Talk:Mount Laurel doctrine

message: This article is heavily biased against this court decision. Several sections appear in violation of Wikipedia policies. The "Case Study" appears to be original research Wikipedia:No original research. Titling sections "Legislator's Outcry" and "Public Outcry" are similarly unacceptable because they imply the public or a profession as a whole is upset when it is only a limited percentage who feels this way. When there is controversy, it is also imperative the article make this clear. However, overusing terms like "controversial" can bias people's views, and is against the style manual. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Also should be balanced by elaboration on housing affordability issues in the state.
I concur with this. All court decisions are "controversial," as they are brought to the court as controversy. But the decision has withstood the test of judicial review. It is in that sense no longer controversial. It may be politically-charged, but that should be described more carefully. I have never edited an article, and so don't want to touch  this, but i would remove any mention of controversial except those that refer to a subsequent court decision which reversed it. Ztumin (talk) 09:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: This page was moved from Mount Laurel Doctrine with the comment that the new title Mount Laurel Decision is correct. As a practicing New Jersey lawyer with some knowledge of this area I disagree. The term "Mount Laurel Doctrine" refers not only to the two decisions with that name but the decision that New Jersey's constitution imposes obligations on municipalities to provide a realistic opportunity for affordable housing and to subsequent refinements and is so understood by those who work in that field.
As I'm not entirely sure of the protocol, I'm not just going to move it back, but I am posting this comment and will monitor for a while.
Jay Bohn 21:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article move

message: It seems to me that, per WP:CAPS, the title of this article should be Mount Laurel decision, not Mount Laurel Decision.  Does anyone have a problem with that?  Neutron (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed article move 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Mount Laurel doctrine. 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/20071027212202/http://www.politicsnj.com/mchose-says-fair-housing-bill-misses-mark-doesnt-address-why-housing-unaffordable-new-jersey-9290 to http://www.politicsnj.com/mchose-says-fair-housing-bill-misses-mark-doesnt-address-why-housing-unaffordable-new-jersey-9290
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060824154325/http://www.state.nj.us/dca/coah/fha.shtml to http://www.state.nj.us/dca/coah/fha.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071027212202/http://www.politicsnj.com/mchose-says-fair-housing-bill-misses-mark-doesnt-address-why-housing-unaffordable-new-jersey-9290 to http://www.politicsnj.com/mchose-says-fair-housing-bill-misses-mark-doesnt-address-why-housing-unaffordable-new-jersey-9290
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061212124727/http://www.huduser.org/publications/fairhsg/lending.html to http://www.huduser.org/publications/fairhsg/lending.html
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) 20:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)