Talk:Ahlquist v. Cranston

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vandalism[edit]

I'm noticing that people are vandalising the page simply to insert opinion. May I remind Wikipedians of WP:NPOV. This applies to any Wikipedian, whether you're signed in or not. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a person. It should report only the facts, not opinion. Thewelshboyo (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Labeling[edit]

People have taken the time to try and stamp controversial and factually unbalanced on this page. Reading the article it links to clear concise information and does NOT spell out any bias. Please do not tag this article as controversial when it is nothing but reciting facts from a court document and giving biographical data of the person including age, gender, name, and location. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.165.236.17 (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Religion"[edit]

Somebody needs to edit her infobox. I would do it myself but I am not sure what to put exactly. Atheism is not a religion. Neither is Irreligion. Gune (talk) 08:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Per Template:Infobox person, religion of a living person is based upon self-identification in a reliable source. See WP:EGRS. Novangelis (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant removing the word religion altogether. It doesn't apply at all. "Philosophical viewpoint" or something like that would fit better. Gune (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "philosophical views" field in the person Infobox. Religion is the only applicable one, and the fact that she has no religion is notable. We are not listing her religion as "Atheism", we're listing it as "None"—FoxCE (talk | contribs) 22:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Then tell me why both the Voltaire and Christopher Hitchens articles don't include it in their infoboxes. They were both notable atheists. The only reason "religion" was thrown on this article was because of some pissed off Christian trying to put false information into the article. Gune (talk) 02:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I have no problem removing it. I recall having seen it done similarly elsewhere but I can't seem to find any examples now, so perhaps the practice has been deprecated. I'll be bold and remove it now, if anyone wishes to reinstate it they should join discussion here.—FoxCE (talk | contribs) 02:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Good edit. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Evil Little Thing"[edit]

The American Humanist Association is not involved in the fundraising for Jessica Ahlquist. The fundraising was started by Hemant Mehta (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/01/13/a-fundraiser-for-jessica-ahlquist/), and once it is over, the AHA will hold the funds in a education trust fund through the Humanist Foundation. (http://www.americanhumanist.org/news/details/2012-01-nonbelievers-applaud-court-ruling-to-remove-religiou) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NixManes (talk • contribs) 14:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I probably should have said "managed" instead of "arranged". Do you have any third party sources that better characterize the fund? I'm not averse to clarifying a third party source with a first or second party source, but try to use third party sources to the greatest extent possible. Please don't expect prompt responses from me for the next few days. I'm going to have intermittent web access.Novangelis (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page moved[edit]

Hi all. I moved and refocused the page. It was previously about Jessica Ahlquist; it is now about Ahlquist v. Cranston. I think the reason why I did this should be clear from my edit summary here, but if not, please drop me a note on my talk page. Best, NW (Talk) 04:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything should be reverted to how it was. Gune (talk) 08:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to express as strong an opinion. I concur that WP:BIO1E indicates that there should not be an article on the case and the litigant when the litigant does not meet notability independent of the case; the question is one of focus. Looking at the coverage, there is far more news coverage on the litigant than the case. Further, at last I searched (although I am no expert on law review articles), there are no legal analyses of the case to provide a framework for an article with a primary focus on the case. For these reasons, I recommend reverting the article to "Jessica Ahlquist", based on the current sources. I had considered creating an "Ahlquist v. Cranston" redirect to this article, but held off because scholarly analyses need more lead time to publication. Based on the principle of recentism, this is my current opinion and it could easily change, especially if legal journals provide analyses or if the case is appealed.Novangelis (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and think it should be reverted to "Jessica Ahlquist" Thewelshboyo (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Novangelis, the reason I titled the article to be about the court case is because it was the best title I could think of that focused on the event as opposed to the person. Cranston West High School banner controversy could have worked as well, but it's a bit long. WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E shouldn't just be ignored like you guys seem to be doing. If Ms. Ahlquist ends up becoming the next Ellery Schempp or Michael Newdow (in terms of having sustained coverage), I think we can reassess having an article on her then, but only then. NW (Talk) 21:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the move. There is nothing to know about Ahlquist the person. The focus of the article is, as it should be, on the case, including the circumstances that led to its being litigated and the response to the decision. There's no real reason to make this article into a biographical article about a person with no notability other than for this case. I wouldn't expect to find an article about Richard Perry Loving, Suzette Kelo, or Kristin Perry, either. TJRC (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of offering extreme examples using major legal cases which get extensive coverage about case law and not the peripheral events or personalities, please focus on the Wikipedia policy issues pertaining to this article. No one has proposed two articles. The case, so far, has not had any obvious legal impact. This is not a clear-cut single event where the event has gained more notoriety than the individual. It is not even a clear-cut single event; there are entwined events of which the case is only part and the person in question was involved. If you are going to offer examples, please offer something more related to the issues in this discussion. If I could think of a case which might have generated a comparable WP:1E discussion, I would have looked for it. By the way, there is a biography of Mildred and Richard Loving.Novangelis (talk) 07:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised that the Lovings have an article on them. I feel that the article simply duplicates the content in Loving v. Virginia. But in any case, I am having trouble thinking of any situation which is similar to what we have here, simply because minor court cases involving atheists are a flash in the pan. I'm not going to be surprised if Ms. Ahlquist speaks at the next American Atheists conference, but I will be surprised in if in twenty years some reporter bothers to track her down and figure out what she is up to then. More likely than not, such a thing will not happen, but if it does, will the article in 2033 follow the section about the lawsuit with a section that reads "After graduating from Cranston West, Ahlquist attended Brown University. She graduated magna cum laude with a B.A. in mathematics in 2017. She then attended Stanford University, where she obtained a Masters in Public Health in 2019. As of 2032, she works at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia." That's neat and all, but entirely orthogonal to the main reason why she is notable—the lawsuit and related events. So let's have the article and the title stick to that.

Does that explain things better? I'm trying to convey why BIO1E is written the way it is, and I don't think I'm succeeding. NW (Talk) 19:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that this is tough. The bio I pointed out correlates with my experience: I have seen BIO1E cases go every which way with little discussion of guiding principles. We don't know if Ahlquist v. Cranston will ever be cited, either. Together, the plaintiff and the case reached sufficient notability for one article. I've done my best to try to figure out some defining test for the focus. Here it is: "If writing a relevant event and the individual will not result in substantial differences in 'on-topic' content, write about the event." I find that no relevant information will be lost. I won't know until I resume editing, but the article may become more cohesive when the biographical information is collected as "plaintiff". In summary, when the press puts a face on an event, Wikipedia should avoid following suit if possible. I concur with leaving the article as is (Ahlquist v. Cranston), and hope there is sufficient guidance here for other editors.Novangelis (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Ahlquist bio[edit]

Please note that I have created Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jessica_Ahlquist, currently waiting for review in AfC. Since the beginning of this year Jessica Ahlquist has gained considerable media attention outside of the Cranston court case. At her young age she became a regular speaker at noted events and is now up for a Humanist Pioneer Award [1]. The persona Ahlquist has risen out of just this one court case. --Pereant antiburchius (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this is still a case of BLP1E. There is insufficient third party coverage of the plaintiff outside of the case and the community reaction, one extended event. The minor awards, which are not receiving much, if any, third-party coverage, still bear excessive linkage to the event. I do want to say that you have a number of good sources (including a few I missed), but the third-party sources tend to establish the point that this is a person notable for one event.Novangelis (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've declined the draft article at AfC, considering that a decision has been made here to rename and redirect an article of the same name. I agree that at the moment there are insufficient convincing sources in the draft article to prove Ahlquist has become widely notable outside of the court case. The draft article is primarily about the court case and its repercussions. Sionk (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bio[edit]

It's been 6-8 months since this was discussed, and Ahlquist has continued to receive quite a bit of media attention. She just spoke at the Texas Freethought Convention alongside Dawkins, PZ Meyers, and others. In that time, this article has expanded to include more information about her personally. With that in mind, I created a specific bio for her, at Jessica Ahlquist. I created the bio before I saw this issue had been discussed before, but since then I've tried to incorporate as much of the material that was discussed as possible, and I've merged personal details from this article into the bio. If anyone has any specific improvements or suggestions, by all means jump right in. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ahlquist v. Cranston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ahlquist v. Cranston. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Ahlquist v. Cranston. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 08:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ahlquist v. Cranston. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ahlquist_v._Cranston&oldid=1198185788"