Talk:James H. Chadbourn

Untitled

I guess it is good that the entry was not deleted. But the entry for Chadbourn has largely been stripped of most of the information that made Chadbourn a significant figure in American law. First, Chadbourn can fairly be called the father of the California Code of Evidence, a codification of the law of evidence that strongly influenced the Federal Rules of Evidence, which -- together with state rules patterned on the Federal Rules -- govern proof in federal trials and in most states' trials. Second, Chadbourn was a lonely and courageous voice among law teachers in protesting, in the South and in the 1930s, lynching of African=Americans. There is something radically wrong with an editing process that leads to the de-emphasis or deletion of such points.SomeoneLitAnyone (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no problem with (re)adding additional info to the article regarding Chadbourn's contributions and impact, and indeed such additions are desirable and beneficial. However, they need to be written from a neutral point of view and have to be based on the material published about him/his work by others (rather than, based on your own opinion, even if this opinion is perfectly justified and well-informed and even if you yourself are a subject matter expert). You should really read the WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR policies carefully first, before making major edits to this article. One other point. While brief quotations (with attribution) are perfectly OK, excessively long quotes (something like half a page or more) taken from copyrighted sources are likely to be viewed as WP:COPYVIO violations and should be avoided. The quote from Sacks in your earlier version[1] was just of this problematic kind. Nsk92 (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest Wikipedia learn that mechanistic adherence to rules is not always wise. A distinction should be made between rules of law and an editorial process; wise editing is not always equivalent to slavish adherence to rules. Even in a court of law, the purpose of rules is weighed. The solution for what someone views as a violation of Wikipedia's rules might be some judicious editing rather than outright deletion of material. Wikipedia might also consider that the intricacy of its rules is a deterrent to contributors. Speaking only for myself, I have become completely disenchanted with Wikipedia. But perhaps some or many other contributors feel as I do.SomeoneLitAnyone (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)