Talk:Bradley Smith (law professor)

Blimp?

The deleted material linked to a page merely showing that Smith was "outside counsel" to Liberty Advertising, the company selling ad time on the Ron Paul Blimp. In other words, Liberty Advertising is a client of Smith's law practice. I suppose this may be of some general interest, but I doubt of much interest, or of lasting interest, or that it tells us much about Smith. Picking and choosing biographical material to include is also a matter of judgment, but this seems a tidbit of information included more out of enthusiasm for Smith's client than anything it says about Smith. EABSE 03:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Advert tag

This article has a lot of very pro-subject, value-laden language without proper sourcing, to the point where it reads like an advertisement for Mr. Smith. I've accordingly added an advert tag. Please do not remove it until the issue is addressed, either in the article or here on the talk page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Cites

-Um, Fleishman, the Election Law Journal is a peer reviewed journal, probably the most prestigious devoted solely to election law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overacker (talk • contribs) 04:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how prestigious the journal is. The source is a book review being cited to say a book is an "important academic work." I see no verification for that content and even if was verification, it can't be stated as reliable fact without attribution. A statement that a book is "important" would be the reviewer's personal opinion, not a reliably sourced fact. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

then nothing can ever be cited as "important" or "influential" or anything else, since those are all opinions at some level.Overacker (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

- If you don't buy into Brennan Center at New York University "Ask any enemy of campaign finance laws to identify the most sought-after witness to make the case to Congress" as a reliable source for testifying regularly in Congress, you probably would have to cite the 30 or so copies of testimony and hearing records that are on line with a quick google search. Overacker (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I have the utmost respect for the Brennan Center, but that doesn't change the fact that this is an advocacy piece written by lawyers and therefore comes nowhere close to satisfying our guideline on reliable sources. As for your latter point, that is textbook original research. If you wish to keep this content please find a reliable source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

- So you are saying one has to find someone who says "Smith has done X," rather than simply note that it is well documented in several places? Could an editor cite 10 or 12 web references in one footnote to make a point? And do you have any basis to think that the statement is not true? And how is that "original research?" Overacker (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you're understanding me correctly. Whatever you think the term "original research" means isn't consequential; what matters is that our policy on the matter says repeatedly that the cited source needs to say something explicitly for it to be including in our articles. We do not engage in synthesis of published material. You're free to do that in a blog or research paper, but not here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

- Dr. Fleischman, named for the neurotic fictional character, has made improving the article along the lines he claims to prefer almost impossible. Several examples will be apparent from the editing battle, but let's look at one. The article notes that "virtually all reform advocates 'agreed that he was the wrong person for the job.'" That seems a fair (and documented) assessment. A balanced article might note, however, that there was also considerable support for the nomination. Fleischman apparently will not allow such a point to be made. He is OK with allowing a single citation that one libertarian think tank supported the nomination. But that no more captures the tenor of the battle--an important point in the entry, and in explaining why an entry is deserved at all-- than reporting that many persons thought Smith was right for the job, then naming one think tank that disagreed. One might give an indication of the tenor of the debate by noting various other persons that supported Smith, but Fleischman won't allow that. Or one might cite to the record of the hearing in the Senate to show bases of support, but Fleischman says that is not "viewpoint neutral" and reverts. (Which is doubly odd: the transcript of the Senate hearing is not viewpoint neutral? Or is it that the people who supported the nomination were not neutral on the nomination? The former is foolishness--the transcript is a transcript. The latter can't be the case, or the point regarding opposition to the nomination would have the same problem.) One senses that the real problem here is Fleischman's own lack of objectivity on the subject matter. resulting in a refusal to allow documented edits and citations with which he disagrees. Ah well, I'm just a non-partisan expert on campaign finance who periodically tries to improve articles here on that topic, and this little war began when I tried to add citations where Fleischman had suggested that lack of citation created weaknesses in the article. Here we see the ossification of Wikipedia in action.Overacker (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to hear your cynicism. I'm happy to discuss the matter further, though I do hope you'll tone down the vitriol. We're both here on the same team (to improve the article) so there's no need to throw punches. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bradley Smith (law professor). 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/20120614043024/http://www.ij.org/campaign-finance-ijs-long-term-investment-pays-off to http://www.ij.org/campaign-finance-ijs-long-term-investment-pays-off

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)