Talk:Edward Nottingham

Criticism

WP:BLP says

"Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article"

Looks to me like a tiny bio attached to three large sections of criticism, heavy with quotes, definitely overwhelms the article. Thoughts? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I would think this article violates BLP in that the critical aspects of this man's life overwhelmingly dominate the article, and so creates a negative sensibility about the person rather than presenting material in a way that the reader makes these decisions. A solution might be to extend the biography section considerably, chronicalling in gretaer detail aspects of the man's life. This would create "weight" creating a counter balance to the criticism sections. I think its worth noting that BLP makes the following points important to note in this instance:

• "so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides;"

• "Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy."

• "Article improvement to a neutral high quality standard is preferred if possible, with dubious material removed if necessary until issues related to quality of sources, neutrality of presentation, and general appropriateness in the article have been discussed and resolved."

(olive (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC))

Right, it's a Weight issue- if the bio were huge, the criticism would not be to large. Could rename the article to "criticism of." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Its a weight issue, but I would think titling the article as critical on a BLP might be somewhat objectionable. I haven't seen anything that says that specifically but just seems that you are weighting the article in a specific way in terms of the person's life even if its the title that gives context. In would think that's it different than on a regular article(olive (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC))

Criticism of George W. Bush ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Tried

I tried to move to article to "Criticism of" which was reverted by an admin. The reason for the revert was that I should add the biographical information, but that is not in accordance with WP:BLP. So I cut the criticism down to a point where it doesn't, in my opinion, overwhelm the article too much. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm fine with the removal of excessive quotations. I'd still like to see more that is positive (or at least non-critical) if there are facts to be presented about this person other than the criticism. bd2412 T 06:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I don't know anything about him, I just saw this article was an obvious BLP violation and tried moving it rather than deleting the material. I don't really want to do anything with it myself. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Under "wierd" -- a mention of a litigant who may have been called litigious makes it into this article? Were I she, I would not want that link in this BLP for sure as it does not present her in any favorable light. It is rather damaging to her. Collect (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Additional criticism

The following is cross posted from the talk page of User:Esoxlucios and is added here for transparency, and to ensure that all participants are aware of what policies apply to additional information in this article:

I am going to remove your addition, once again, because it does not meet the requirements of our biography of living persons policy. Information added to biographical articles must use reliable sources that meet our verifiability policy. You are sourcing this addition to a blog, which does not constitute a reliable source here on Wikipedia. As well, the external link you are adding is clearly an advocacy page that does not meet the requirements for editorial oversight. I am going to cross-post this to the talk page of the article, Esoxlucios, so that everyone will see that the same standards apply to all.

I am sure there is applicable criticism available; it must, however, come from high quality sources. Risker (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Response from Esoxlucios

I am amending my addition, citing sources that meet the requirements of our biography of living persons policy, which sources must be reliable sources that meet the verifiability policy. In this instance, it is improper to state that Nottingham was regarded as a thoughtful jurist with a brilliant legal mind, yet disregard that he was equally regarded as a despotic tyrant by many members of the legal community in Denver and which information has been concomitantly reported by those same reliable sources.

In addition, the external link[1] that I added --regardless of the viewpoint of the site owner-- collects actual case documents, filings, articles and other memoranda that are either original or true and accurate copies and, therefore, is a valid historical source. Further, I would add the the external link has been regarded as a "quality source" by the main steam media. See, e.g.,
http://chieftain.com/articles/2008/10/31/news/denver_bureau/doc490ad23327901153763439.txt;
http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=102294&catid=339;
http://cbs4denver.com/local/Nottingham.prostitution.edward.2.852629.html; and
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78975 to name a few.
Esoxlucios(talk)

Adds WP:UNDUE, I think.... And the Denver Post isn't exactly a well-known paper outside of Denver. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 04:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The sources are much more positive than the article. There are some which would be great for building the article as a bio. If the article were bigger, we'd have more room for criticism, though not inserted in the way it has been. But till then it overwhelms the article. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've slimmed down the article and some of the criticism a bit. It looks pretty NPOV to me and does'nt overdo the criticism in its current state. It's unfair to say that the articles cited are more positive than the article here. The part about asking a pro to lie to invesigators and possible resulting obstruction of justice, could possibly be put in, but I think it's best to leave it out for now because of balance issues. Smallbones (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

In re: "discuss on talk before reinserting"

Every edit --whether an addition or subtraction-- that I have contributed to this page has been reverted with little discussion and on specious grounds, raising my suspicions as to the animus behind the attempts to re-write this former judge's legacy.

I have engaged in discussion both on this page and also on my Talk page. In addition, in the spirit of WP:BRD, I have amended my contributions multiple times in a futile effort to reach "consensus."

Nevertheless, my discussion points have been ignored and my changes reverted with the conclusory comment, "discuss on talk before reinserting."

This is your opportunity to "discuss on talk" before I reinsert. In the absence of a reasonable, rational justification for: (a) the extant cherry-picked quote in the Biography section; and (b) the exclusion of other viewpoints that have become an indelible part of the record (i.e., reported in "reliable sources"); and (c) the exclusion of the document repository Web site, I will reinsert my contributions.

This offer-in-compromise is consistent with WP:BRD. If you elect not to discuss and unequivocally and repeatedly undo/revert, then one or both of us will be excluded from editing this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esoxlucios (talk • contribs) 19:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't feel too persecuted. Pretty much all your edits have been to make the article as negative as possible, so people, no doubt, suspect that you are not really here to improve the article generally, but merely to defame the Judge. However, you've done a good job of finding good sources, and have been willing to modify what you do to some degree. I think you need to look for more balance in your use of sources: reflect the positive aspects of the sources as well as the negative. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Update from Esoxlucios: Martinphi said "Get consensus first. Read WP:BRD" and exhorted me to use "reliable sources" that meet the verifiability policy I read WP:BRD and cited alternatively from reliable sources. When I removed a quote that was cherry-picked to portray the subject in a positive light, Collect said "no like quote, find a balancing quote. That is how WP works." Apparently, not, as the balancing quotes I inserted were immediately undone. Finally, Risker said, "please discuss on talk before reinserting." I posted an invitation for discussion and arriving at consensus pursuant to WP:BRD before reinserting.

In response to Martinphi's latest comment, I regret if anyone has assumed that my attempts to provide balance through accuracy about the subject of this biography, even `though it may be unflattering, is an attempt to "defame." Certainly, I wasn't in the pocket of the attorneys and reporters over the last twenty years, who memorialized the sentiments. With respect to balance, my comments above reflect that there are those who have regarded the subject as a learned jurist and also others who have regarded him as a despotic tyrant. Often times, the commentators have both views. The fact that any and all of these countervailing perspectives have been precluded, even after conceding that I was willing to amend my approach, demonstrates that there is a lack of receptivity to balance (or, rather, to any perspectives that aren't flattering). Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esoxlucios (talk • contribs) 03:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I read some in the sources, and their tone is a lot more positive than your text. You seem only interested in inserting negative info. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed edit by Esoxlucios

Bringing this to the talk page, for discussion:

The Denver Post referred to Nottingham as "one of the best legal minds on the bench," yet he was also characterized by The Westword as being, "known for his hot temper." "Not only d[id] Nottingham eviscerate lawyers in public, but he force[d] them to come into court two and a half hours before the lights come on in most other courtrooms," as a punitive measure. The Rocky Mountain News reported that attorneys often refrained from expressing their views of the former judge, reasoning they didn't want to jeopardize future pleadings in front of him. "Everyone who goes before him is nervous," one of those attorneys said. "Those who aren't should be." (Id.)

It would be good for other editors to weigh in on this, please. Are www.westword.com and www.therocky.com sufficiently reliable sources? (I will assume the Denver Post is, it has been accepted in many other articles.) Is the content sufficiently balanced based on these sources?

As well, Esoxlucios has proposed adding a link to a website in which he has a personal interest. It would be better if editors to the article determine whether or not it is a sufficiently reliable source, in order to avoid WP:COI issues: http://www.knowyourcourts.com/Nottingham/Nottingham.htm

I trust, Esoxlucios, that you will find this helpful in starting the discussion of what of your proposed edits will work in the view of the editors interested in this article. Risker (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Rocky Mountain News (therocky.com) appears to be a reliable source. Owned by the Scripps group.

Denver Westword (westword.com) also appears to be reliable. It's an "alternative" source and I can't quite figure out who the editor or editors is or are, but then I haven't located that information for the Rocky Mountain News either. I think you want to look for sources that have a good internal fact-checking function. It's hard to know how that function works with sources in general, but I don't see anything in either of these sources that sets off alarm bells for me.

Denver Post is reliable, I assume.

Regarding knowyourcourts.com, I will give it a look. Famspear (talk) 04:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the conflict between Sean Harrington (operator of KnowYourCourts website) and Edward Nottingham, Denver Westword says this:

Judiciary critic Sean Harrington, whose KnowYourCourts website featured some interesting scoopage on Judge Edward Nottingham well before his recent resignation, has his own complaint about the judge still pending with the state's attorney regulation authorities. There's no love lost between the two; this story in the Rocky Mountain News notes that Nottingham once threw out a massive motion from pro se litigant Harrington, calling it a senseless "heap."

But let's not lose sight of the fact that Harrington has been a vocal scourge of perceived judicial abuse on many fronts — including in the matter of his own epic, nine-year divorce case.

Harrington recently posted new filings indicating that the attorney of his ex-wife is now seeking to be represented by an attorney of her own, as is the child advocate in the case. "What kind of a divorce lawyer needs to hire a lawyer to represent herself against a non-lawyer in her own client's case?" Harrington asks on his site. "Answer: a divorce lawyer who's lost three appeals in a row to that non-lawyer."

Doubtless the other side, or sides, have their own version of Harrington's legal maneuverings. But the length and complexity of the case points to one of the grimmer aspects of the modern courtroom experience. Marriage is sometimes just a whim, but divorce is forever. -- Alan Prendergast

--See Alan Prendergast, "Judge Naughty's accuser is hell on lawyers," Denver Westworld, Oct. 23, 2008, at [2]. Yours, Famspear (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I see at least two issues that need to be addressed here. First, what is the reliability of the website KnowYourCourts.com itself -- what is its policy for fact checking? Who edits the operator of the site? I think that the lack of an editor on the site (if such be the case) might not be an absolute bar to using the site as a source, but it is something that could be considered in assessing Reliability.

Second, a Wikipedia editor has admitted that he is indeed the operator of the site. Normally, a Wikipedia editor citing to or linking to his own web site as a source in a Wikipedia article would raise strong concerns about a conflict of interest. Any thoughts, anyone? Famspear (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Response from Esoxlucios

As noted in my user Talk page, I make no attempt to hide that I am the administrator for the KnowYourCourts.com Web site. Merely the fact that I have an opinion or the fact that I formed that opinion through a negative encounter with the subject of this article, does not automatically or uniquely disqualify me from being capable of making a valuable contribution to this page. Moreover, my experience and independent research may uniquely qualify me to recognize if this page constitutes an inaccurate representation.

Nevertheless, I recognize why it is an automatic cause for suspicion and legitimate concern. The appropriate way to address the concern is to visit the site to determine whether it has value as a resource for further research for those reading the biography/article found here.

That said, the site has no advertising and generates no revenue; the purpose of the site is to disseminate both raw information and perspectives on matters of public concern to the public (pro bono publico). As to the "perspectives" function, I am clear and unambiguous in making known what is my opinion, whilst allowing the site visitors to review the raw data and documentation to arrive at their own conclusions. This, of course, is why The Pueblo Chieftain, Denver9News, CBS4News and WorldNetDaily, (supra) are comfortable with citing the Web site for source material.

To take the single Nottingham page as an example, I did not suppress the reproduction and publication of articles that aggrandize him. If the article was published and I learned of it, I captured and posted it on this page. One reason for this is that, within a few months, the Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News articles (that the Nottingham article presently links to) will be gone and you'll be linking to my page, anyway, or striking those references altogether.

Comments from uninvolved editor

I noticed some recent changes activity on this page and decided to see what was happening. Having read over all of the discussion on this page and the user page. As an uninvolved editor, I have come to the following, tentative, conclusions:

(a) "Knowyourcourts" is neither notable, nor a reliable source; it thus should not be cited.

(b) The article on Judge Nottingham should be allowed to accurately reflect the fact that the publicity about the subject is negative. Saying that the article needs to have an absolute balance in coverage is unrealistic. Does the article about Ted Bundy have to have a perfect balance of positive things to cancel out the negative? That would be ridiculous. For one thing, how do you even come up with enough positive things about Ted Bundy to make the article seem balanced? Second, this would not be balanced. Bottom line, you'd actually be giving undue weight to that positive content. If Judge Nottingham is notably mostly for controversy, it shouldn't be necessary to flower up the article. (For the record, I'm not comparing Judge Nottingham to Ted Bundy in a value-laden way; I'm just bringing it up for a different kind of metaphor).

(c) This article cannot become libelous, or take on an attack piece; if it is going to tip towards negativity, it must do so in a way, and only to the extent that, it accurately reflects the subejct's notability.

(d) Following up on (c) this means that (1) only negative information from reliable sources be used; (2) proferred sources must be vetted with extreme caution; and (3) editors with material conflicts of interest should be aggressively deterred from editing the article. Non Curat Lex (talk) 08:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments

First, I would note that knowyourcourts is not a "notable" source but rather, references a seemingly complete collection of documents archived from sources normally construed as reliable. If the goal of wikipedia is to empower the reader to make up his or her mind, it would follow that it would be an invaluable source of information, and should be referenced.

Second, the article as written prior to the proposed edits is unreasonably positive, given what is actually known about Judge Nottingham and his widely-reported conduct in court. It would therefore appear that someone is attempting to protect Judge Nottingham's legacy, as nothing in the proposed edits were particularly controversial, in light of the subject's bona fide notoriety. I concur with esox's view that "it is improper to state that Nottingham was regarded as a thoughtful jurist with a brilliant legal mind, yet disregard that he was equally regarded as a despotic tyrant by many members of the legal community in Denver and which information has been concomitantly reported by those same reliable sources."

Finally, I would note that the "Inquiry and Resignation" section does nothing to inform the reader as to the reasons why Nottingham might have been strongly motivated to resign; as a general rule, nothing short of a nuclear explosion will remove a federal judge from his post. That the allegations themselves -- that he tampered with a witness (one of the prostitutes he is reputed to have patronized) and lied to investigators -- are salacious and constitute federal crimes if proven are not grounds for their not being fully disclosed. Again, this resistance to update smells of a certain Palintology: revisionist history with a purpose.

If those who oppose esox's edits would like to take a shot at accurately reflecting what has transpired, they are more than welcome to do so. But if no one else is going to do it, esox should be given the floor. Bouldergeist (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The article already adequately gave negative opinions room. That is why BLP standards exist -- to discourage the piling of Ossa on Pelion. The article should nt be improperly lengthened, and any editor who operates a site which he desires to have used ought not be involved in this article. There have been a number of such in the past, and uniformly such editors have been told to keep away from areas where they operate an outside site. Collect (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No one here has yet provided any substantive rationale for why an individual who maintains an outside site or who has developed an opinion or insight through personal experience is uniquely unqualified to contribute to an article. One might argue that an individual with personal knowledge of facts in issue or, alternatively, who had undertaken research and study on a given topic (irrespective of the initial motivation) may be uniquely qualified to contribute. Indeed, this is not a court of law and we do not operate by a "peremptory recusal doctrine."

I am rightly offended when my motives have been called into question. Consider attacking the issues and not the person. Esoxlucios (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Esoxlucious: The reason no one has provided a rationale for why you are "uniquely unqualified" to edit the article is that the subject hadn't come up -- until you raised it -- just now. Further, I don't think anyone is arguing that you are unqualified to contribute to the article.

The issues are (1) whether your web site is a proper source for use in the article, and (2) whether it is proper for you yourself to cite your own web site as a source in an article (as opposed to me or some other editor citing it).

Example: I myself have not stated a position on whether your web site is a proper source (as opposed to the Denver newspaper, etc., etc.). I have pointed out that the Wikipedia rules would generally tend to support a conclusion that your web site is not a proper source, but I haven't made up my mind -- and I'm looking for input from other editors.

And, as I believe noted above, your "personal knowledge" of facts in issue, etc. -- no matter how solid that knowledge may be -- is not a valid basis for sourcing in Wikipedia. I have personal knowledge (formal education, experience, and recognition as an expert by authoritative third parties) about certain highly technical topics but, as a Wikipedia editor, that personal knowledge of mine is not a valid basis for me to use as sourcing in a Wikipedia article on those topics. Wikipedia requires that we as editors look for third party sources -- not to our own experiences and our own personal knowledge or expertise.

Regarding the comments by another poster -- I can't speak for the other editors, but I have no preconceived animus or notion regarding Nottingham, the subject of the article. Not being from the Denver area, I had never even heard of him until recently. If I had an animus or preconceived notion about Nottingham, my feelings should be negative, if anything, considering the news media accounts of him.

Let's keep the discussion on topic. You shouldn't feel offended -- and I don't think your "motives" have been called into question, not in the sense I believe you may be thinking. And while the editors are not treating this matter with the formality and stringency of a "court of law," Wikipedia does have policies and guidelines regarding Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, No Original Research, Conflicts of Interest, and so on. That's what we're addressing here. Yours, Famspear (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for you feedback. Please note, however, that I have made no attempts to contribute based on "personal knowledge" or "[my] own experiences." This was an inference that you drew. I was merely implying that my knowledge of this particular subject matter enables me to be particularly discerning as to the contributions others may make and as to the contributions that I myself would make, which contributions must be based upon reliable sources and in compliance with Wikipedia generally accepted standards. Esoxlucios (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

[-unindent-] ESOX - regardless of the substantive rationale it is a well-settled maxim that wikipedia content is not to be based on original research, but reliable secondary sources, and that blog opinions are not such a source. If you want to look into the substantive rationale, plese visit wp:or and wp:cite. It is explained in depth there. These are rules that we *must* try to follow, whether we agree with them or not. Non Curat Lex (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear NonCuratLex: --I've read the COI page, which I think is applicable to this discussion. Let me make my point with this analogy: If an editor was a survivor of Auschwitz, would not that editor have unique discernment as to the scope and objectivity and --especially-- accuracy of the article, but without making contributions as to his personal experiences? Might not that author have any greater discernment than you or I in recognizing if a cited source misportrayed the Auschwitz experience (either with respect to evidentiary or ultimate facts)? If you can agree that such an editor should not be axiomatically excluded from contributing to the body of the article --again, without reference to his own observations or experiences-- what if that editor happened to maintain a personal Web site, but which Web site contained photographs and historical documents from Auschwitz that already exist in the public domain (not photographs or documents that the editor, himself, claimed to have created), which were not available anywhere else on the Internet, if for no other reason than because no other entity took the time to archive and post those materials? Should the editor's Web site be excluded soley because of claims of CoI? I've given this some thought. Although it is reasonable to hold the editor to higher scrutiny than others, it would not be reasonable --in my opinion-- to exclude him soley because of a claimed CoI without something more. Esoxlucios (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Replies (A) People are generally not excluded from editing an article or topic only because of a theoretical dispute. Usually, bans from editing an article or topic are only handed out to an editor who causes a significant conflict. However, obvious COI edtors making controversial edits are going to have a high burden of convincing the community or those controversial edits are going to be reverted, and eventually face sanctions from the community and its representatives (i.e. admins).

(B)(1) No, an Auschwitz survivor would not be presumptively banned from editing an article about the holocaust, for the same reason given above. (2) That survivor would almost cetainly be able to add his or her own photographs. However, The use of photographs is covered by slightly different guidelines than written content. (3) Your third scenario get a little bit harder to understand. If the editor wanted to attack the accuracy of already-cited material that was kosher per WP:CITE, based on his experience and discertnment, how could that be "without respect to personal experience"? The editor's expertise would be considered valuable to wikipedia and the editor would not be discouraged from editing the article (subject to a caveat below) however personal experience would have to be backed up by some other CITEable source. Any conflict would have to be resolved accurately and verifiably, and tha would be judged on a case by case basis.

(C) Note also that writing about Auschwitz is distinguishable because there are few living people who could be defamed by way of that article. BLP articles call for higher standards. Non Curat Lex (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I have no objection to most of what you've set forth, supra, which is reasonable (as opposed to capricious or arbitrary). I write in specific reply to one of your questions, "If the editor wanted to attack the accuracy of already-cited material that was kosher per WP:CITE, based on his experience and discertnment, how could that be 'without respect to personal experience'? " The answer to that --in my opinion-- is that we are all guided by some degree of "personal" knowledge. It's what allows us, as editors, to determine that a work written by Tolstoy does not belong in a biography of Shakespeare, where he is credited with Tolstoy's work. If you are an American History professor, you may have greater expertise to contribute to an article about the New Deal. If were alive during the New Deal, you might be expected to have even greater expertise to contributr to the article. Finally, if you were a government employee responsible for implementing some provisions of the New Deal, it's possible that you may be among the most qualified to contribute to the article, so long as you refrain from interjecting subjective opinions or personal observations. Esoxlucios (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

One more thing: normally, a publication with the circulation of the RMN would be a reliable source, but when you read some of the Nottingham coverage, the articles raise a lot of libel concerns n that they themselves do not cite much in the way of sources. I mean, no one can seriously doubt that Judge Nottingham resigned, but the stuff about "why" is a lot more speculative. These articles *could* be actionable, and if wikipedia is repeating their content, it too could be liable. One purpose of the wp:blp policies is to keep wikipedia clear of liability. Most editors will feel duty-bound to err on the side of caution with respect to inflammatory allegations, even if they originate with seemingly reliable soures, and I am one such editor. Non Curat Lex (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Esoxlucios: No, I guess I didn't make myself clear. I did not draw an "inference" that you actually had attempted to contribute to this article based on your personal knowledge. I was responding to your own comment about "personal experience." You said that no one had "provided any substantive rationale for why an individual who maintains an outside site or who has developed an opinion or insight through personal experience is uniquely unqualified to contribute to an article" (italics added). That's the statement to which I was responding. I guess I went off on a tangent - sorry about that. Yours, Famspear (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Page protected

Page fully protected for 36 hours due to content dispute. Hash it out here, folks. Tan | 39 15:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

don't see the need

I don't see the need for the middle section. I don't see the need for anybody with a COI to edit this article. I do think that the overall tone of the article can come across as negative to Nottingham, because of the forced resignation, public (in reliable sources) serious accusations from notable people, and because Nottingham did not use his opportunities to reply in the press or in court (or congress if an impeachment was forthcoming), but rather resigned silently.

The middle section doesn't add anything. Reading the Rocky Mountain News article (footnote 1), can let you think that much more was going on, but since Nottingham didn't repy, I think it's best to leave as is, without the middle section. Smallbones (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Merge The idea to merge theis with Edward Willis Nottingham Jr. was put forward by somebody else, but it's obviously the same guy, and I don't think there is even any reason to wait more than a few days. I'll check with WP:MOS to see if there is a compelling reason to include the Jr. in the title, otherwise I'll merge to this page. Smallbones (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

2010 Update

It does not look like much editing has been done lately. The sentence: "In an unusual move, Nottingham jailed Kay Sieverding, a pro se litigant, for pursuing a lawsuit in another court without his permission" is unsupported by the reference material and is therefore problematic. Although there is an abundance of internet material available on Kay Sieverding, her personal troubles really do not belong in Nottingham's biography unless a reliable reference citation can be found that addresses specifically the issue between Nottingham, Sieverding, and how their stubborn refusal to find a meeting of their minds eventually led to why jailing Sieverding was an "unusual move", as well as why it is relevant to Nottingham's biography. After reading through a case history of Sieverding's entire approach in dealing with her local zoning dispute about tree pruning and building structures, I personally found it more "unusual" that Nottingham waited so long to jail her. He did not jail her because she was a pro se litigant -- as the above sentence implies -- but rather because she was in contempt of his court after he had warned her of his intentions and had given her ample opportunity to cease her contempt. However, Kay Sieverding is just a ex-Steamboat Junction citizen gone haywire and if her name is to be used in a biography of Nottingham, you editors need to make reliable reference material available to support your statements. 24.49.38.184 (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right, and I have removed the sentence. Risker (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2016

In the segment headed "Federal Judge Service," in the second paragraph, first sentence, please delete the word "courageous." Judge Nottingham's decision was not courageous, it was widely criticized. In fact, it was stayed within two weeks by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Mainstream Marketing, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 345 F.3d 850 (10th Cir. 2003). The stay rendered Judge Nottingham's decision ineffective. As teh article notes, the Tenth Circuit subsequently reversed the decision. I would appreciate it if you would make this change. Thank you. 71.163.180.107 (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done  — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 04:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Concerned about the enormous proportion of the inquiry and resignation section

Granted, this was a substantial event in the subject's life, but it still seems out of proportion for this section to constitute more than half the content on the life of a person who served as a federal judge for nearly two decades. I question how much of this material is really necessary to convey the salient facts of the matter. bd2412 T 00:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

This has been addressed. Cheers! bd2412 T 11:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)