either. Sheesh. Hairhorn (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a stab at cleaning up the anonymous Kansas-based poster(s) edits.  They are free to start the mediation process if they so desire (I'd be curious to get a concise account of what they are trying to accomplish). Billyboy01 (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

text: No one is going to be interested mediating your conspiracy theories.  But you're free to start the mediation process with respect the content of your edits, which are disruptive and just plain sloppy. (Why reintroduce a broken link??) Billyboy01 (talk) 04:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does Billyboy01 care about protecting a corrupt judge, and how does noting 'facts' about Judge Ware's continued dishonesty and thumbing his nose at the law a 'conspiracy theory'?  Facts cited in the Writ of Mandamus opinion from the 9th Circuit that note Judge Wares opinion on the law was 'clearly erroneous', and that usurping the power to appoint counsel in this specific case would have allowed Judge Ware to control how vigorously Nvidia could be prosecuted for securities fraud, are NOT original research.  'Original research' would be linking a bribery payment from Nvidia to Judge Ware's 'sudden' ability to make payments on his yacht which were unpaid for more than a year according to court documents from the yacht case cited above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.85.13.67 (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ninth Circuit Rules that Judge Ware Usurps Power 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on W. James Ware. 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/20080916230337/http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=2503 to http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=2503
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090430172645/http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/congbibs/senate/105dgst1.html to http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/congbibs/senate/105dgst1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110617031405/http://online.wsj.com:80/article/SB10001424052702303714704576385950912922630.html?mod=googlenews_wsj to http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303714704576385950912922630.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Footnote number seven leads to an article that appears to be much more an opinion piece than a factual reference. I’m not familiar with the editing rules and practices of Wikipedia, but this seems to me inappropriate at best, and possibly indicative of political bias on the part of the editor who made the citation. How does one go about removing it? 47.215.230.171 (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate citation?