Talk:Pierce Butler (judge)

Opinion of Andrew Schlafly

I'm removing the sentence "Conservapedia founder Andrew Schlafly stated he 'proved to be perhaps the best Supreme Court Justice ever'" as being of no consequence. It's a random quote from a random blog by a person who has nothing to do with the subject of the article whatsoever. If a secondary source thinks the quote is relevant to anything then it might be worthwhile. But that isn't the case, and is unlikely to ever be. We don't have the personal opinions of anyone else on Butler, so I don't know why we're including those of an internet crank. -R. fiend (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

We agree on Andrew Schlafly, at least. But he has his own niche. In any event, I put it back, and we should wait to hear from other editors. The status quo ante was that it was there, and its been there for a very long time. See WP:BRD. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

His own niche? About 3 people in the world care what he thinks (and I don't include Phyllis among their numbers), so giving his opinion is hardly worthwhile for an encyclopedia. It's a terrible precedent as well. Every time Schlafly states his opinion on anything over at Conservapedia (which is often) are we going to include it in a relevant article here? It's really the equivalent of picking any random blogger and including his opinion wherever he gives it. It's slightly better than saying "Dingleberries999 has stated on blogspot that Button Gwinnett is the best American evar!" but, honestly, not by all that much. I'd be happy to let other editors chime in, but seeing how much traffic the talk page has so far, I'm not going to hold my breath for a rush of opinions on the matter. Why do you think this quote is important enough to include? -R. fiend (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I would think that we could put in a range of opinions. Including opposing viewpoints. What makes a good justice is a subject on which reasonable minds could differ. What is an 'activist judge,' a 'conservative judge' or a'conservative judge' is subject to differing viewpoints, too. I don't know that we should necessarily extirpate those kinds of opinions. Rather, I think they could be fleshed out and let the reader know there are differing perspectives. I am not endorsing Schlafly's opinion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

But right now Schalfly's is the only opinion given, and it's not even a published one. If there were a wide array of people proposing that Butler was the best, or one of the best, justices ever, we'd have a reason to include their opinions and their arguments for it (as well as any against it). But it doesn't seem there is. The question of what makes a good judge, and activist one, a conservative one, etc. is a good question, but this is not the place to have that discussion, nor does the opinion of one weirdo serve that function. If we have reliable second hand sources on the greatest justices ever, and if Butler is frequently listed among them, then we certainly would have a reason to bring the debate up in the article. But we don't have any of that. Instead we have Conservapedia, which is not a reliable source on anything, except perhaps Conservapedia itself, and even that is questionable. Think of it this way, Schalfly has no authority on the subject. He is not a constitutional scholar, and he has never published anything on any topic remotely relating to this. He is a guy with no credibility and some strong opinions. If the Heritage Foundation or some such group gave him the epithet "Best Justice Ever" that would be another matter. -R. fiend (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Schlafly's opinion carries no more WP:weight than my own - or any of yours. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

To include it, we would need an independent reliable source. Schlafly's blog is not an independent source for Schlafly's opinion. Blogs are not reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

One's own blog is an RS for the fact that a person thinks something, but (A) Schafly is an insignificant figure whose opinion has no weight, and (B) his blog is not an RS for the accuracy of any fact assertions or judgments he makes in his writing, in and of themselves. But go back to step 1.... who cares what he thinks? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Schlafly is not significant at all, let alone for his opinions on judges - David Gerard (talk) 23:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to call this enough opposition to its inclusion to remove it at least for the time being. If a flood of support for its reinsertion appears we'll revisit it then. -R. fiend (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with the nays, Schlafly's opinion is not interesting in this context (neither would Jimbo's). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pierce Butler (justice). 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/20130113015710/http://www.stjohns.edu/media/3/3528210f8dba49ee9fd325e9db9e987f.pdf to http://www.stjohns.edu/media/3/3528210f8dba49ee9fd325e9db9e987f.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.supremecourthistory.org/04_library/subs_volumes/04_c20_e.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)