Talk:Unitary executive theory

message: What is the thinking behind using lists in the citations?  Take this reference for example
^ a b c d e f g h i Suggested interpretation of War Powers in the Bush administration
    * The Unitary Executive: Is The Doctrine Behind the Bush Presidency Consistent with a Democratic State? By JENNIFER VAN BERGEN, Findlaw, January 09, 2006
    * The President Does Not Know Best By Elizabeth de la Vega, Tomdispatch.com. Posted January 19, 2006
    * How Much Authority Does the President Possess When He Is Acting as "Commander In Chief"? Evaluating President Bush's Claims Against a Key Supreme Court Executive Power Precedent By EDWARD LAZARUS, FindLaw, January 5, 2006
    * George Bush's rough justice - The career of the latest supreme court nominee has been marked by his hatred of liberalism by Sidney Blumenthal, The Guardian, January 12, 2006
    * Vice President Cheney and The Fight Over "Inherent" Presidential Powers: His Attempt to Swing the Pendulum Back Began Long Before 9/11By John W. Dean, FindLaw,February 10, 2006
    * Konzentration der Macht - Sollten die Republikaner die Wahlen am 4. November gewinnen, gefährden sie mit ihren Kandidaten für den Obersten Gerichtshof letztlich die amerikanische Verfassung by Garry Wills, Süddeutschen Zeitung, October, 29, 2008.
Here we have 6 different citations cobbled together, including one in German and at least one editorial, that is sited 9 times in the article.  This use of citation lists smacks of wp:syn, especially the use of editorials.  Bonewah (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I would agree.  Also, every similarly formatted citation list we've double-checked in this article was inappropriate WP:SYN, so, as an intelligent Bayesian, it would not suprise me one bit if this one turned out the same.  And, as I've previously discussed, there's little reason to resort to op-eds to source this article when there is a wealth of substantive law review articles that have not even been cited. THF (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  So i took the time to read the Elizabeth de la Vega article and have come to the following conclusions: 1) This is an editorial. 2) Tomdispatch.com is not a reliable source for legal opinion. 3) The article does not seem to confirm any of the claims for which it is used as a citation.  I am therefor, going to remove this citation from the list of citations. Bonewah (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of lists in citations

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Unitary executive theory. 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/20110807190941/http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=nwwps to http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=nwwps
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090125114946/http://harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/jan08/barron_lederman.shtml to http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/jan08/barron_lederman.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090124223310/http://harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/feb08/barron_lederman2.shtml to http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/feb08/barron_lederman2.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) 14:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An IP editor removed some content here that contained the following:  "According to Dana Nelson, a professor of American studies at Vanderbilt University, "the theory of the unitary executive, first proposed under President Reagan, has been expanded since then by every president."[12]" and some text associated with it.  I think this is a good edit for at least 3 reasons.  1) Dana Nelson does not appear to be an expert in this field.  Her wikipedia bio lists her as an english professor, not any sort of scholar of executive power.  2) the attached citation here is plainly an editorial, not any kind of peer reviewed journal or fact checked news source and 3) we go on in the article itself to refute her claim, saying "n fact, the unitary executive was a matter of controversy long before the Reagan administration. For example, ..".  Why are we including a claim by an non expert only to refute it in the next sentence.  I am re-removing this passage.  If there is disagreement, please explain it here.  Thanks. Bonewah (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dana Nelson