Talk:Rosemary Barkett

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
WikiProject iconMexico
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico 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.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
inactive
.

Untitled

There really should be a reference supporting this assertion at the end that Barkett is one of the most curious, hard working, and fair judges out there. As someone who knows a little something about the legal world, that's just a flabbergasting statement. I mean, "curious?" C'mon!--Smashingworth 21:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's been there since the anon contributor who added this article - not really encyclopedic, so feel free to can it. bd2412 T 21:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are two people here!

Bot-created subpage

A subpage at Rosemary Barkett/fjc was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

As mentioned above, the uncited peacock language is not neutral. There also isn't a fair account of the critique of Barkett's judicial activism. Ed Whelan has written about the subject. There's also undue emphasis on one non-notable 11th Circuit opinion. THF (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]