Talk:Curley v. NAMBLA

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
WikiProject iconUnited States Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.
United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLaw Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLGBT studies
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles

Untitled

I removed the link to User:Adam_Carr/Documents1 because it is the same as one of the PDF's pointed to. -- Fplay 02:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I put it back and put a selfref around it. Still not the best solution. -- Fplay 18:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The full text of these documents can be seen here.

Moved self-ref here from article body. --DanielCD 00:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Review article

That National Review article is highly biased and is not a good reference. I'm not saying I disagree with it, I really don't care. But opinion pieces are not proper references. I'm going to ask for a third opinion though. It might be ok if there is some trustworthy info. --DanielCD 03:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"External links" are not the same as references. National Review is a notable source, albeit one with a POV. -Will Beback 03:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think you are right. It does have a bias, but the info being used seems sound. Thanks for being so astute. --DanielCD 04:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I also did some cleaning up. Some of the facts need further verification, as the two men seem to have had different parts, though both are quite guilty. However the article made it seem like both were equal in all parts. One aided, and the other did the sexual stuff.
I also removed the long list of names and such, as I thought that was a little bit of an overkill. If someone wants them replaced, it might be done in a way that it doesn't dominate the article and fuzz the focus. The names are relevant, and they are mentioned. But it seemed like information overkill. Anyway, comments on my edits are always welcome. --DanielCD 04:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From a deleted section of the article: "In the application, Bejin is listed as the 'President/Vice President' of

Zymurgy" Zymurgy? Are these guys in the beer-brewing business too?? --DanielCD 04:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Not Notable

This article replicates material in the NAMBLA article, and lawsuits are hardly notable in their own right, nor worthy of their own separate articles. Someone needs to propose this for AfD.

Politically motivated lawsuits get filed every day. People claim that video games or sex education or looking at Playboy or NAMBLA's website or eating twinkies drove them to commit some dispicable act. We do not need to fill up Wikipedia with a page for each one. Hermitian 20:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a significant event. I agree, Wikipedia does not need to fill up a page for each and every claim that someone makes as to not being guilty because some groups literature drove them to commit an act. However cases which garner significant media attention do justify a nice reference, so people can quickly read up on the background of a case and know it's context - rather then having to sift through much more biased sources over an extensive google search. 130.71.96.19 01:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This case need update

It's still 2005 information, what is going on now? Is it on Supreme Court yet?

Talk, Editor review 22:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Coincidentally I was just trying to find news on this case. Apparently the last decision was handed down March 2003, and that was just on a procedural issue. I know civil cases take time but this is odd. I can't find any trace of it being settled or dismissed. -Will Beback · † · 23:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed misrepresentation of source

I have edited this article so that it quotes one of its sources correctly. The Op-Ed by Richard Hoffman does not use the word "penis". It uses the word "wiles." Whether the article was worded the way it was because of a deliberate misrepresentation of the source, or because of a weird misunderstanding of "wiles" (which looks vaguely like a slang word for "penis"), I don't know. "Wiles" was changed to "penis" in this edit, back on October 12; it's not encouraging that this wasn't reverted more quickly. Devil Goddess (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Requested move
: Change the title back

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 01:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

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).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 07:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Curley v. NAMBLA. 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.

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Curley_v._NAMBLA&oldid=1206846756"