This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights articles
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Not going to tag it. (Because I don't think it's going to help in this case.) But I'll just point out that the article as I found it was incredibly biased against Stevens. Considering that New York Times and National Public Radio are on Stevens side, I can only image that the article was written in order to support Nazi-esque animal fanaticism. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm giving your edits to the article a B, for adding legitimate material, with good references, and attempting to give the article a more neutral point of view. I'm giving your talk page comment above a D, for calling previous editors fanatics and comparing them to Nazis. — Mudwater (Talk)00:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
I tried to avoid calling abody anything. Just stating what the article is in light of books such as The Zookeeper's Wife whose author has said on talk radio multi-times that one of the things that people are often shocked at is that the Nazi's were pioneers of "green", pro-animal movements. --Firefly322 (talk) 05:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've substantially reordered the text in the article, while not changing the text itself. The lead section should be a brief, neutral summary of the article, and I think it is more so now. The material about the two sides of the argument should be balanced, not only in the amount of material, but in its placement within the article. Additionally, the article is now much better organized, in my opinion. — Mudwater (Talk)00:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Template infobox that's on this page is not displaying correctly - there seems to be too many brackets. I'd play with it myself, but I can't see where the code is. By contrast, the text in the same infobox is showing fine in Gonzales v. Carhart for example. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
