Talk:Lost Liberty Hotel and Baby of the House: Difference between pages

Revision as of 23:26, 9 August 2005

Revision as of 06:23, 11 July 2007

Line 1:

'''Baby of the House''' is the unofficial title given to the youngest member of the [[British House of Commons|House of Commons]] in the [[Parliament of the United Kingdom]]. There are no specific duties associated with the honour.

==Privious VFDs==

{{oldvfdfull|date=[[July 3]], [[2005]]|result=keep|votepage=Lost Liberty Hotel}}

==Old CommentaryAustralia==

In Australia the term is rarely used, as most MPs and Senators are elected usually only in their thirties and later but some prominent MPs have been elected rather early in life including Prime Ministers [[Malcolm Fraser]] and [[Paul Keating]] who were both elected at age 25 in 1955 and 1969 respectively. The current baby of the house is the 29 year old [[Kate Ellis]] ([[Australian Labor Party|Labor]], [[Division of Adelaide|Adelaide]]).

This page seems entirely factual. Whether one agrees with the hotel idea or not, the page discusses the details, and offers no particular endorsement or condemnation.

==Canada==

How can a page have a status of disputed neutrality with no statement justifying the dispute?

The currect Baby of the House for the Canadian House of Commans is Pierre Poilievre born on {{birth date and age | 1979|06|03}} who was first elected in 2004 at the age of 24.

==United Kingdom==

:How can anyone respond to a comment made by a person without a name? [[WP:Sign|Sign your posts!]]. I listed this on [[WP:VFD]] because Wikipedia [[WP:WWIN|is not a soapbox]], and this material belongs on the [[Logan Clements]] article anyway. Yah, you made the encyclopedia. Your silly proposal, however did not. -[[User:Stevertigo|SV]]|[[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] 3 July 2005 05:07 (UTC)

Becoming the Baby of the House is regarded as something of an achievement, and for example, [[Jeffrey Archer]] falsely claimed to have been the youngest MP at the time of his election. However, some MPs who have held the position for a considerable period — [[Matthew Taylor (politician)|Matthew Taylor]] was the Baby of the House for over ten years — have found it somewhat embarrassing, as it may suggest that they have a lack of experience, although a perusal of the list shows that many ''babies'' in fact went on to enjoy long, significant and distinguished parliamentary careers. From August 1999 to September 2001, all three of the leaders of the main political parties had been the youngest MPs in the party when they began their political career ([[William Hague]], [[Tony Blair]], [[Charles Kennedy]]).

Of those whose age can be verified, the youngest MP since the [[Reform Act 1832]]<ref>Prior to 1832 minors could be elected; precise information on those MPs is often unclear.</ref> was [[Esmond Harmsworth, 2nd Viscount Rothermere|Esmond Harmsworth]], elected on [[15 November]] [[1919]] from [[Isle of Thanet (UK Parliament constituency)|Isle of Thanet]] aged 21 years 170 days. The youngest female MP was [[Bernadette Devlin McAliskey|Bernadette Devlin]], elected on [[17 April]] [[1969]] from [[Mid Ulster (UK Parliament constituency)|Mid Ulster]] aged 21 years 359 days.

::32,000 google hits in 48 hours suggests otherwise. [http://www.google.com/search?hs=jLw&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22Lost+Liberty+Hotel%22&btnG=Search] [[User:Gentgeen|Gentgeen]] 3 July 2005 05:39 (UTC)

:::Im not going to make it 32,001. Are you going by a ticker, or do you have some inside info? Cant you see that naming an article after a fictional hotel, adding it to Category:U.S. Hotels, and writing it in an advocacy POV is... POV! Its a no-brainer, and its a shame to see a good editor such as yourself, appear to make this a personal matter. Promoting the "Hotel" rather than the material event of Clemens' promotional campaign, appears to be promotion in its own right. -[[User:Stevertigo|SV]]|[[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] 5 July 2005 09:01 (UTC)

The oldest '''Baby''' at first election in modern times is [[Sarah Teather]] elected in 2003 aged 29 years 109 days.

::::Wikipedia has pages on ''far'' less consequential things like [[charmander]], and on the features of things that don't yet exist like [[Windows Vista|Windows Longhorn]]. Your anger seems far out of proportion to the issue here. <s>If you'd like, I can add the quote from the state representative on the subject (something along the lines of "it's poetic justice, but I'm going to oppose it because it's crazy, dumb, and spiteful") and any arguments you find against it. I've asked repeatedly on the [[Kelo]] talk page if anyone has found criticism, and looked for it myself. It's tough to find. ''Kelo'' was very unpopular. What I expect will happen is in a few days, Souter will make a statement and we can include it to make the article more balanced. But until someone starts publishing criticism of the hotel, there isn't much we can do that isn't original research.</s> '''Update''': I found some criticism and added it. [[User:harry491|Dave]] [[User_talk:harry491|(talk)]] July 5, 2005 13:24 (UTC)

===List of Babies of the House of Commons===

:::::"Cant [''sic''] you see that naming an article after a fictional hotel..." -Gentgeen

{| class="wikitable"

:::::The Lost Liberty Hotel is not a fictional hotel, it merely has not yet been built. The hotel is at this point in the planning stage, and it is reasonable to believe that it will be constructed if the effort to acquire the land is successful. Nothing in the article suggests anything to the contrary. To thus argue that the hotel is fictional because it has not been built, one would, in order to remain consistant, have to argue that the [[Freedom Tower]] is also fictional. My vote: Speedy Keep.

!Elected !! Name !! Constituency !! colspan=2 | Party !! Age

::::Nonetheless there has to be some better way than saying "X is a proposed Y"--logically it exists but factually, the term "is" or "to be" is ambiguous. ~ [[User:Dpr|Dpr]] 05:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

|-

|[[United Kingdom general election, 1895|1895]] || [[William Charles de Meuron Wentworth-Fitzwilliam|William Wentworth-Fitzwilliam]] || [[Wakefield (UK Parliament constituency)|Wakefield]]

{{Party name with colour|Liberal Unionist Party}}

|22

|-

|[[West Down by-election, 1898|1898]]^b || [[Arthur Hill (politician)|Arthur Hill]] || [[West Down (UK Parliament constituency)|West Down]]

{{Party name with colour|Conservative Party (UK)}}

|24

|-

|[[United Kingdom general election, 1900|1900]] || [[Richard Rigg]] || [[Appleby (UK Parliament constituency)|Appleby]]

{{Party name with colour|Liberal Party (UK)}}

|23

|-

|[[Horsham by-election, 1904|1904]]^b || [[Edward Turnour, 6th Earl Winterton|Edward Turnour]] || [[Horsham (UK Parliament constituency)|Horsham]]

{{Party name with colour|Conservative Party (UK)}}

|21

|-

|[[United Kingdom general election, 1906|1906]] || [[John Wodehouse, 3rd Earl of Kimberley|John Wodehouse]] || [[Mid Norfolk (UK Parliament constituency)|Mid Norfolk]]

{{Party name with colour|Liberal Party (UK)}}

|22

|-

|[[United Kingdom general election, 1910 (January)|1910]] || [[Charles Thomas Mills]] || [[Uxbridge (UK Parliament constituency)|Uxbridge]]

{{Party name with colour|Conservative Party (UK)}}

|22

|-

|[[Hythe by-election, 1912|1912]]^b || [[Philip Sassoon]] || [[Hythe (UK Parliament constituency)|Hythe]]

{{Party name with colour|Conservative Party (UK)}}

|23

|-

|[[North Tipperary by-election, 1915|1915]]^b || [[John Esmonde (politician)|John Esmonde]] || [[North Tipperary (UK Parliament constituency)|North Tipperary]]

{{Party name with colour|Irish Parliamentary Party}}

|21

|-

|[[North Louth by-election, 1916|1916]]^b || [[Patrick Joseph Whitty]] || [[North Louth (UK Parliament constituency)|North Louth]]

{{Party name with colour|Irish Parliamentary Party}}

|21

|-

|[[Liverpool Abercromby by-election, 1917|1917]]^b || [[Edward Stanley, Lord Stanley (1894-1938)|Edward Stanley]] || [[Liverpool Abercromby (UK Parliament constituency)|Liverpool Abercromby]]

{{Party name with colour|Conservative Party (UK)}}

|22

|-

|[[United Kingdom general election, 1918|1918]]¹ || [[Joseph Aloysius Sweeney]] || [[West Donegal (UK Parliament constituency)|West Donegal]]

{{Party name with colour|Sinn Féin}}

|21

|-

|[[Isle of Thanet by-election, 1919|1919]]^b || [[Esmond Harmsworth]] || [[Isle of Thanet (UK Parliament constituency)|Isle of Thanet]]

{{Party name with colour|Coalition Conservative}}

|21

|-

|[[United Kingdom general election, 1922|1922]] || [[Henry Arthur Evans]] || [[Leicester East (UK Parliament constituency)|Leicester East]]

{{Party name with colour|National Liberal Party (UK)}}

|24

|-

|[[United Kingdom general election, 1923|1923]] || [[Charles Arthur Uryan Rhys]] || [[Romford (UK Parliament constituency)|Romford]]

{{Party name with colour|Conservative Party (UK)}}

|24

|-

|[[United Kingdom general election, 1924|1924]] || [[Hugh Lucas-Tooth]] || [[Isle of Ely (UK Parliament constituency)|Isle of Ely]]

{{Party name with colour|Conservative Party (UK)}}

|21

|-

|[[North Lanarkshire by-election, 1929|1929]]^b || [[Jennie Lee]] || [[Lanarkshire (UK Parliament constituency)|North Lanarkshire]]

{{Party name with colour|Labour Party (UK)}}

|24

|-

|[[United Kingdom general election, 1929|1929]] || [[Frank Owen]] || [[Hereford (UK Parliament constituency)|Hereford]]

{{Party name with colour|Liberal Party (UK)}}

|23

|-

|[[United Kingdom general election, 1931|1931]] || [[Roland Robinson, 1st Baron Martonmere|John Roland Robinson]] || [[Widnes (UK Parliament constituency)|Widnes]]

{{Party name with colour|Conservative Party (UK)}}

|24

|-

|[[Rutland and Stamford by-election, 1933|1933]]^b || [[Gilbert James Heathcote-Drummond-Willoughby, 3rd Earl of Ancaster|Lord Willoughby de Eresby]] || [[Rutland and Stamford (UK Parliament constituency)|Rutland and Stamford]]

{{Party name with colour|Conservative Party (UK)}}

|25

|-

|[[Eastbourne by-election, 1935|1935]]^b || [[Charles Taylor (UK politician)|Charles Taylor]] || [[Eastbourne (UK Parliament constituency)|Eastbourne]]

{{Party name with colour|Conservative Party (UK)}}

|24

|-

|[[United Kingdom general election, 1935|1935]] || [[Malcolm Macmillan]] || [[Western Isles (UK Parliament constituency)|Western Isles]]

{{Party name with colour|Labour Party (UK)}}

|22

|-

|[[Kettering by-election, 1940|1940]]^b || [[John Profumo]] || [[Kettering (UK Parliament constituency)|Kettering]]

{{Party name with colour|Conservative Party (UK)}}

|25

|-

|[[Berwick-upon-Tweed by-election, 1941|1941]]^b || [[George Charles Grey]] || [[Berwick-upon-Tweed (UK Parliament constituency)|Berwick-upon-Tweed]]

{{Party name with colour|Liberal Party (UK)}}

|22

|-

|1944² || [[John Profumo]] || [[Kettering (UK Parliament constituency)|Kettering]]

{{Party name with colour|Conservative Party (UK)}}

|29

|-

|[[Chelmsford by-election, 1945|1945]]^b || [[Ernest Millington]] || [[Chelmsford (UK Parliament constituency)|Chelmsford]]

{{Party name with colour|Common Wealth Party}}

|29

|-

|[[United Kingdom general election, 1945|1945]] || [[Edward Carson (English politician)|Hon. Edward Carson]] || [[Isle of Thanet (UK Parliament constituency)|Isle of Thanet]]

{{Party name with colour|Conservative Party (UK)}}

|25

|-

|[[Southwark Central by-election, 1948|1948]]^b || [[Roy Jenkins]] || [[Southwark Central (UK Parliament constituency)|Southwark Central]]

{{Party name with colour|Labour Party (UK)}}

|27

|-

|[[United Kingdom general election, 1950|1950]] || [[Peter Baker (UK politician)|Peter Baker]] || [[South Norfolk (UK Parliament constituency)|South Norfolk]]

{{Party name with colour|Conservative Party (UK)}}

|28

|-

|[[Belfast West by-election, 1950|1950]]^b || [[Thomas Teevan]] || [[Belfast West (UK Parliament constituency)|Belfast West]]

{{Party name with colour|Ulster Unionist Party}}

|23

|-

|[[United Kingdom general election, 1951|1951]]³ || [[Tony Benn]] || [[Bristol South East (UK Parliament constituency)|Bristol South East]]

{{Party name with colour|Labour Party (UK)}}

|26

|-

|[[Bournemouth West by-election, 1954|1954]]^b || [[John Eden, Baron Eden of Winton|John Eden]] || [[Bournemouth West (UK Parliament constituency)|Bournemouth West]]

{{Party name with colour|Conservative Party (UK)}}

|28

|-

|[[United Kingdom general election, 1955|1955]]⁴ || [[Philip Clarke]] || [[Fermanagh and South Tyrone (UK Parliament constituency)|Fermanagh and South Tyrone]]

{{Party name with colour|Sinn Féin}}

|21

|-

|1955⁴ || [[Peter Michael Kirk|Peter Kirk]] || [[Gravesend (UK Parliament constituency)|Gravesend]]

{{Party name with colour|Conservative Party (UK)}}

|27

|-

|[[Bristol West by-election, 1957|1957]]^b || [[Robert Cooke (politician)|Robert Cooke]] || [[Bristol West (UK Parliament constituency)|Bristol West]]

{{Party name with colour|Conservative Party (UK)}}

|26

|-

|[[Aberdeenshire East by-election, 1958|1958]]^b || [[Patrick Wolrige-Gordon]] || [[Aberdeenshire East (UK Parliament constituency)|Aberdeenshire East ]]

{{Party name with colour|Conservative Party (UK)}}

|23

|-

|[[Southend West by-election, 1959|1959]]^b || [[Paul Channon]] || [[Southend West (UK Parliament constituency)|Southend West]]

{{Party name with colour|Conservative Party (UK)}}

|23

|-

|[[United Kingdom general election, 1964|1964]] || [[Teddy Taylor]] || [[Glasgow Cathcart (UK Parliament constituency)|Glasgow Cathcart]]

{{Party name with colour|Conservative Party (UK)}}

|27

|-

|[[Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles by-election, 1965|1965]]^b || [[David Steel]] || [[Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (UK Parliament constituency)|Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles]]

{{Party name with colour|Liberal Party (UK)}}

|26

|-

|[[United Kingdom general election, 1966|1966]] || [[John Ryan (UK politician)|John Ryan]] || [[Uxbridge (UK Parliament constituency)|Uxbridge]]

{{Party name with colour|Labour Party (UK)}}

|25

|-

|[[Nuneaton by-election, 1967|1967]]^b || [[Leslie Huckfield]] || [[Nuneaton (UK Parliament constituency)|Nuneaton]]

{{Party name with colour|Labour Party (UK)}}

|24

|-

|[[Mid Ulster by-election, 1969|1969]]^b || [[Bernadette Devlin]] || [[Mid Ulster (UK Parliament constituency)|Mid Ulster]]

{{Party name with colour|Unity (Northern Ireland)}}

|21

|-

|[[United Kingdom general election, February 1974|1974]] || [[Dafydd Elis-Thomas]] || [[Merioneth (UK Parliament constituency)|Merioneth]]

{{Party name with colour|Plaid Cymru}}

|27

|-

|[[United Kingdom general election, October 1974|1974]] || [[Hélène Hayman]] || [[Welwyn and Hatfield (UK Parliament constituency)|Welwyn and Hatfield]]

{{Party name with colour|Labour Party (UK)}}

|25

|-

|[[Liverpool Edge Hill by-election, 1979|1979]]^b || [[David Alton, Baron Alton of Liverpool|David Alton]] || [[Liverpool Edge Hill (UK Parliament constituency)|Liverpool Edge Hill]]

{{Party name with colour|Liberal Party (UK)}}

|28

|-

|[[United Kingdom general election, 1979|1979]] || [[Stephen Dorrell]] || [[Loughborough (UK Parliament constituency)|Loughborough]]

{{Party name with colour|Conservative Party (UK)}}

|27

|-

|[[Fermanagh and South Tyrone by-election, 1981 (April)|1981]]⁵^b || [[Bobby Sands]] || [[Fermanagh and South Tyrone (UK Parliament constituency)|Fermanagh and South Tyrone]]

{{Party name with colour|Anti H-Block}}

|27

|-

|1981² || [[Stephen Dorrell]] || [[Loughborough (UK Parliament constituency)|Loughborough]]

{{Party name with colour|Conservative Party (UK)}}

|29

|-

|[[Fermanagh and South Tyrone by-election, 1981 (August)|1981]]⁵^b || [[Owen Carron]] || [[Fermanagh and South Tyrone (UK Parliament constituency)|Fermanagh and South Tyrone]]

{{Party name with colour|Anti H-Block}}

|28

|-

|[[United Kingdom general election, 1983|1983]] || [[Charles Kennedy]] || [[Ross, Cromarty and Skye (UK Parliament constituency)|Ross, Cromarty and Skye]]

{{Party name with colour|Social Democratic Party (UK)}}

|23

|-

|[[Truro by-election, 1987|1987]]^b || [[Matthew Taylor (politician)|Matthew Taylor]] || [[Truro (UK Parliament constituency)|Truro]]

{{Party name with colour|Liberal Party (UK)}}

|24

|-

|[[United Kingdom general election, 1997|1997]]⁶ || [[Christopher Leslie]] || [[Shipley (UK Parliament constituency)|Shipley]]

{{Party name with colour|Labour Party (UK)}}

|24

|-

|[[Tottenham by-election, 2000|2000]]^b|| [[David Lammy]] || [[Tottenham (UK Parliament constituency)|Tottenham]]

{{Party name with colour|Labour Party (UK)}}

|27

|-

|[[Brent East by-election, 2003|2003]]^b || [[Sarah Teather]] || [[Brent East (UK Parliament constituency)|Brent East]]

{{Party name with colour|Liberal Democrats (UK)}}

|29

|-

| [[United Kingdom general election, 2005|2005]] || [[Jo Swinson]] || [[East Dunbartonshire (UK Parliament constituency)|East Dunbartonshire]]

{{Party name with colour|Liberal Democrats (UK)}}

|25

|}

:^b [[by-election]].

::::::This "hotel" has not yet been built? That's like saying that my contract to become Oprah Winfrey's co-host has not yet been signed. No one would say that my TV gig was anything but fictional. It is highly POV for this article to accept, at face value, the self-promoting assertion by Clements that he's serious about getting into the hotel busines. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 06:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

:¹ [[Joseph Aloysius Sweeney]] did not take his seat; the youngest MP actually sitting in the House of Commons was [[Oswald Mosley]] (Conservative, aged 22)

:² Became the youngest MP for a second time, on the death of the previous youngest MP.

:³ [[Tony Benn]] was first elected at the [[Bristol South East by-election, 1950]], aged 25, but only became the youngest MP from the 1951 general election, on the defeat of Teevan.

:⁴ Elected on an [[abstentionism|abstentionist]] ticket, [[Philip Clarke]] did not take his seat. [[Peter Michael Kirk|Peter Kirk]] was first elected at the 1955 general election, when he became the youngest MP to take his seat, but only became the youngest MP with the disqualification of [[Philip Clarke]] later in the year.

:⁵ Elected on an [[abstentionism|abstentionist]] ticket, [[Bobby Sands]] and [[Owen Carron]] did not take their seats; [[Stephen Dorrell]] remained the youngest MP actually sitting in the House of Commons.

:⁶ Although several sources claim [[Claire Ward]] was the youngest MP during this period, she was 50 days older than [[Christopher Leslie]].

{{expand list}}

== Rewrite in support of proposed merge ==

==United States==

I've rewritten [[Logan Clements]] so it can serve as a replacement for this article. I didn't include the "Criticism" section, because I'm not sure whether we want to keep it. The "Professor David Hoffman" quote is from a blog, which doesn't strike me as the sort of resource we want to quote. (The blog article was signed "Dave Hoffman" - not sure where "Professor David Hoffman" came from.) The Volokh quote, while more reliable, is only one quote. I think we shouldn't have a Criticism section until we have a good selection of criticisms from which to choose - preferably from better sources, such as newspaper or magazine articles. [[User:Tualha|Tualha]] 7 July 2005 21:51 (UTC)

Currently the "Baby of the House" is [[Patrick T. McHenry]] who was born on {{birth date and age|1975|10|22}}. The "Baby of the House" before McHenry who was elected at the age of 26 in [[2000]] was, [[Adam H. Putnam]] who was born on {{birth date and age|1974|07|31}} .

:[http://www.law.temple.edu/servlet/RetrievePage?site=TempleLaw&page=Faculty_Hoffman This] is Professor Hoffman's bio. The weblog, like [[The Volokh Conspiracy]] (the weblog from the "more reliable quote" came from), is written by law professors. The criticism part may be necessary because just going based on press releases is pretty POV. [[User:harry491|Dave]] [[User_talk:harry491|(talk)]] July 8, 2005 00:37 (UTC)

Currently the "Baby of the Senate" is [[John E. Sununu]] who was born on {{birth date and age | 1964|09|10}}. The "Baby of the Senate" before Sununu who was elected at the age of 38 in [[1998]] was, [[Blanche Lincoln]] who was born on {{birth date and age|1960|09|30}}

::Duh. "Profs' blog". I thought it was just some nonsense word. Well, let's leave it in for now, see how it evolves. Thanks for clarifying. [[User:Tualha|Tualha]] 8 July 2005 01:02 (UTC)

==See also==

:::Hello. David Hoffman (of Temple Law) here. I take no position on whether my blog post is the best way to articulate the criticism (although it is hard to imagine how a media article is more authoritative in any way). My problem is that you've got the criticism wrong, sort of. The town regulatory board (or court reviewing that board's orders) can't possibly ignore the fact that the very purpose of the hotel is to punish Souter for his vote in Kelo (i.e., the reason they choose Justice Souter's home as opposed to any other). Development is quite literally a pretext here. And to be realistic, no *way* this goes anywhere in a competent tribunal, something it is worth mentioning. You should look to other blogs who explored the legal and ethical issues more thoroughly than I - some concluded that Clements' actions were, in fact, illegal.

*[[Father of the House]]

==Notes==

::::Thanks for your comments. I'll see what I can do. [[User:harry491|Dave]] [[User_talk:harry491|(talk)]] 18:48, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

<div class="references-small"><references/></div>

==References==

::::Fixed, I think. I added a news article arguing that the hotel was unlikely to be built and changed the description of your argument to say that ''prosecution'' was unlikely, as opposed to criminal wrongdoing. Thanks again for helping us improve the article. [[User:harry491|Dave]] [[User_talk:harry491|(talk)]] 19:02, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

*[http://www.election.demon.co.uk/youngmp.html Youngest Members of Parliament]<!-- contains some factual errors -->

[[Category:Parliament of the United Kingdom]]

== No merge! ==

"Lost Liberty Hotel" is up to 97,800 Google hits now, and "Lost Liberty Hotel" + Souter gets 53,400. "Lost Liberty Hotel" + "Logan Clements" gets 175. That is a ratio of over 300 to 1!! Clearly, those who are reporting about the Lost Liberty Hotel are not mentioning Logan Clements anywhere. Thus, a redirect is inappropriate. --[[User:Idont havaname|Idont Havaname]] 01:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

:I agree, no merge necessary. I also don't see any major POV problems. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 01:52, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

== (N)POV issues ==

I have revised the text regarding the Clements misreading of the Kelo majority opinion. I have removed the word "evident," although it think it entirely accurate. (In fact, I think the word "deliberate" would be even more appropriate, given the texts involved.) The second paragraph of the Clements press release is quite explicit in declaring that the Kelo majority had decided the one-to-one transfer issue, despite the explicit language of the Kelo majority that it had not addressed that issue.

In any event, the revision attributes the technical question of the terms of the Kelo decision to the broader policy question concerning the merits of the Clements proposal. This, I would say, is clearly incorrect. It is perfectly possible to believe that Clements was incorrect in declaring that Kelo sanctioned a taking of the kind he proposed and at the same time believe that his proposal should be supported as a "test case" to force the unresolved issue into the court system or promote public debate.

Finally, I think that the recently added paragraph declaring that "Clement is entirely serious" raises even greater (N)POV issues, and will shortly delete it myself unless a serious argument can be made. Whoever inserted the language cannot verify Clements' actual motives, and this would hardly be the first case of a political partisan's extensive promotion of a scheme knowing full well it would never come about. I believe the lack of skepticism in the entry regarding Clements' motives, and the failure to present the view that the proposal is simply a provocative student, is itself an (N)POV failure, and I hope others will resolve that problem while I limit my own comments to more technical matters. [[User:Judge Magney|Judge Magney]] 18:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

* If you think it isn't factual, add content (with references) saying that it isn't factual. The paragraph and link that I added is straight from their official website (but paraphrased so that it isn't copyvio). Merely deleting a point of view from an article doesn't make it NPOV; the goal of NPOV is to present all (realistic) sides to an argument: "Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present." Hope this helps. --[[User:Idont havaname|Idont Havaname]] 19:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

== Neutrality disputed ==

I would think the point self-evident. The article accepts Clements' representations of his intent on faith, and much of its text adopts his at best dubious, and in some aspects technically inaccurate, reading of Kelo. That the proposal is considered no more than a publicity stunt by many is undenied, but the article is based on the POV position that the seriousness of the underlying proposal is undisputed. [[User:Judge Magney|Judge Magney]] 04:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

:I'll say the article has a dispute. Let's keep the tag on until you stop making the claim that the proposal is based on a misreading of the decision. That is your opinion, not fact. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 04:08, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

::This is not a question of interpretation or opinion. The majority opinion in Kelo states explicitly that it is not deciding the question of whether the eminent ___domain power allows the taking of property from one owner, and transfer to a different owner, without a development plan, simply to increase property tax revenue. The text is explicit: "It is further argued that without a bright-line rule nothing would stop a city from transferring citizen A's property to citizen B for the sole reason that citizen B will put the property to a more productive use and thus pay more taxes. Such a one-to-one transfer of property, executed outside the confines of an integrated development plan, is not presented in this case. . . . [T]he hypothetical cases posited by petitioners can be confronted if and when they arise."

::Compare it to the text in the Clements press release: "Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner."

::Because the Court's ruling is framed in these terms, state courts and lower courts are free to consider the issue presented de novo; it has been left open, and no constitutional precedent on the specific issue has been established.

::As a technical matter, the scope of the Court's ruling is plainly established. It is no more accurate to present the Clements position as a plausible interpretation of the Court's ruling than to say, for example, that the Court found the Grokster defendants liable (or, worse, "guilty").

::And the alternative language is certainly no less POV. The claim that one's technical reading of the Kelo opinion reflects one's opinion of the merits of the Clements proposal is no more accurate than the claim that one's opinion of the merits of Swift's "Modest Proposal" reflects one's opinion on cannibalism.

[[User:Judge Magney|Judge Magney]] 15:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

== Some factual background on the subject that might speak to the credibility of the idea ==

'Logan Darrow' is actually Doug 'Logan Darrow' Clements. He added the Logan Darrow to his name a few years ago. After graduating from University of Rochester's MBA program in the late 80s, he went to the Pacific Northwest and tried a corporate job for about 6 months before departing. He started a magazine, American Venture Capital Exchange, that had a modest amount of success matching entrepreneurs with investors. He sold the magazine a few years ago and since then he has been trying to get his TV show, The Lexington League, off the ground.

In my opinion, The Lexington League is basically a free-market, pro-liberty version of 60 Minutes. Doug will disagree and point out the subtle ways that it is different. I won't dispute the differences but I do think they are subtle.

He ran for CA governor in the recall election in order to generate publicity for his TV show. He finished 5th from the bottom.

Fast forward to late June of this year. I sent an email to approximately 6 of my buddies, including Doug, suggesting that we use eminent ___domain to take Souter's house from him in order to tear it down and erect a mansion, which would be assessed and taxed at a higher rate. I later morphed this idea to be a bed and breakfast. In the email, I specifically referenced getting another of my friends involved because he is one of the country's leading experts on property rights and takings.

Doug sent me an email saying that it was a great idea and I would receive "100% of the credit" (not that I want or need the credit). He created the press release and sent it out and after being interviewed on about 10 radio shows and getting 380,000 hits on his website, he sent me another email acknowledging his indebtedness to me for the idea. However, he has avoided any public acknowledgement that the idea was anyone's except his own and he has declined to take advantage of my contacts including the aforementioned attorney as well as a friend of a friend who is a real estate developer. This leads me to believe that he is not serious about the use of eminent ___domain against Souter and he is really interested in getting people to mail him money and increasing the public's awareness of his TV show.

This is my conclusion. You are welcome to draw your own.

==Hoffman and Volokh "Criticisms"==

Following text does not belong:

''Professor David Hoffman argued that the claim by Clements was frivolous given the intent of Kelo and wrote that:

this kind of retaliation against a Justice who merely wrote voted for a majority opinion (applying a century of solid precedent) through use of a frivolous land claim strikes at the heart of our government of ordered liberty. It is, I think, the same as if a mugger went to Justice Scalia on the street and asked for his wallet, on the ground that the Justice has, through his jurisprudence, eroded the protection against seizure on the thoroughfare.

He further speculated that Clements may have acted illegally under federal or state law if his actions amount to threatening a judge, though he concluded that criminal prosecution was unlikely.[5] Professor Eugene Volokh believes that Clements' actions are "simply a request to a government body to do something that it has absolutely no interest in doing," which is political speech protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Volokh opposes the taking of Souter's home on the grounds that "we shouldn't seriously want government agencies to retaliate against government officials by seizing their property," but sees little harm in the proposal itself.[6]''

Hoffman's "argument" is pure emotional appeal designed to characterize the approval of the hotel as an act of theft. It certainly does not belong in this article when such meticulous care has gone into trimming it down to immediately relevant facts.

Volokh's beliefs about the proposer's motives are also not relevant. They are not likely to be the result of an interview, and they have no bearing on the hotel's inception, approval, legality, etc.

:I find it quite ironic that this anon is objecting to reporting criticism of Clements's publicity stunt. Wikipedia policy is to report notable opinions (without adopting them). If that weren't the case, this whole article would've been deleted. The "Lost Liberty Hotel" will never be built, and even if it were built, we don't include articles on every hotel in the world. Its only claim to inclusion is that Clements's press release was judged to be a notable criticism of ''Kelo''. To say that ''Kelo'' was rightly decided would not be a basis for removing this article, just because we disagree with Clements's opinion. Similarly, to disparage Hoffman's argument as "pure emotional appeal" is not a basis for suppressing it, even if you agree with that characterization (which I don't). Whether an opinion is reported in Wikipedia doesn't depend on whether the editors, in their supreme wisdom, decide that the opinion is correct. Volokh's comments don't concern Clements's actual motives, but rather are the standard kind of analysis that lawyers do every day, that of thinking about the arguments that could be made for or against any particular position. The statements by Hoffman and Volokh are not presented as fact, but are properly attributed to their sources. Their inclusion is completely appropriate. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 17:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

::Neither Hoffman's nor Volokh's comment counts as "analysis". This is what I was driving at by characterizing it as an emotional appeal. They are removed.

:::Given that Hoffman and Volokh ''disagree,'' it's hard to believe that the article is unbalanced by including both. Also, you may want to read our [[WP:3RR|policy on reverting articles]]: if you revert again today (4 times in 24 hours), you will be blocked from editing. Have a good day, [[User:harry491|Dave]] [[User_talk:harry491|(talk)]] 21:23, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

::::Not a matter of balance, Harry (why did you sign as "Dave"?). A matter of relevance. If you look at the history of the article there has been a steady trimming of any pro-hotel rhetoric. This is a trimming of anti-hotel rhetoric. Thanks for the pointers to policy pages; I appreciate the information.

:::::I made some of the edits that you're probably characterizing as "trimming of ... pro-hotel rhetoric". What I did was to trim passages in which the Wikipedia article took a position on one side (Clements's side) of a disputed issue. The pro-hotel POV has been left in the article, but it's reported, not asserted, in that it's properly attributed to Clements. That's why the attribution of these opinions to Hoffman and Volokh is important. The report of their properly attributed opinions is encyclopedic. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 00:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

::::::<strike>I agree with the anon that started all of this.</strike> (UPDATE: I am the anon that started all this. I apologize for this act of deception, which I realize was inappropriate.) The first comment in the criticism section actually has relevance to the intent of the proposal and the nature of the Supreme Court decision that "inspired" it. The other two comments are just fluff that do not address the essential facts and only color a reader's perception. [[User:OtisTDog|OtisTDog]] 13:26, August 6, 2005 (UTC) '''Update:''' JudgeMagney reverted with no comments here. I have remodified the article in segments indicating specific reasons for deleting each piece. The remaining portions of the two original comments are somewhat defensible as is. [[User:OtisTDog|OtisTDog]] 18:10, August 5, 2005 (UTC) Update: Date of comment changed, as it was incorrect.

::::::::I reverted for the reasons stated in the my edit summary, which were perfectly straightforward. Please do not mischaracterize my actions with such strategic omissions. I am also adding back sections of the text you removed, since you removed all explanations of commentary which criticized Clements but left text which was more supportive. [[User:Judge Magney|Judge Magney]] 21:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

:::::::::Reverted to more neutral and objective version. As this article is about the proposal and not Clements, the edits are valid. If you wish to remove the commentary section, that's also valid. Do we need to go to some sort of arbitration on this? [[User:OtisTDog|OtisTDog]] 21:46 August 5, 2005

::::::::::Wikipedia has developed methods for dealing with such disputes -- see [[Wikipedia:Resolving disputes]]. Your request for mediation was, in my opinion, premature. I suggest that you withdraw it. The discussion on this page hasn't been going on for very long. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 00:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

:::::::::::I am attempting to engage those methods, as this seems to have become an "edit war" as described on the dispute resolution page, and the discussion, such as it is, has not been helpful in resolving it. In my opinion, non-essential commentary -- that not addressing the factual or legal basis of the proposal -- belongs outside this article. Leaving summaries of the essential points (i.e. Hoffman's claim of frivolity and Volokh's categorization as political speech rather than a commercial venture) is tolerable; interested readers can follow the handy link for an in-depth exploration of those people's opinions, speculation, etc. Reverted.[[User:OtisTDog|OtisTDog]] 00:36 August 6, 2005 (UTC)

::::::::::::The only reason that an imaginary hotel became prominent enough to have an article is that Clements's press release was a way of expressing an opinion. It's not like the Hoffman and Volokh passages are crowding out discussion of the hotel's architecture or labor policies or whatever. There's ''nothing'' about this "hotel" to discuss except the opinion-related matters. Quoting notable opinions about a controversial subject is something that we do all the time. I realize you haven't been here long. Why don't you take a look at other articles on controversial subjects? You'll see that many of them include criticisms, whether from the left or the right or nonpolitical. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 02:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Given the existing Board of Selectman's unanimous disapproval of the plan, calling it an "imaginary hotel" does not seem excessive. Perhaps the article title should be changed to reflect that it is a proposal? The Hoffman comment serves only to misinform the reader: The proposal would make use of eminent ___domain, which by definition is not theft, therefore the comparison to a mugging is not educational unless the goal is to characterize all use of eminent ___domain as theft. In addition, the proposal in no way aims to change our government -- it is not a proposal to harm Justice Souter, to dismiss him as a Supreme Court Justice, alter the takings clause in the Constitution, or anything of the sort. Thus, the bit about striking at the heart of government is also misinforming. Even the classification of Professor Hoffman's comment as "notable" is generous, as there is no evidence of any prominence on his part (a Google check of links to the top 10 pages on his site shows only two external links). Unless you can speak to any of these points, I really don't understand your attachment to that passage. Anyone else have anything to add that I'm missing? I'm reverting it again. [[User:OtisTDog|OtisTDog]] 20:17 August 6, 2005 (UTC)

::::::::::::::JamesMLane, I've attempted to lay out the reasoning behind the changes I've made. You have done nothing to contest, refute, or even answer them. You've said nothing that offers positive academic reasons to include the questioned material. I am in complete agreement with you that actual criticism (as opposed to smearing) of the proposal belongs in the article -- thus I've made no attempt to change either the header's estimate of its probable completion or the very informative analysis of the actual impact of the Kelo decision on eminent ___domain law; I even elevated it its own category so the importance of that point will not be overlooked by the reader. Having read the policy pages you directed me to (and which, as a newcomer, I thank you for), I am calling a short unilateral truce as a positive step towards resolution of this issue -- even though it pains me to leave Hoffman's commentary in its current, misinforming state. I'm asking you kindly to reply to the points above before I take the matter up again. As you seem to examine this article on a frequent basis, I'm sure 24 hours will be sufficient for the purpose. I welcome comments from any of the other users contesting this in the same vein. --[[User:OtisTDog|OtisTDog]] 05:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::IMHO, The Lost Liberty Hotel is a dead proposal at this juncture. Having the commentary section at all is like beating a dead horse. Where should the "Notable Commentary" end? It's been mentioned in numerous publications, editorials, legal commentaries, and talk show perspectives in both a positive and negative light. I would prefer the whole thing be removed. But if it's not, I'd like to see it shortened to not mentioning anyone in particular but just stating the different positions that have been specualted such as legal v. First Amendment, harrasment, Whether or not it meats the NH standard for emminent ___domain, etc. Instead of having a pissing match between legal and academic commentators.

==Commentary Section==

This is rediculous. The entire commentary section is currently nothing more than a POV fight. I find the entire section unnessary, having peoples opinions on a subject, is by it's nature POV and inflamitory. The section should be removed. [[User:Wynler|Wynler]] 21:28:34, 2005-08-06 (UTC)

:Thank you! I agree that the very best article would not include that section, but I am sympathetic to the desire to point to relevant political commentary, so long as having the pointer/reference doesn't involve dragging uninformative, misinformative, or irrelevant text along with it. The purpose of a link, after all, is to allow the reader to travel to the document being referenced. --[[User:OtisTDog|OtisTDog]] 22:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted the two additions to the commentary section as being neither notable nor substantive. Neither actually adds to the substantive discussion of whatever issues are involved; one came from a moderately tongue-in-cheek editorial piece in a relatively obscure newspaper, the other from a fringe advocacy publication whose notion of, for example, important alternatives to consider in energy policy omits the promotion of energy/fossil fuel conservation. [[User:Judge Magney|Judge Magney]] 18:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Judge Magney, I'm looking forward to hearing your explanation of why the comment of an unknown assistant professor at Temple Law is any more substantive or notable than the ones I placed. --[[User:12.208.99.147|12.208.99.147]] 20:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC) Update: This comment was mine -- forgot to log in. --[[User:OtisTDog|OtisTDog]] 20:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

::The free market of ideas has determined Hoffman's comments much more notable than either of the sources you added; a simple google search indicates that Burnett's opinion has been cited online only once, in the article you excerpted, while Hoffman's comments are discussed and debated repeatedly. Q.E.D. As for substance, Hoffman discusses the issues involved; the "commentaries" you cite are simply a conclusory statement (Burnett) or a misleadingly excerpted piece. [[User:Judge Magney|Judge Magney]] 00:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

:::Magney: You're going to have to back up the claim of the value of Hoffman's comments; you saw the results of my Google scan above, and I don't think he has anything like the prominence of an elected official or a nationally-famous blogger. <strike>I read the whole Burnett piece and picked out his comment because he's a law professor.</strike> (UPDATE: This is not true. To my knowledge, Burnett is not a law professor. Sorry for the confusion!) The Missoulian quote is a simple declarative that in no way asks for a stretch of the imagination. Is the game here that YOU get to decide what's notable/prominent/balanced? --[[User:OtisTDog|OtisTDog]] 04:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC) UPDATE: Also, the Hoffman quote absolutely does NOT discuss the issues involved -- that's my entire objection. I repeat my question: Can taking Justice Souter's home via eminent ___domain be legitimately characterized as theft when eminent ___domain takings are by definition not theft? And given that the hotel proposal makes no threat to Souter's person nor asks for any change whatsoever to government structure or function, how can you defend the blustery "strikes at the heart of our government of ordered liberty" bit? --[[User:OtisTDog|OtisTDog]] 04:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

:::If your argument regarding Hoffman is correct, then there is no doubt that the entire text of this page should be deleted and replaced by a short comment that the proposal was a publicity stunt by a fringe politician who deliberately mischaracterized yjr text of the ''Kelo'' opinion, as demonstrated by the discrepancy between his announcement and the text of the opinion itself. Notable commentary is notable commentary, and should be reported regardless of one's evaluation of its substantive merits. Your Google scan is nonspecific; a specific scan regarding the Hoffman and Burnett citations shows many online references to the Hoffman comments, virtually none to the Burnett comments. The market has decided the issue. [[User:Judge Magney|Judge Magney]] 15:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

::::I don't follow your logic about how my argument against the Hoffman quote invalidates the article as a whole, but I'm willing to entertain it if you can explain in more detail. How do you define "notable commentary" other than the circular logic in the above? What objective criteria defines notability, in your view? Also, two important items: First, please see mea culpa above -- I am the anon that started this. Second: My mistake, Burnett is not a law professor. I was thinking of another candidate quote that I did not include. Sorry for confusing things. --[[User:OtisTDog|OtisTDog]] 15:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

::::FYI, I didn't find even one link to the Hoffman comment's original page on Google. [http://www.google.com/search?as_lq=http%3A%2F%2Fprawfsblawg.blogs.com%2Fprawfsblawg%2F2005%2F06%2Fis_it_unlawful_.html&btnG=Search] Can you be more specific about the many online references to it you found in the marketplace of ideas? --[[User:OtisTDog|OtisTDog]] 16:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

::::::Your Google search was malformed; compare the results of "dave hoffman souter kelo" to "sterling burnett souter kelo"; and it is easy to find pages linking to the Hoffman comments among the search results. http://stopthebleating.typepad.com/stop_the_bleating/2005/06/poetic_justice.html [[User:Judge Magney|Judge Magney]] 18:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

:::::::As far as I can tell, the Google search is fine. I guess it just hasn't indexed that particular page yet. Before posting that, I also checked: "kind of retaliation against a Justice who merely" (no outside results)[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22kind+of+retaliation+against+a+Justice+who+merely%22], "strikes at the heart of our government of ordered liberty" (no outside results) [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22strikes+at+the+heart+of+our+government+of+ordered+liberty%22], and "for a majority opinion (applying a century of solid precedent)" (no results) [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22for+a+majority+opinion+%28applying+a+century+of+solid+precedent%29%22]. Interestingly, there is a result for "same as if a mugger went to Justice Scalia on the street"[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22same+as+if+a+mugger+went+to+Justice+Scalia+on+the+street%22]: The esteemed Professor Volokh disagrees. ("Uh, no.") I still think the whole "Notable Commentary" section should be removed, but while that's being considered, I'm interested to hear more about how you quantify "notable" via objective criteria. Do tell! --[[User:OtisTDog|OtisTDog]] 20:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

::::::::::In this case, I used a well-formed Google search, as cited above. You are simply searching for people who favor the same quotations as you do, and the fact that you find virtually none suggests that your focus on lengthy quotations and your opinions regarding which quotations are significant are useless in this context. [[User:Judge Magney|Judge Magney]] 13:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

:::::::::::Right, so leaving aside the definition of "well-formed" for now, is there a certain number of hits that are required to make it notable, in your mind? The few in support that I've found (so far) are about as relevant as the others in that group, to my mind, which is to say they are only tangentially relevant and of dubious value to this article. I include them simply to show the flaw of your "neutral quoting of non-neutral POV" argument. It's clear they introduce POV indirectly. --[[User:OtisTDog|OtisTDog]] 19:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

:There is already a Legal Criticism section, so I don't think this section is even needed. Also, is there supposed to be a strike of the word "wrote" in the quote? It was using <strikeout> tags which don't work so I fixed it. --[[User:Pile0nades|pile0nades]]^{[[User_talk:Pile0nades|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Pile0nades|contribs]]} 22:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

::The strikeout mirrors the form of the text of the quoted blog, so it is necessary. The material was originally part of a more general "Criticism" section, which the editor known as OtisTDog divided into parts. [[User:Judge Magney|Judge Magney]] 00:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

On the whole i feel the commentary section is fine. To avoid unnecessary edit wars it would be better to discuss any new commenatry in the disucussion page before adding to the main article. Consensus reached in the discussion page will make all our lives easier. --[[User:DuKot|DuKot]] 03:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

: DuKot, thank you very much for responding to my request. I'm all for this approach, but I'm going to have to insist that it go to an actually neutral form while we work out a consensus over here. There is absolutely no way to defend the Hoffman comments in the form that they were before -- they have no value as anything other than inflammatory rhetoric. --[[User:OtisTDog|OtisTDog]] 04:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

::It's rather strange to object to these comments as "inflammatory rhetoric". The entire "Lost Liberty Hotel" itself is nothing but inflammatory rhetoric. It consists of words in a press release; it has no other existence. That you consider Hoffman's argument weak is irrelevant to its inclusion in this article. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 18:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

:::I respectfully disagree. It is an evolving idea that may or may not come to fruition. Six months out, if the press release is all it ever amounted to, I think it would still deserve article status as a political meme. With respect to the Hoffman quote, I'd actually go a little further -- I don't think he's even offering an "argument" in the proper sense of the word. As a lawyer, I'm sure you can appreciate the difference between an argument of law and an ad hominem attack, even if it is presented indirectly. --[[User:OtisTDog|OtisTDog]] 18:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Wynler, again I appreciate your feedback from outside this tussle. I note that you reinstated the "threatening a judge"/"criminal prosecution" portion of the Hoffman bloc. My opposition to that is twofold. First, if you take a look at the actual page, Hoffman is speculating here and, ''by his own analysis'', is unable to identify any laws that the proposal might be breaking ("Note: I am not claiming that anyone is guilty of anything.") The point of paraphrasing it that way seems (to me) to be to cast a sort of criminal air about the whole idea. Second, the object of his speculation is not about the relative merits of a possible eminent ___domain claim, which is the heart of the matter, and which would qualify it for the "Legal Criticism" section in my mind. As such, do you still think it deserves to be categorized in the "legal" group in the pecking order? --[[User:OtisTDog|OtisTDog]] 21:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

:No problem. The main reason I reinstated, and arranged things in this order was in attempt to sort of have a middle ground on the arguement. There may be a better way to word the paraphrasing (such as saying, Prof. Hoffman speculates... or something); but this way people know that it is part of the criticism without the inflamatory quote, and the reference at the end will allow anyone to seek out more detail. As for the grouping of the pecking order, commentary by Volokh who is more well known in the legal blogging community deserved the higher spot, and I gave Hoffman the "benefit of the doubt" on his standing in the legal debate. Hoping to help form a concensus. :) [[User:Wynler|Wynler]] 22:56:49, 2005-08-08 (UTC)

::Since Volokh's comments were in response to Hoffman, convention calls for Hoffman's to appear first. [[User:Judge Magney|Judge Magney]] 13:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

:::Fair enough. What does convention say about the timeline of the public commentary? If there are no objections, I'll add any further commentary I find in temporal order within the compromise legal/political/media block structure. --[[User:OtisTDog|OtisTDog]] 16:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

== Purpose of Article ==

Magney, what's going on here? Is this just simple maliciousness on your part, or what? It seems like since the vote to get the article deleted failed you've been intent on systematically biasing article content against both Mr. Clements and the proposal itself. Some of your comments are clearly warranted, while some of them are clearly not. What are you after? For my part, I want an article that clearly illustrates the way the proposal electrified a significant segment of the public, and that clearly indicates ways in which the proposal falls short of legality... WITHOUT smearing proponents or critics. --[[User:OtisTDog|OtisTDog]] 18:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

::Stop posting personal attacks and inflammatory innuendo concerning those who do not share your opinion. And please explain why you want pertinent material excised from the article, in particluar: Clements' failure to submit his proposal to the town's economic development officials, instead faxing inappropriate paperwork to the official responsible for enforcing the fire and building codes; Clements' refusal to submit appropriate paperwork after being contacted, of their own volition, by local officials; and Clements' supporters' inability to gather the handful of signatures required to force the proposal onto an official agenda for consideration. I believe Clements is a con man who is exploiting simplistic, often inaccurate reports of the Kelo decision to feather his own nest, diverting financial and political support from those who are currently actively resisting abusive eminent ___domain actions. [[User:Judge Magney|Judge Magney]] 20:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

:::It's not innuendo: I'm sharing my perception of your goals and asking for your response. The idea is to come to a better understanding so we can end this tug-of-war. RE: Pertinent material -- I don't want it excised; I keep reverting because you keep dragging misinforming rhetoric into the picture with the Hoffman quote. Why don't you try putting some of the new material you referenced (Clement's procedural failures) without bringing back the stuff I'm opposing? I'll do it myself later today if you don't haven't by then. For the record, I'm absolutely not in support of helping Clements get personal publicity here, though obviously he needs to be mentioned in the course of discussing the proposal. I'm also absolutely not in favor of this article providing a misleading reading of Kelo by either overstating or understating its impact. Finally, if you have the time, please do try to specify some objective criteria for notability so we can come to an understanding on that. --[[User:OtisTDog|OtisTDog]] 21:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

::::Do not edit out material you do not object to, whether by reversion or otherwsie. You seem adamant on removing the entirety of a user's edit if you disagree with any part of it. That is a bad faith action in violation of applicable guidelines, and a repetition of the action will result in a request for formal sanction, as will any further violation of the 3RR limit. The fact that you strongly disagree with the Hoffman comment is not grounds to remove it, especially since it appears to be one of the more frequently cited/discussed comments regarding the sham proposal. [[User:Judge Magney|Judge Magney]] 22:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

==My Commentary==

If I were an admin I'd lock this page until a consensus was found...[[User:Wynler|Wynler]] 21:24:46, 2005-08-09 (UTC)

===Local Officals v Local Enforcement Officer===

The quote is from Chip Meaney. So it should read New London's Code Enforcment Officer.[[User:Wynler|Wynler]] 21:24:46, 2005-08-09 (UTC)

::There were quotations from at least two local officials, but OtisTDog is intent on removing one quotation, without providing an explanation. [[User:Judge Magney|Judge Magney]] 23:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

:::That's not the case; at least, not intentionally. I'm pretty sure the second quotation (which makes it legit to use the phrasing Magney wants) has been introduced along with the contested Hoffman quote. As stated in talk above, I intend to incorporate this change (san Hoffman quote) later if Magney hasn't already. --[[User:OtisTDog|OtisTDog]] 23:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

===but v and===

Just take it out and make it "...publicity stunt. Amidst..."[[User:Wynler|Wynler]] 21:24:46, 2005-08-09 (UTC)

:Good solution! --[[User:OtisTDog|OtisTDog]] 23:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

===relevance of "depressed" paragraph===

Take it out, is there a discussion elsewhere on this topic? If so link it to the end of the previous paragraph[[User:Wynler|Wynler]] 21:24:46, 2005-08-09 (UTC)

::The paragraph is commentary on Kelo itself, and its historical elements are quite inaccurate. The issues are covered at length in the main Kelo article. [[User:Judge Magney|Judge Magney]] 23:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

===The faxed request===

I think both the disputed revisions need some discussion... I'll suggest something later.[[User:Wynler|Wynler]] 21:24:46, 2005-08-09 (UTC)

===The Just Dessert's===

I think that this information is relevant, but needs to be moved to a different section. Still thinking this one over[[User:Wynler|Wynler]] 21:24:46, 2005-08-09 (UTC)

===The signatures===

I think that the "On August 8, 2005, 1,399 names appeared on the pledge list." Is sufficient[[User:Wynler|Wynler]] 21:24:46, 2005-08-09 (UTC)

: I think the word "appeared" could be confusing and/or misleading -- it could imply they all were added that day, or, less charitably, that they were not names of real people. Either way, it definitely reduces the sense of public action, which I think is important. I also believe the original sentence I added, indicating when the 1,000 mark was reached, is of historical significance, and shows the rapid rise (and subsequent ebb) of the pledges. I'll abide by this until I can convince you otherwise, though. --[[User:OtisTDog|OtisTDog]] 23:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

===Commentary Section===

I'm still of the opinion that this section should be removed in it's entirity.[[User:Wynler|Wynler]] 21:24:46, 2005-08-09 (UTC)

: Heartily agreed. --[[User:OtisTDog|OtisTDog]] 23:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)