Talk:Anna Diggs Taylor

message: 1) Using incorrect secondary sources when correct primary sources are available. The list of plaintiffs in the case ACLU v. NSA is contained in court documents (primary source) that are publicly available online.  This list does not contain the name Nazih Hassan.  A quick google search, however, reveals that Mr Hassan is a member of one of the plaintiff organizations. A Detroit newspaper (secondary source) incorrectly listed Mr Hassan as a plaintiff instead of being a member of a plaintiff organization. Solascriptura knows (it was pointed out in the talk page above) that Mr Hassan is not a plaintiff, but he continues to insert the factually incorrect information in the Wikipedia article about a living person.
2) Using uncited political statements.  Solascriptura continues to insert the politically charged statement "the appearance of "judge shopping" and "liberal bias" for the purposes of political advantage have been leveled by conservative groups and commentators regarding this case" WITHOUT NAMING THE GROUPS AND COMMENTATORS.  Stop it.  Stop turning Wikipedia into your personal soapbox and start thinking about this place as an encylcopedia.  Note the difference between what solascriptura keeps inserting and what ArnoldReinhold inserted: "By contrast, the New York Times concluded in an editorial published August 18 that ..." That is a CITED STATEMENT.
3) Promoting racism using living people's biographies. One of solascritura's inserted statements is particularly charged because it is racist without attributing the racism to anyone.  He wrote: "...because the plaintiffs in the case are Muslim and of Arab descent, questions as to the legitemacy of the case have been raised including whether or not terrorists could be attempting to use the US legal system to stifle the War on Terror." WHO is raising these questions other than Solascriptura and should Wikipedia provide a forum for these detestable cretins to publicize this revoltingly racist POV without attributing it to anyone?  Does solascriptura really believe or does he have a verifiable statement from someone else who believes that terrorists targeted the US legal system by using American Muslims via the ACLU?  This is lunatic racist fringe crazy nutjob idiocy and it does not belong here on Anna Diggs Taylor's page, ESPECIALLY unattributed. This wacko and his vile ilk are just like Al Queda in that they promote divisions based on race and religion instead of paying attention to reality.
STOP IT SOLASCRIPTURA.  Stop abusing Wikipedia.  This is an encyclopedia.  It's not a place for what you want to do.  If people who care about this encyclopedia do not stop this person then others will be able to cite this Wikipedia article as evidence for that this kind of non-reality is correct.
It is the goal of party hacks to promote whatever message further's their cause, regardless of its factual value.  It is the goal of an encyclopedia to present verifiably correct information.  These goals are often in conflict.  Solascriptura's recent abuse of this article and defense of that abuse is a perfect example of this conflict.   This POV belongs on the Colbert Report as a joke. It should not be in an encyclopedia.  Just stop. 141.154.225.164 19:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, yea, this is a typical post by someone afraid to even login. It amounts and rises to nothing more than an ad homonym personal attack. How petty. This kind of pathetic response speaks for itself. Let’s hide behind an anonymous IP address and then belittle and malign anyone with an observation that disagrees with our own. Grow some backbone people … If you have something to say, then say it. You don’t need to personally attack someone. ALL of us have a political, religious, ethical or personal agenda or opinion or persuasion. It’s human nature. Get over it. It’s an exchange of ideas and understandings. If you don’t like it then fine -- get off the forum. But don’t anonymously and personally damn, malign and impugn someone you’ve never met just because you disagree with their perspectives. THAT is petty.--Solascriptura 15:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone, please remember that this is not a general discussion forum, but an encyclopedia, where we must not let our agendas influence our work. Solascriptura is right in that we also urgently need to be civil to one another. (Don't feed the trolls!) Sandstein 16:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How solascriptura is abusing Wikipedia to promote a political cause

message: Alright, let's sort this out. I think that User:Solascriptura is genuinely trying to point out a view held by many conservatives who have followed this case. So how about this:
Political leanings: Unless cited information can be found to support "judge-shopping," leave it out. However, it would be very appropriate to say that the ruling is heavily favored by Democrats and is considered a victory for them. 
Muslim Plaintiffs: This really seems out of place. By all accounts, it appears that only a few of the people involved on the ACLU side were Arab, and to imply otherwise twists the truth and could be considered a form of political propoganda. (not all Arabs are Muslims, and vice versa, to clarify)
Is there anything else in debate? I support Solascriptura's desire to represent how the court ruling has affected both parties in what I think we can all agree is an extremely polarized country (both geographically and politically), but at the end of the day any unsourced or misleading material simply cannot stay. Thanks. Let me know if there are any other issues that need to be resolved. 
SwedishConqueror 03:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree absolutely. I just also would like to point out, that in addition to needing to be being sourced and NPOV, any actual discussion of the ruling also is just out of place in this article. It belongs into ACLU v. NSA. So, what edits are you actually proposing? I submit that the whole heading of "Political Issues of the NSA Ruling" and quite a lot of "ACLU v. NSA" be deleted for that reason. Sandstein 04:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with one exception.  Many conservatives who have followed this case do NOT hold one view that solascriptura expressed.  They do not look at the plaintiffs in this case, identify them as Muslim and of Arab descent, and, because of this, raise questions about the case's legitimacy due to concerns about whether terrorists could be attempting to use the US legal system to stifle the War on Terror.  A very, very small number of conservatives (not many) raise these questions because, if expressed, these questions would be identified as racist, lunatic fringe, and based on a laughably untrue premise. These questions, if expressed, would give a tremendous amount of ammunition to people with the opposite political view by using the potent weapon of humor.  This is a polarized country, but the vast majority of people on both sides still have the ability to laugh at idiots. 141.154.50.167 14:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but your comment does not express itself on the question at issue, which is what amount of discussion of the political implications of the case we need in this article. Please remember that this is not a political discussion forum and we do not, as an encyclopedia, hold a political opinion, so we don't care to whom our content could be politically useful (or not). Sandstein 15:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I Have An Idea

message: The issue of Taylor's NSA ruling being overturned by the appeals court BELONGS in her biography. If you know anything about a judicial career, judges DO NOT LIKE to be overturned on appeal because it speaks to their competency of their ability by their own judicial peers. It becomes part of their career path and part of who they are. Judges who become overturned, especially within high-profile cases, become icons of a sort within whatever group. Let's be honest: It's personal and any judge worth their salt will tell you this. An overturning of their decision makes it look like their "judgment" is off-base. Just my 2¢ on this ...  --Solascriptura 16:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it belongs, once and if the ruling is actually overturned. Right now, it has just been suspended from taking effect while the court of appeals is considering whether to overturn or affirm it. I've changed the article to reflect this. Any more detailed procedural discussion should go into ACLU v. NSA. Sandstein 16:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just been overturned. KeithCu 20:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ramifications of being Overturned

message: A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Anna Katherine Johnston Diggs Taylor was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bot-created subpage

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Anna Diggs Taylor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060827023506/http://www.judicialwatch.org/5862.shtml to http://www.judicialwatch.org/5862.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified