Talk:Laurence Tribe

message: The article says Professor Tribe is a Shanghai born native of San Francisco. Does this mean Professor Tribe was born in Shanghai but currently resides in San Francisco? Or was he born in both places? Or..... (I'm not sure what the next question should be).
Just wondering. Yours, Famspear 04:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reference to "Shanghai" removed, as apparent vandalism. Yours, Famspear 21:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the China thing.  If it is true then it needs to be cited.  More information would be interesting too, were his parents refugees from the Nazis?  Also do we have some information on his wife and children, if any? Steve Dufour 21:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A Shanghai born native of San Francisco?

message: I have just seen the first advertizement f/ Senator Obama not shown for news purposes, including Mr. Tribe, I want to know whether there is an endorsement list, please.
Thank You,
 hopiakuta  Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message.  %7e%7e   Thank You. - 15:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  That 

message: Interesting to note that O'Bama was his "best" student and Kathleen Sullivan his "most extraordinary".  Obviously, those two quotes are from different sources at different times, but rather funny to see them within a few sentences of each other since they seem to say the same thing...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.251.35.147 (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best or most extraordinary? 

message: The NYT has: "His book, however, did credit Professor Abraham's book, "Justices and Presidents," (Oxford University Press, 1974) as the "leading political history of Court appointments."
and "Professor Tribe declined to comment on the matter. His office released a letter that it said Professor Tribe sent to Professor Abraham 20 years ago, along with a copy of Professor Tribe's manuscript; Professor Tribe wrote that he had drawn on Professor Abraham's book, in part, and asked for his reactions." by Sara Rimer 11/24/2004  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.33.32.40 (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the two sources cited, I do not see anywhere that Tribe admitted in so many words to plagiarism,which the article currently claims.T'm waiting to find out more before I remove those words. I did remove "lifted" and put in something like "used closely similar words". 24.7.28.186 (talk) 04:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "closely similar to material" is actually what i changed it to.24.7.28.186 (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I added "some sentences were identical".199.33.32.40 (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: plagiarism--at least minimally exculpatory info

message: ;(RfC resolved Rich Farmbrough, 21:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have pruned the text further. – ukexpat (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that was desperately needed. I wonder if the neutrality tag is still warranted? I hesitate to remove it because this is a famous law professor and the controversies section smacks of recentism. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the neutrality tag because I also removed a very poorly sourced paragraph about Tribe calling Sotomayor a bully. The source was a Tribe-written blog, supposedly, but the blog has been removed from the host website and is not available on the Wayback Machine. At any rate, the source was WP:PRIMARY but the paragraph added unsupported statements about the impact of the blog post. In a BLP, the impact must be proven. Binksternet (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the neutrality issue seems to be rectified. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited the first sentence to be factually correct.  Professor Tribe did not admit to plagiarism and the cited references do not support such a claim.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.9.242.1 (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a stunning error. I'm glad you raised the issue at RfC. In the future, don't hesitate to notify either myself or any of the other editors who have pitched in here if there is a repetition of this kind of problem. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

text: What's makes it even more shameful is that Tribe is an eminent legal scholar. I'm no lawyer but even I've heard of him. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Found the PR flack. 2601:647:667F:FF68:A1B5:1C3F:4F9D:2F17 (talk) 04:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

text: Tell your boss, Larry the Liar, that the internet has a memory.  He can send clowns like you to scrub the wikipedia page all he wants, but the truth about him is only a google search away.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.231.167.121 (talk) 12:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

text: I took out a blog citaton and text sourced to it. If there is any remaining material sourced to a blog, it should go. Do you think the controversies section is still too long? ScottyBerg (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Yes, it appears to be substantially resolved.  The only remaining issue I can see is the section title:  "Controversies".  The essay WP:Criticism suggests that sections with such titles are discouraged.  I'm wondering if the section should be renamed to "Authorship issue"  or "Academic investigation" or something like that.   Maybe the latter is most encyclopedic? --Noleander (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In the spirit of making headway without too much chatting: I  changed the section title to "Academic investigation" .  --Noleander (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely worth a try. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Plagiarism Scandal & Controversies Section Biased 

message: Why is he characterized in the lead sentence as a "leading liberal scholar of constitutional law"? This seems NPOV to me. He's a leading constitutional scholar, period, and is widely recognized as such across the political spectrum. Without having researched the page's history, I would have to suspect that "liberal" was interpolated by some conservative editor to whom it's a dirty word. That's certainly how it's going to come across to most readers. --Michael K SmithTalk  14:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Because extreme left wingers like Tribe have co-opted the term "liberal". 2601:647:667F:FF68:A1B5:1C3F:4F9D:2F17 (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: I believe that he lost this case - he was arguing on the side of GE that the UAOs violated due process, and the court rejected this argument. Am I missing something?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.161.57 (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  EPA v. GE

message: This case should be included on the list of Supreme Court cases that Tribe has argued. See 2007 Cato Sup. Ct. Rev 23 (article by Tribe noting that he represented Robbins).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.241.112 (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Wilkie v. Robbins

message: Tribe's attacks on Scalia and his absurd, if not mendacious, misrepresentation of the magnitude of Windsor v United States should be included:Tribe described Justice Antonin Scalia's response and dissent to the 5-4 Windsor v. United States decision as "intemperate", "extraordinary", and "at the very least, an exercise in jurisprudential cynicism". He posited that Scalia appeared unable to resist "the temptation to use the occasion to insult the Court's majority, and Justice Kennedy in particular, in essentially ad hominem ...terms", to wit:"[P]rincipally to highlight the extraordinary character of this particularly vitriolic and internally inconsistent dissent ... about how the Court should have decided the very controversy that he says wasn't really before it ... [For Scalia to] accuse the majority of arrogance and then reach the merits after saying that the Court lacks jurisdiction to address the case requires no small dose of chutzpah ... Scalia didn't so much as consider the possibility ... that considerations of federalism might point to a particularly rigorous examination of the purported justifications for a measure like Section 3. ... In predicting that the opinion joined by the five Justices comprising today's Windsor majority would invariably lead to the invalidation of state efforts to limit lawful marriage to opposite-sex couples, Justice Scalia was engaging in a bait-and-switch unworthy of so serious and smart a jurist, one who often displays a principled side that even those who dislike his results would be hard-pressed not to admire ...Developments since the Court's decision, however, appear to confirm Justice Scalia's judgment as largely correct. The Court's ambiguity surrounding the legal standard of review it chose to apply, in an attempt to leave the question of the constitutionality of state laws against same-sex marriage for another day, opened the door for federal judges around the country to strike down existing state marriage laws as unconstitutional (see below citations):*
*
*
*
 Quis separabit? 01:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Windsor v United States''

message: The coverage in the Career section is pretty off-base as being representative of his career. None of the notable cases are covered, instead a bevvy of minor environmental cases.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree. By the way, great job on the article cleanup you did. Czoal (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a source for the debate team content, but I didn't know which citation template to use for it. Czoal (talk) 04:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In the tool bar above the editing window, the Citation button > books option will autogenerate citations from google books by placing the URL and clicking the green arrows/fetch -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the great tip, but I don't see any green arrow/fetch in the book template. So can you fix that citation? Thanks. Czoal (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  UNDUE coverage in Career 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Laurence Tribe. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-harvard-scholar,0,7302646.story?coll=sns-ap-nation-headlines
*Added  tag to http://openjurist.org/623/f2d/613/worldwide-church-of-god-inc-v-state-of-california-j-r
*Added  tag to http://openjurist.org/659/f2d/903/659-f2d-903-pacific-v-state
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080920142949/http://www.ck10.uscourts.gov/opinions/98/98-2053.pdf to http://www.ck10.uscourts.gov/opinions/98/98-2053.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080920150907/http://www.ck10.uscourts.gov/opinions/98/98-9518.pdf to http://www.ck10.uscourts.gov/opinions/98/98-9518.pdf
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) 08:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Laurence Tribe. 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  tag to http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20071114%2FNEWS01%2F711140429%2F1217%2FNEWS98
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150310045447/http://news.columbia.edu/oncampus/3117 to http://news.columbia.edu/oncampus/3117
*Added  tag to http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/dc/035114A.pdf
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) 10:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: First an IP, and now , has been repeatedly removing a section from the article. I examined the Chronicle of Higher Education source as a first step in determining whether the paragraph is neutrally written reflecting the sources, and it seemed only a minor adjustment—specifically mentioning that this is about retweeting things—would be necessary, but then the house internet went down and now I have to go to work soon. So I am instead starting this talk page section for discussion, and will welcome Evaluator24 so they have explanations of our policies available to them. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of section 

message: I removed Controversially, Tribe has promoted unreliable sources and conspiracy theories about Donald Trump from the lede, since the exact same sentence appears in the poorly entitled and/or weirdly combined "Political involvement and controversy" section. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇  03:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been covered by RSs. We do not need to censor ourselves. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "Censor"? Whatever are you talking about? It's in the article, there's just no reason to duplicate it in the lede, and it gives undue weight to the so-called "controversy" without in any way elucidating what it is talking about. If there's a real "controversy", spell it out in the article rather than just declaring twice, in identical sentences, that a controversy exists. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇  16:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: So you think there is room for a reworded sentence in the lead? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I don't even think the mention in the body is worth keeping without expansion and neutralization; and in the lede it gives undue weight to a tiny part of a decades-long career. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇  21:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What expansion and neutralization would you suggest? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That's up to whoever wants to include the sentence about "controversy" in the article. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇  03:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: So do you not have any comments or suggestions on the matter? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Remove it completely if you can't make it NPOV and appropriate weight. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇  17:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: How is not NPOV or appropriately weighted currently though? Your only proposal seems like you are trying to WP:CENSOR instead of following the WP:RSs. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Up yours with the censorship accusations; I'm an editor just like anyone else here. Just because you've attached a WP:RS to a sentence doesn't mean the sentence has to stay in the article; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. As it stands now, it's of maximum appropriate weight, one brief sentence in the body of the article. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇  21:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: When did I say I attached the WP:RS to the the sentence. I don't like your rude comment to me. If you have suggestions then please provide them, and if you think it is fine the way it is then just say so. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

text: Don't accuse editors of censorship; it's fighting words. But sorry about the heat. We could make it quite specific: Tribe was criticized in mid-2017 for tweeting links to the generally unreliable Palmer Report. WP:NPOV, same WP:RS. That's the entire content of the three sources, in a nutshell. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇  01:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for accusing you of censorship. Your proposed wording sounds good. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As it turns out, the sentence before the "controversially" text in the body told the story in more detail; I just added the sources already there to the existing description of the issue. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇  19:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede edit 

message: I just added a citation (comprising both audio and transcript) to Tribe's commentary about several of his notable law students in the main text.  All well enough, but I note that the sidebar which also mentions notable students is not consistent with the main text, either in the highlighted list or the citations.  For example the citation of the source for John Roberts as a research assistant can be inserted in the main text, but I do not know to "reuse" that cite using the visual editor.  If someone can proceed with editing the Infobox, that would be most welcome.
James Alien Woods (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency of the Academic Infobox and main text 

message: The Personal life and education section does not show Mr. Tribe earning a law degree anywhere.  That makes the first sentence of the next section, Career, which reads "after graduating law school..." a say-what? moment.
I don't know the facts, so someone else must fix this lapse.
````  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry11565 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal life and education missing info 

message: If his father was a Yiddish speaker, might Tribe's family's surname originally have been spelled "Treib"? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It was changed from Trejbuch. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 15:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of surname