Talk:Paul v. Clinton

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States

	United States portal This 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

"Convicted felon"[edit]

I've removed the "convicted felon" description from Paul's first mentioning. This is a classical ad-hominem. Paul's previous convictions are quite unrelated to this case, and are adequately addressed in his article. The article is very clear about the merit of the case (or rather the lack of same). It's not our aim to discredit this suit on spurious grounds - and it's pointless anyways, as it is completely discredited by the factual representation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree the cases are unrelated, people commonly give less credibility to allegations coming from convicted felons that they do those coming from ordinary citizens. That's one of the downsides of committing felonies. Readers shouldn't have to follow wlinks to gain fundamental understanding of the present article, and I would say this is a fundamental aspect, so I don't see this inclusion as ad-hominem at all. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it may be an efficient rhetoric device for convincing people does not make it more relevant. Our aim is not to convince, but to inform. The article makes it already clear that the case has no merit - adding the bit just makes it look as if the authors have an axe to grind. The fact that he is a felon has no bearing on this case. It might have an effect on the public perception of it, but in that case we need a reliable source that actually makes that connection (not just one that reiterates the fact of his conviction). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Paul v. Clinton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080321124348/http://abcnews.go.com:80/Politics/wireStory?id=3738672 to http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3738672

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Notable Case[edit]

This is a run of the mill lawsuit. Why is it considered a notable case? I suggest it be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterngard (talk • contribs) 15:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]