Changes

notice of changes
Line 154: Line 154:     
:: This entry should explain to the reader up-front what this case was about, what drove it, and who won what.  It doesn't do that now and the list of plaintiffs who had no financial interest in the case obscures what really happened.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:16, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
 
:: This entry should explain to the reader up-front what this case was about, what drove it, and who won what.  It doesn't do that now and the list of plaintiffs who had no financial interest in the case obscures what really happened.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:16, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
== Notice of changes ==
 +
 +
In furtherance of my comments above, the liberal fluff and errors are going to be removed from this entry this morning.  Case summaries do not dwell on the identity of law firms and plaintiffs who had no financial interest in the action.  See [[Engel v. Vitale]] and [[Stone v. Graham]] if you still don't believe me.  Also, the summary insists on repeating a key error about the award despite my repeated corrections of that.  I'll wait a bit if someone else would like to correct this first, but if not then I'll fix it yet again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:34, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, 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
126,506

edits