Talk:State Bar of Texas

Professional conduct section

Lulaq, I've got a couple of specific concerns about the section you are adding (and edit-warring with Famspear over). My concerns are about the sourcing of specific claims in the section, especially when living persons are involved. First, the statement "the Board of Disciplinary Appeals have deemed some rules to effectively be void and unenforceable" needs to be explicitly backed up by a source. It's not backed up by rules of professional conduct page. Same thing with the statement "However, since obstruction of justice is not defined in the Rules and there are no per se offenses in the Texas Penal Code for "obstruction of justice", even though there are for "obstruction of governmental operation", the State Bar cannot act on specific criminal violations of law in enforcing that provision." You need to have a source that explicitly makes each of those points (obstruction of justice is not defined, no per se offenses in the Texas Penal Code for "obstruction of justice" and "state bar cannot act ...". If the claim isn't specifically in a source, adding it to the article is original research.

Also, you've got a statement at the end of the section that references a living person that does not have a source. Again, you've got to have a source that specifically supports the claim. You've actually got two claims in that last sentence, one about a living person and another a broad general claim about the bar refusing to reprimand. You need sources that cover both claims. Wikipedia's policies about unsourced claims about living persons (commonly called WP:BLP) are very strict. Please don't readd the statements without addressing the concerns of other editors. Ravensfire (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Ravensfire. I hadn't even thought of the BLP violation.

I'll add a few comments. First, there are numerous news reports about the incident involving the person referenced in the material that Lulaq wanted in this article. The problem is (in part) that Lulaq is simply adding his own improperly sourced commentary, his own opinion. He is incorrectly using, as a source, the official Texas Disciplinary Rules. Of course, the Rules themselves in no way mention the person involved in the incident, nor do the Rules mention the incident itself.

Look, it is certainly a bad thing when a high public official with crucial law enforcement responsibility is engaged in the kind of incident in question here (I won't go into specifics right now), but Lulaq's procedure is not an appropriate way to complain about what he or she perceives as weaknesses in the Texas State Bar system.

Instead, Lulaq should look for reliable, previously published third party sources that have actually talked about the incident in question (and there are plenty of them), and report on what the sources say about the incident -- not on what Lulaq feels about the incident.

As Ravensfire has noted, the claim that the State Bar of Texas in effect is not doing its job is not properly sourced, either.

And, bluntly, the critique is dubious. For example, is there any evidence that anyone (whether a member of the State Bar or a member of the public at large) has even filed a complaint with the State Bar against the individual involved? If so, what happened to the complaint? If no complaint has been filed, is there a reliable source somewhere that renders the opinion that the State Bar is falling down on its job because no Bar member filed a complaint? That might be a valid critique, but it's not a critique that we ourselves as Wikipedia editors can make.

If you can find a source that says something, then fine -- use that source. But don't just add your own criticism, and use as your source something that doesn't even mention your complaint. Famspear (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

All y'all need to check your politics at the door. There is nothing wrong with sourcing the official commentary or making note of the official State Bar disciplinary process in neutral terminology. Also, there is no need to talk about Ms Lehmberg here. 198.228.204.251 (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much. If there is genuine controversy, it should be mentioned here but it needs to be sourced. Ravensfire (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I have referred this BLP violation to BLPN. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The summary at WP:BLPN#State Bar of Texas is correct—the proposed text (diff) belongs in a blog somewhere, and is entirely out of place at Wikipedia. One clue is that "X refuses to do Y" is a certain sign of WP:SYNTH and WP:SOAPBOX. Johnuniq (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree. As to clues, in addition to your great example "X refuses to do Y", another sure clue of SYNTH is the use of conjunctions such as "Furthermore", "However", "Even though", and "For example"; all were present in the section. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I have begun a clean up. With respect to Texas attorneys, there is no such thing as the "Texas Professional Rules of Disciplinary Conduct." There are two sets of rules that have been promulgated with respect to the conduct of Texas attorneys (but I hasten to add that they are not the only rules in the universe that govern the conduct of Texas attorneys):

1. The Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct;

2. The Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.

More later. Famspear (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

User "Lulaq" is at it again. In earlier edits, he inserted his own tendentious commentary, including unsourced material about a living person and a complaint that the State Bar of Texas had not disciplined this individual, and used as his "source" for all this certain official rules governing Texas lawyers which, of course, do not even mention the living person in question and do not include his commentary. Further, he can't even seem to get the name of the source correct. Now, he is reverting corrections I made to his own errors, and is re-inserting his own erroneous material.

He keeps re-inserting a reference to the "Texas Professional Rules of Disciplinary Conduct." As already explained on this talk page, there is no such thing as the "Texas Professional Rules of Disciplinary Conduct." The correct name is "Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct." (There is a second set of rules caled the "Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.") In Wikipedia, both of these sources would generally be considered primary sources, not secondary sources.

The Wikipedia rules do not include an outright ban on the use of primary sources. However, primary sources should be used carefully. This mis-use of these two primary sources by Lulaq is a classic illustration of why Wikipedia has a rule prohibiting Original Research (as that term is used in Wikipedia). This is Original Research at its worst, and it certainly violates the rules. Famspear (talk) 03:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you calling Cornell University a primary source? Your grievances seem to have already been addressed. Lulaq (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you asserting that Cornell University is the author of the material posted on its website? Also, please note that a single anecdote does not establish a notable trend. Can you provide a few other examples, two or three maybe, where the bar has "refused to reprimand" an attorney for allegations of misconduct? bd2412 T 12:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

As editor BD2412 has illustrated, the fact that the actual, verbatim text of a primary source (such as the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct) is published on Cornell University's Legal Information Institute (LII) web site does not convert the text from a primary source to a "secondary" source, even if you are using the Cornell LII web site in your citation for the text. Cornell's LII is not the author of the material. Famspear (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)