User talk:Newyorkbrad

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 5 days are automatically archived to User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive4. Archives prior to October 27, 2006 are at User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive1; from October 27 to December 19, 2006 at User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive2; and from December 19, 2006 to January 29, 2007 at User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive3. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

To keep conversations together, I will generally reply on this page to messages left here. If you would prefer that I reply on your talkpage or elsewhere, please feel free to let me know.

Welcome!

Hello, Newyorkbrad, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Karmafist 15:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Free Republic/Arbitration

I was keeping an eye on the Free Republic discussion and was wondering where it got moved to. If you could give me a link, I would greatly appericate it. Take care...SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 20:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm opening up the case as we speak. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic and its talkpage. All the links should be on the relevant pages within the next 15 minutes or so. Newyorkbrad 20:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Solejman Talovic

Could you please delete this again, as someone recreated it before I could move Sulejman Talovic there. Thanks, TS3 21:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone else took care of it. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Rarelibra

The substantive dispute is that Rarelibra believes that all geographic articles should bear the official name given by the government controlling the area. I've run into him on this on Talk:Trentino-South Tyrol, where even an Italian editor who agrees with him on the naming question disputes the claim that we should prefer official names.

I've also run into him on this on Talk:Tenedos, where the Turkish nationalists are in dispute with the Greek nationalists over the name of the article and other points. As an English speaker who had not seen the Turkish name until I saw the article, I have consistently supported Tenedos as the English name. As a result of this, he and the professional Turks are objecting to including one argument from that discussion on WP:NCGN.

The civility dispute is this edit, which contains an obscene and offensive Polish phrase, slightly minced. I have no idea why he is bothering to lie about it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't read Polish so won't comment on that phrase. I have seen issues concerning methods of naming cities generate an enormous amount of bitterness on various pages of the project. (There is a pending arbitration case right now concerning whether the titles of Project:France pages should use words like "Department" or "Département".) I claim no expertise on the policy issue but hope that everyone can remain civil, and remind all parties that the response to alleged incivility should never be more of the same. Newyorkbrad 22:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Piotrus did comment on the phrase. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

re: oversight

Thanks --froth^T 02:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

HELP

Thank you for your intervention. I only want to, as you state, move on and let the past lie. Thanks again. Rarelibra 14:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I do need assistance with User:Piotrus and his insistence on my talk page. Thank you. Rarelibra 15:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I was going to post the following: ":No one should be calling anyone else names. That goes for everyone. Although some people believe it is not optimal behavior, users have the right to remove template warnings from their talkpages. The best plan, of course, is for everyone to act in such a way that there is no question of needing a warning template on one's talkpage." But when I went to your page I don't find the thread to post it to. Newyorkbrad 17:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to bother you. I really appreciate your assistance. The problem I have with User:Pmanderson is that he cannot remain respectful whenever he dislikes someone. If you look at this diff HERE, you'll see that he insinuates that I want to "lie to the reader". There was nowhere at all in my comments on this discussion a proposal to lie. In fact, my whole point was that we need to use the diatrics when using names (and redirect from non-diatric names) - a process that the workplace I am involved with does on a daily basis due to an international scope of work. I was also stating that a direct English translation of the name "Stanisław" is "Stanley" (like "Mark" from "Marek"). Yet user Pmanderson seems to be able to twist my words and attempt to slander me. This is what I wish to have stopped. I do not do the same with him, I expect the same respect in return. That is all. Rarelibra 14:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability Guidelines

Would it be OK if I opened Notability Guidelines come 9 GMT? I've never opened a case before, but I did a practice at User:David.Mestel/Free Republic. David Mestel^(Talk) 19:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm just a "clerk trainee" myself, you'll need to consult with User:Thatcher131 who deals with ArbCom on new clerk selection at the moment. In any event, I think opening the case is on hold for a short time pending the results of the mediation (or the arbitrators saying to go ahead and open the case despite the mediation). Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I left a message on TT's userpage saying I would try to open it, but he hasn't responded. However if, as you say and as seems to be the case, there's this productive mediation going on I will of course hold off. Trouble for me is that as a hail from the land of the fish finger, I'm often not around twenty-four hours after the last accept vote, which was frequently cast during the daytime in the land of the hamburger, which is in the middle of the night for me. </grumble> David Mestel^(Talk) 19:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Radiant has posted to the talk pages of Flo and Matthew re: the mediation, so I think we should wait for them to respond. Better to be late than wrong. (see also my comment at WP:AC/C/A. You should note there if you want to take a case, that's where we coordinate these things. There's no reason a case has to be opened exactly 24 hours post-acceptance, and I would rather spread the work around, so go ahead and claim it on the noticeboard. Thatcher131 19:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

TBeatty's editing my comments on the RfA

Hi Brad,

Could you please ask or direct TBeatty not to refactor my comments on the RfA? He refactored my description of gay prostitute-slash-reporter Jeff Gannon describing him as 'conservative mouthpiece, cum-gay-prostitute' Jeff Gannon. He does this ALL the time, even on talk pages. Recently he even edited my remarks describing homophobic Episcopal bishop Peter Akinola as a 'homophobe' Link Thanks. - FAAFA 21:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As I indicated on his talkpage, altering other users' evidence or comments on an arbitration page is not appropriate. Having said that, what value is there to making these types of references to real-world figures on an arbitration page. I am sure you can present your position effectively without doing so. Newyorkbrad 21:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I will formulate an appropriate rant later this evening. In the mean time don't hesitate to lock down the pages temporarily if you need to. Thatcher131 21:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

BLP policy makes no exception for Arbitration cases. I understand that I may not be the right person to refactor it, but it needs to be refactored. He has restored the defamtory material. I see no point in dragging BLP patrol people to arbcom as I don't think we need any more commentators (it's become a mess as is). He illustrated my point quite nicely though. --Tbeatty 22:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to have this bleed over to your talk page but since his 'homophobe' accusation isn't in the source he provided, he was asked not to repeat it. It's simply unneccesary. Anyone can read the article and form their own conclusion. It was suggested to him previously not to do it [1]. THese are pretty clear cut BLP issues. Tbeatty 22:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If FAAFA is reading here I would like to ask him to consider removing the language in question, which is by no means going to affect the result of the arbitration case. Newyorkbrad 22:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Why? It's been settled that Jeff Gannon was a gay prostitute. A hireling, a fraud and a prostitute Please read the discussion in Jeff Gannon talk - especially the real-world, grounded reasoning from Admins Guy and Galmeiel vs the tortured attempts by certain other editors to twist BLP in an effort 'protect' a fellow conservative. That's the Latin use of 'cum' too. If an Admin feels that calling Jeff Gannon a gay prostitute is a BLP violation, they can remove it. I would like that someone asks Guy or Galmeiel what they think. - FAAFA 23:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

But what does having that argument have to do with the arbitration case? The arbitrators need to read through the presentations and evidence and decide what to do about the problematic situation on the Free Republic article and related matters. Are the words you are putting on the arbitration pages going to help them do that? That's a question for everyone, by the way. Newyorkbrad 23:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

TBeatty decided to fill up the evidence section with claims about me - that he didn't even write, mind you - about my behavior - mostly from months ago - behavior that was already addressed in an Rfc months ago. Of course I am going to address his own WP violating behavior. I have nearly finished with it though. (unless he persists) I believe admins are allowed to edit the RfA. Maybe an Admin should edit out all the info that has nothing to do with Free Republic, which would delete 95% of Tbeatty's laundry-list of irrelevent complaints, and my counter-complaints. Peace Now! - FAAFA

Ilena

Thanks for letting me know. I should have known the situation would be bogged down and complicated. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Free Republic Arbcom case

Hi! How much time do I have to get evidence together? There are a lot of differences to go through, and real world events and recent cyber-attacks on my infrastructure here have kept me from doing it. I run two radio networks, stream a third one, and run a major web site, and this weekend we are traveling to visit my wife's family in another state. If I cannot complete this in time, no loss, though, dealing with the Hinnen brothers and their sock puppets has about totally turned me off Wikipedia for good, and I actually posted my retirement, but several editors and admins asked me to stay on. --BenBurch 19:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The written rules indicate that the arbitrators allow at least one week from the opening of the case to compile evidence. In reality, the arbitrators have several cases on their plate that opened before yours, so you probably have even more time than that, unless they decide to vote on some sort of temporary injunction. So I think you still have time to put together whatever you think is appropriate, bearing in mind that the primary purpose of the arbitration pages is to provide the arbs with the information needed to reach a fair result in the case rather than to prevail on the merits of any underlying content issue. Hope that helps. Newyorkbrad 19:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. --BenBurch 19:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

AIV and User:Fuskamu

Done, I think. Wouldn't hurt to double-check. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks okay to me. Real world does get in the way sometimes. :) Newyorkbrad 20:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine

Since everyone is ignoring me on ANI, can you take a look at Mexico123? He's being a prat wrt orphaned images. He's been blocked for a week before, and I gave him a final warning in January. I think he may have just about exhausted his stock of AGF. David Mestel^(Talk) 21:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I posted a final warning to his page pointing out that I am an admin and about to block his account. Let's give it 48-72 hours to see what happens and if this doesn't help I will probably have to block indef unless/until he complies. I've watchlisted his page, as well, so we'll see if he answers. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, you're polite. David Mestel^(Talk) 08:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

None of the user's contribs seem to have involved writing a word of English. Is it possible he doesn't speak it? In which case maybe a Spanish speaking user should explain about the need for copyright licenses for images? WjBscribe 09:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You know, I was wondering the same thing. Does anyone who happens to be reading here know enough Spanish to follow up? Newyorkbrad 10:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Do I need to put up with this?

Should I wait for arbcom or should I just report to ANI for this. --Tbeatty 13:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've commented and asked him to stay off your talkpage. I certainly hope there will be no more of this sort of thing. Since I'm clerking the case I don't want to do more, but you are certainly free to mention the matter in your evidence and/or to post to ANI if you wish. Newyorkbrad 14:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave it in evidence and it looks like Thatcher dropped a warning too, so no need to do any more. Thanks! --Tbeatty 14:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Brad - I don't think you or Thatcher understand. Tbeatty a) reverted an old deleted pic twice b) created a talk page about the pic. He obviously was interested in the pic. I thought it important to let him know the history. link and link Was it the link to the Jeff Gannon pic ? Was that the problem ? Thanks - FAAFA 15:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Can't you just say away from your antagonists, and vice versa, as much as you can? Please? Beyond that, since there's no urgency, I'll leave it for the arbitrators. Newyorkbrad 15:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Polar coordinate system

Congratulations. I know how hard you worked on this. Newyorkbrad 00:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! —METS501 (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Found ....

I've found the "official website" of the Ben 10 cartoon. It is www.ben10.com. Martial Law 21:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

A question

In the evidence, are editors allowed to make up any absurd claim as fact? Read these in sequence [2][3][4]. I think he made an honest error but doesn't want to let go of it and is therefore twisting it into something absurd. Can I presume that the ArbCom committee will see through the absurdity or do I have to rebut it? --Tbeatty 00:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You can presume that the arbitrators are intelligent, experienced, and dedicated editors. You can also assume that they have a lot less familiarity with your case and the editors involved in it than the participants do. I'm not going to tell anyone what to include in evidence and will have to trust that people use their best judgment. If you believe the situation is clear, you could always explain BRIEFLY why you believe the statement to be false and say that you can provide additional evidence if requested. Bear in mind that the arbitrators appreciate (and can most easily process) clear evidence, but in the past (not relating to this specific case), some of them have also expressed concerns about the length of the evidence presentations. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 00:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It does. I think the familiarity is the key. I will also try to shorten my evidence a bit and make it more direct. I was hoping the links would would tell the story, but it may be too overwhelming to expect ArbCom to follow each one. thanks! --Tbeatty 00:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, and I am not singling you out at all, if I were an arbitrator I would find much of the evidence and virtually all of the workshop as presented by the parties in this case to be virtually useless. The only thing that they make clear is such violent hatred felt by some of the parties for one another as to be extreme even for an arbitration case. Incidentally, for the benefit of anyone else who is following this, I note that in my administrator capacity I have just addressed a 3RR report relating these same disputants. The report and underlying user conduct has done nothing to elevate the tone of the overall discussion. Newyorkbrad 00:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Brad - I addressed that on TBeatty's talk page - which he deleted:

Your refactoring is a violation of WP

Behavior that is unacceptable

• • Don't edit others' comments: Refrain from editing others' comments without their permission (with the exception of prohibited material such as libel and personal details).

• • • An apologetic exception: If you wish to retract a negative comment in the interests of harmony, insert a placeholder in the text such as, "[Thoughtless and stupid comment removed by the author.]", so your fellow editors' irritated responses still make sense. In turn, they may then wish to replace their reply with something like, "[Irritated response to deleted comment removed. Apology accepted.]"

"Do not refactor me again. If you believe you (or Jeff Gannon, Peter Akinola, etc) have been libeled or my comments are BLP violations, contact an administrator or the BLP board." Brad, IMO his repeated refactoring of what I write is a violation of WP and intentional harassment - if he believes he is within his rights to do so, he is required to leave a placeholder so that others are aware that comments have been refactored or redacted. He doesn't. You will also note that it has been Tbeatty's stated goal to have me permenently banned since at least August. I have no such goal, I only would like to see him put revert parole, and counsoled regarding political agendas, POV, and BLP. Just read his talk archives where he accuses Wiki of systematic liberal bias, and how his goal is to change that. He even used the reference desk only a few days ago as a platform to blatantly push his POV and political agenda and (IMO) conspiracy theories! (link coming) - FAAFA 01:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The edit-war on that image is ridiculous behavior. I'm taking no action, and leaving the entire situation to the tender mercies of the arbitrators. Newyorkbrad 01:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I get a finding on the artistic merit of my endeavor? ;-) WARNING: adult content image - FAAFA

A question to the Ref desk asked about Global Warming in Great Britain. Tbeatty even used this as an opportunity to push his politics, his POV, and his 'conspiracy theories' about the media and 'global cooling' ! "I believe the eastern United States has been cooling steadily [5] but lots of places have been cooling. Not that you would have heard it on the news :). There are lots of suggested outcomes of Global Warming mostly though it creates alarmism instead of representing scientific conclusions." Tbeatty 05:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC) This is unconsionable. Please make him stop ;-) - FAAFA 01:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

enough is enough

I've been insulted before because of my efforts to improve our project, however, I find this particular insult to be way out of line and I'm expecting some sort of action. It's not the first time, and there was an ArbCom about Mongo's behavior… enough is enough. Lovelight 01:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I concur. - FAAFA 01:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I would have phrased the comments differently, but I don't see anything requiring administrator action at this time. Newyorkbrad 14:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Contractual Obligation Album

It isn't all that obscure, but it is pretty easily overlooked as well in my experience. I didn't hear it until a good ten years after I thought I had exhausted all the monty python material out there ;) (also, tbh I was not that big on the song either, but I find it enormously quotable).
Thanks for havin' a sense of humour. One worries, sometimes, in the wake of all this unfunny business around, of all things, comics. Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 01:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

RfAr

Do you think you could ask DeanHinnen to 'reign it in' a little?

• Also, another reason why you got a 24-hour block was "misrepresentation." This is a polite way to say "lying," sir. Your entire participation in this proceeding, as well as FAAFA's, consists of misrepresenting the evidence. The constant distortions, half-truths and spin-doctoring don't even stop here. Dino 13:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC) LINK Thanks - FAAFA 09:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like everyone to rein it in a little on those pages. See my comments to Tbeatty above. Newyorkbrad 14:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you think...

Special:Contributions/Tony16. Also see Special:Undelete/Asher_Heimermann. Thoughts? Metros232 15:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's persistent, at least. Definitely "yes" to the question you are asking. Newyorkbrad 15:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Just monitor for now? I almost blocked him, but then remembered that Asher was never actually blocked indefinitely...so this isn't an avoidance of a block. Metros232 15:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Given that he was desperate to have his name taken off wiki a week ago, I'm at a little bit of a loss. I'll be keeping an extremely close eye, and he's close to being blocked or at least soundly scolded for personal attacks anyhow. Newyorkbrad 16:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: My outburst on ANI

Thank you! I was considering replacing it with the word "prejudiced," seeing as such a statement would prejudge the existence of the article, but I decided two edits to make a comment is enough. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 17:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help, I was worried I was being too nit-picky. :) I see that Centrx picked up on the same wording issue and worked it into his reply, which is more elegant than what I did. Newyorkbrad 17:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Paul Conners

Thanks for the info. Really, I won't be too surprised if he resurfaces as an IP or some such thing. I'll keep an eye out. Natalie 22:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Just an FYI - This user was also blocked recently using IP 64.38.60.236 and has also used IP 70.188.138.214 (though not blocked on this one that I know of). Morphh ^(talk) 22:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If you need to report him again, feel free to reference the warning I left on his talkpage. Newyorkbrad 22:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The Weakly Lawyer

Thank you for letting me know....and thank you for not altering your RfA stance :)

I initially tagged it because it has no Alexa presence and Google finds only two hits for the title [6] and three for the web URL [7]. There didn't appear to be much opportunity for notability. I'm not arguing against your removal of the tag, just letting you understand my motivation for adding the tag. IrishGuy ^talk 22:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It was a legitimate tag and I daresay 8 admins out of 10 would have deleted it. As I just wrote in a radically different context on WP:AN, I don't wear it on my sleeve but I am probably more "inclusionist" than most. In this case, I didn't see any harm to letting a new good-faith contributor have a chance to make something more out of the article. Or maybe it's just because I contribute to another legal humor and human-interest publication (not this one) and am generous to the breed. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

At the end of the day, I would agree that it is ultimately harmless. It wasn't really blatant advertising akin to "our site rules, go check it out!" (which I have seen) I actually googled it in the hopes that I might be able to assist in fleshing it out...mainly because it didn't strike me as simple advertising. Unfortunately, I couldn't really find anything other than two blogs. Hopefully, the authors can provide something that I overlooked. IrishGuy ^talk 22:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

BLP<>BIO

(or is BLP=!BIO cooler?)

WP:BLP = Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

WP:BIO = Wikipedia:Notability (people)

WP:NOT = Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

WAS 4.250 05:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; I knew that; just a slip of the tongue/fingers. Newyorkbrad 08:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty's actions (again)

Several Admins determined that User:Chicagostyledog was a probable sock of BryanFromPalatine. Tbeatty (who actually felt that he should be made an Admin when he had under two months on Wiki and less than 600 edits link) took it upon himself to change that finding to being a sock of JoelHazaltine, then accused ME of false accusations, when I was agreeing with the consensus of several Admins. It has been TBeatty's stated goal since at least August to have me permenently banned, and this shows, yet again, that he will do anything to try and accomplish that.

He added the following to the RfAr evidence page.

1) "False accusations. [8] Followed by backtracking [9][10]"

Can't you appoint a conservator for him - or something? A sanction? Thanks - FAAFA 08:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The first of your two points can be discussed with one of the admins who did the sockpuppet review, since I was not involved in it. The second is for the arbitrators. I will add my opinion that linking to a question he asked about adminship standards, 11 months ago, is inappropriate and a real reach. Newyorkbrad 08:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought I was a rather restrained in response to his actions. In case you didn't know, there's a wee bit of bad blood between us. - FAAFA 08:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: Brian Peppers

Very well said. I support your position 100%. Regards, El_C 13:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Request for arbitration

Thanks so much. That's what I'm thinking. Will deal with it when I got more time. :-) — Instantnood 21:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Betacommand

Betacommand has now attempted to answer on his blocking for usernames. Could you close the Rfc for now, until these have been addressed? I think it would be a good idea to keep the page RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll be glad to do that, but I'd appreciate it if you could (1) post the request to close the RfC on the RfC page (so anyone who sees the page will know it was closed at your suggestion), and (2) give me a link to Betacommand's response and put that on the page as well. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 22:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Done (although I didn't use a template to request closure). The links are below to show betacommand has been trying to address this (I've added them into the Rfc);

• [11] on User talk:HighInBC
• [12] on WP:RFCN

NOTE:All other disucusions had been closed meaning betacommand was unable to comment RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Closed and de-listed for now. Good luck in resolving the issue, which is important, and the RfC can be reopened if necessary. Newyorkbrad 23:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability of student-run law journals?

Got a question a lawyer like you may know the answer to... at Talk:Islam_and_slavery#Arguments_why_Azizah_Y._al-Hibri_is_a_reliable_source there's a dispute over whether an article written by a professor in the Fordham International Law Journal is a reliable source since this publication is student-run. My opinion is that the situation with law journals is unique in that the most prestigious of them are, in fact, student-run, unlike the situation in other fields like physics, history, etc. where all the famous publications are run by senior academics. Would you agree/disagree on this point? - Merzbow 02:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. In the United States, most (though definitely not all) law reviews and law journals are student-run, including the most prestigious ones of all such as the Harvard Law Review, Yale Law Journal, Fordham Law Review, et al. See generally law review. It has been frequently commented that law is the only field in which the students accept or reject, and edit, the professionals' writing. I am not sure whether this is also true outside the United States. Newyorkbrad 02:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)