Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,657
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 537:
Line 537: + + +
→When is an amicus brief worth mentioning?
[[User:Aschlafly]] [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=133982&oldid=118651 added]] a mention of a case the ACLU filed an amicus brief in but did not represent the plaintiffs in; less than an hour later, he [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=next&oldid=134031 removed]] all mention of racial equality cases with the edit summary "removed liberal bias; ACLU did not represent the plantiffs in Brown v. Board of Education". Is there any principle in use here other than "ACLU is bad"? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 20:33, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
[[User:Aschlafly]] [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=133982&oldid=118651 added]] a mention of a case the ACLU filed an amicus brief in but did not represent the plaintiffs in; less than an hour later, he [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=next&oldid=134031 removed]] all mention of racial equality cases with the edit summary "removed liberal bias; ACLU did not represent the plantiffs in Brown v. Board of Education". Is there any principle in use here other than "ACLU is bad"? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 20:33, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
: You omitted a distinction: the amicus brief in the entry was filed in the last few months, while the amicus brief deleted was filed over 50 years ago. Yes, what an organization did earlier this year is more relevant to its entry than what it did over 50 years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:42, 28 April 2007 (EDT)