Some more information about the appeal, and dates of hearings, plus when final descions in this case might be made, would be helpful. Does anyone know?
Another point that needs clarifiying: if her appeal should succeed, and reverse the guilty verdict, would it also reverse the automatic disbarrment that follows under New York law? 81.199.102.34 ( talk) 06:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The development of this page seems to be going quite nicely. I imagine that there will be quite a bit to add after Stewart is sentenced and her appeal is filed. I do have a question about the classification of this page under "American lawyers": As Stewart is almost guaranteed to be disbarred soon, will the category cease to be appropriate, or can the article remain in the category as the profession for which she became famous and a defendant?
Wrong: by New York law disbarment is automatic from the return of the jury verdict of guilty, although there may be paperwork to be done to record the disbarment, from that point on she could not act as a lawyer. IMO, the category should be applied to all people who are or have been lawyers. A sub category "Debarred lawyers" should be added and articles should be placed in both. The lack of subset relationships between categories is a shortcoming of the wiki software. Mr. Jones 04:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I am removing the two recent pieces of editing by the user JillandJack. I am firstly suspicious of the changes due to the fact that JillandJack is apparently the new account of someone whose account was previously banned.
Also, the changes are not appropriate. Lynne Stewart is a radical lawyer. Her radical politics do not only manifest themselves in her choice of clients, but also in her advocacy on their behalf (as was seen in Abdel Rahman's case). If you support Stewart, then you likely believe that she was punished for expressing her radical politics in defense of her client. If you support the government, then you think that her radical politics caused her to cross the line in her practice of law. Thus, if she does not belong in the category of radical lawyers, then nobody does.
Furthermore, the change in phraseology of the first paragraph is wrong. As rephrased, the new sentence implies that Stewart is still practicing law. As she is now a convicted felon and cannot possibly avoid disbarment, she should not be described as one who is presently practicing law, but rather someone whose occupation has been in law.
You're both incorrect. When the jury verdict of guilty was returned, Stewart was disbarred by operation of New York law. Any further proceedings were only paperwork -- by law she was barred from acting as a lawyer from that moment on. Finally, the change to "defend the rights" is not viewpoint neutral because it assumes that Stewart's actions have constituted effective, lawful defense of rights rather than simply acting as counsel.
LYNN STEWART DIDN'T REPRESENT HERSELF
I was there. There's an opinion by the judge denying her attempt to represent herself.
These quotes are propaganda for lynne stewart's view of the world, and should not be included in the article.-- Henrybaker 13:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Where's the NPOV thread? How is it not NPOV?
what is the source for this statement - "Indeed, the evidence showed that, after Stewart issued the press release, she was told that Rifai Taha, a militant terrorist in Egypt who was associated with Osama bin Laden, viewed the press release as support of Taha's desire to return the Islamic Group to violence."? Doldrums 16:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Someone added a category at the bottom saying Lynne Stewart was Jewish. She is not, according to her web bio at http://www.lynnestewart.org/bio.html. I've been following her saga very closely and I've never heard her described as Jewish. If the person who added the category knows something I don't, he/she should prove it. Syntacticus 00:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC) She is not Jewish 68.230.130.87 12:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Tommy
She looks like Buddy Hackett in that pic at Lynn Stewart org
This paragraph:
Appears at the end of both the introduction and the section Support and opposition. -- Wfaxon 18:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
This page is rather biased against Lynne Stewart, as is evidenced by the amount of hysteric pandering about Stewart's so-called relationship to the War on Terror. Perhaps someone would like to take this up. Ptcollins 05:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Ptcollins: Lynne Stewart is a convicted felon who was found by a jury to have provided material support for a terrorist group. If anything, I think the article goes too easy on her so much so that it might be a pro-Lynne Stewart NPOV violation. What exactly do you object to? Some of the statements in the article may sound harsh but I've been following the case very closely and do not see anything in the article that is inaccurate. Syntacticus 22:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I removed a reference to Stewart as a "mob lawyer" and the "Madame Defarge of the left." The paragraph lists a reference, which does make either accusation.
Whoever wrote the above: I put in the "mob lawyer" and the "Madame Defarge of the left" phrases which I found in the Matthew Vadum article sourced at the bottom of the wikipedia article. I thought providing a brief excerpt would help the reader. Did I violate a rule without being aware of it? Syntacticus 22:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
No, you got it right. I used the wrong link, because the page didn't scroll all the way down.
How in the world is this article even remotely biased against "Lynne"? It's not. And just a little hint: if you want to avoid the appearance of bias, you probably shouldn't act as if you are on a first name basis with someone.
She was given 28 months, more details at CNN ( http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/16/terror.trial.ap/index.html) -- OMG LAZERS 18:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
This article does not contain a clear and chronological account of her life. It just merely talks about controveries and various other prominent recent events in her life. Anyone care to actually write a biography section for her? The other stuff can stay, but this article needs to give a sense of what this woman has done in her very long life. She was born in 1939 after all.... UberCryxic 19:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
UberCryxic: You may find her bio at her defense fund's website at: http://www.lynnestewart.org/bio.html Syntacticus 22:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Right, so if you care so much, put the details in. I am trying to help. Syntacticus 22:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Someone has purged the article of helpful references and external links that painted an unflattering picture of Lynne Stewart. I will restore them. Syntacticus 22:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
In the "Breast cancer diagnosis" section of the Wikipedia article , Lynne Stewart is quoted as saying, "The government and the probation department have teamed up as only they can, with very little reason and with a great many begging of the question, to ask for a 30-year sentence … ." I wonder if this is a correct quote. As it is, it is a very ungrammatical, almost illiterate statement. The phrase " begging the question" means to presuppose what you are trying to prove. Lestrade 22:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
Lestrade: Yes, that is absolutely a fair question. The quotation appears in a radio interview that Stewart granted. A copy of the interview is available here: http://lawanddisorder.org/media/lawanddisorder07242006.mp3. The interview is somewhere around the two-thirds or three-quarters mark on the MP3 file. I guess sometimes people don't speak clearly or grammatically. Maybe she was experiencing what we older people like to call 'brain farts.' Even though the sentence was awkward, I thought it best to be accurate so I inserted the rambling verbatim version of the sentence in the article. Editing direct quotations when dealing with controversial subject matter is often a very bad idea. I hope you agree. Syntacticus 00:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Lestrade: The more I read of your insights, the more I like you. I especially enjoyed your comment about LS being able to seek damages for having her wrist slapped. I am not one for conspiracy theories, but I thought it strange that as soon as LS was in the media spotlight earlier this week (during the sentencing) suddenly all these references and links to the Communist, anti-American lawyers' group, the National Lawyers Guild, magically appeared in the LS entry. Perhaps these "people's lawyers" are doing what they can to shape public perception of their comrade. Syntacticus 00:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
It was somewhat disconcerting to come on the discussion page of this woman and read that "Someone has purged the article of helpful references and external links that painted an unflattering picture of Lynne Stewart."
There are currently a dozen outside sources, most of which are heavily in favor of Lynne (the others are, at best, neutral). The following is to correct the balance (somewhat).
Politics is not the issue here, though it does seems to be your issue. Bustter ( talk) 18:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Much of the information is duplicated (e.g. the sections on "Controversy" and "Felony Conviction") from different points of view. May I ask that the duplication be eliminated and some "sections" merged in an attempt to get a NPOV? I don't know the subject well and can see that any attempt to NPOV this will be controversial, but I hope somebody will make the effort to try. Thanks Smallbones 10:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Discover the networks is not an acceptable external link per our policy at WP:EL. Consider removing it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a dispute about the validity of information sourced to Discover The Networks.
"Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority," are rarely acceptable external links. Why are [2] and [3] being consistantly reinserted? Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I once heard a story that may provide a useful illustration.
Wikipedia has more than a million articles, some of which probably don't belong here. No one person is responsible for weeding the whole garden, and it would be impossible for a single editor to try.
The flip side of this, of course, is that the argument "We have an article on Y and Z, so we shouldn't deleted X because it is at least as important" (which is sometimes seen on AfD) has very limited weight.
If you believe that an article has been nominated for deletion in error, then make your argument (clearly, concisely, politely, and where possible with reference to policy and guidelines) at AfD. If you believe that a nomination is legitimate but that other, similar articles have been missed, then make the nominations yourself. (You can ask at the Help Desk if you're not sure how.) Whatever you do, don't nominate an article for deletion – or demand that someone else do it for you – just to try to make a point.
Hope that helps. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
following xferred from H's talkpage: "...Hope that helps. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 15:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Seems odd to have a "Lynne Stewart Trial" article without a "Lynne Stewart" article. Did this just happen? [5] Anyway, renaming it (back??) would give a home for pre- and post-trial material on her. Andyvphil 13:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Can the article objectively attribute criminal felony to her or should it characterize her as an idealistic, romantic, leftist political activist who "sticks it to the Man" as well as "robs from the rich to give to the poor?" Lestrade 17:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Lestrade
It is possible that Wikipedia is guilty of favoring the Dutch view in its article Theo van Gogh (film director). Instead of describing Mohammed Bouyeri's act as an act of duty, it uses the words "murder" and "assassination." In accordance with Otto's statement, Wikipedia should not make declarations that may be the view of one culture or nation and are in opposition to the views of another culture or nation. We should not allow assertions per se but should include the views of all people, including Saudi militants. Your posting wonderfully explains the light sentence that was given to Lynne Stewart. She simply was not a felon per se. She was merely guilty of misdemeanors. Of course, if she was a Dutch citizen and performed her actions in Amsterdam, she might even have been applauded and rewarded. It is quite possible that someone who defrauds the Dutch government and conspires with terrorists can be considered to be one of its best and most admired citizens. But, since I am not a Dutch citizen, I am unfamiliar with the laws of Amsterdam. Do you think that Lynne Stewart would have been freed by a Dutch court? How would her actions have been viewed in Holland? Are all judgments regarding human behavior merely relative to local regions? Can there be any laws that are standard and conventional with reference to all humans? Lestrade 15:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Fine, then she is a felon. According to the legal system of her country, and the court of which she is (was) an officer. She must think she is a convicted felon herself, or she would not be appealing her designation as such. 84.69.173.228 ( talk) 10:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
What is a "terrorist conspiracy"? What is a "murder conspiracy"? What is a "militant terrorist", and what reliable source called an individual that? What specific acts was Ms. Stewart charged with, which charges were dropped, and which charges was she found guilty on? (Yes, please identify which statutes were alleged to be violated, and which statutes the jury held to be violated, in the U.S.C..)
Terms like "terrorist conspiracy", "murder conspiracy", and "militant terrorist" are extremely vague and pejorative terms, and ought not to be bandied around with abandon. Though some might not like the subject of the article, or what they allegedly did, perhaps myself included, there are 2 issues to consider:
These policies are necessary to uphold. It would be wise for everyone to familiarize themselves with these policies prior to making statements not backed by reliable sources.
Katana0182 ( talk) 23:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious what prompted the above. Stewart is a convicted felon. A court found her guilty of participating in terrorism. She violated her own profession's code of ethics and was automatically disbarred upon conviction. Libeling her is a near impossibility. Syntacticus ( talk) 22:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I think terrorist conspiracy is self-explanatory thus: an old time stalinist crone conspired with prisoners to unleash terror on new york; (conspiracy = met to plan mass murder). Miltant terrorist: from wiki, Militant = "A militant engages in violence as part of a claimed struggle against oppression." Terrorist, from wiki = "Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants." So, the militant communist crone conspired with muslim terrorists to kill non-combatant capitalists and/or jews in the WTC. Thereby making her a militant terrorist. Does that do it for you, Katana? or do we need to continue playing the Leninist word game? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.184.64.51 (
talk)
05:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Bali ultimate made a destructive and apparently not good faith edit to the Lynne Stewart article wiping out a great deal of valuable info from reliable sources in one fell swoop. I corrected the edit [ [6]] and urge others interested in this article to be vigilant and protect it from such edits. Bali ultimate has a history of behavior inappropriate to Wikipedia (see my talk page). Syntacticus ( talk) 22:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I've rarely seen an article this biased and unsourced, with shrill and hysterical personal attacks substituting for reference material. Some sections contain outright gibberish, as if the people writing them were too berserk even to pay attention to basic grammar and spelling. For example, the "support and opposition" section opens with this mess: "Stewart's most outspoken opposition was from the militant Jewish Defense Organization that had protests at her house during the trail calling her an ally of Shaeik Rahmn and an enemy of Jews,Israel and America." Support came from the far-left communist National Lawyers Guild of which she was a member." There aren't even spaces after commas in this, it has a lonely quotation mark with no partner in it, it misspells a simple word like "trial" and then goes on to describe the National Lawyers Guild as "far-left" and "communist" which is not NPOV and value-laden. Give me one reason why there should not be one or more banners on top of this article contesting its neutrality or violations of BLP. I'm not personally editing it, because I am a member of the National Lawyers Guild myself and, unlike some fanatics, don't edit in blatant violation of conflicts of interest. However, I can certainly find people without such conflict to edit it if it isn't fixed in an orderly manner and promptly. muldrake ( talk) 17:24, 3 Apr 2009 (EST)
Is very POV, of course, but gives you the subjects views directly. I think it should be put in the 'Links' section as an aid to researchers.
The website is called 'Justice for Lynne Stewart', and personaly, I hope she gets it. 84.69.173.228 ( talk) 11:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Note, everybody probably hopes she gets justice. Get it?
I've removed "convicted felon" from the first sentence, because I think it clearly pejorative and obviously agenda-laden. That she was convicted of a crime is clearly covered in the next paragraph. Same goes for the box. The way it was it appears someone is really trying to lay it on that she was convicted of a crime (conviction date?) when it is obvious from the rest of the article. as a summary, however, it seems totally agenda-laden. Baxter42 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC).
Some more information about the appeal, and dates of hearings, plus when final descions in this case might be made, would be helpful. Does anyone know?
Another point that needs clarifiying: if her appeal should succeed, and reverse the guilty verdict, would it also reverse the automatic disbarrment that follows under New York law? 81.199.102.34 ( talk) 06:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The development of this page seems to be going quite nicely. I imagine that there will be quite a bit to add after Stewart is sentenced and her appeal is filed. I do have a question about the classification of this page under "American lawyers": As Stewart is almost guaranteed to be disbarred soon, will the category cease to be appropriate, or can the article remain in the category as the profession for which she became famous and a defendant?
Wrong: by New York law disbarment is automatic from the return of the jury verdict of guilty, although there may be paperwork to be done to record the disbarment, from that point on she could not act as a lawyer. IMO, the category should be applied to all people who are or have been lawyers. A sub category "Debarred lawyers" should be added and articles should be placed in both. The lack of subset relationships between categories is a shortcoming of the wiki software. Mr. Jones 04:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I am removing the two recent pieces of editing by the user JillandJack. I am firstly suspicious of the changes due to the fact that JillandJack is apparently the new account of someone whose account was previously banned.
Also, the changes are not appropriate. Lynne Stewart is a radical lawyer. Her radical politics do not only manifest themselves in her choice of clients, but also in her advocacy on their behalf (as was seen in Abdel Rahman's case). If you support Stewart, then you likely believe that she was punished for expressing her radical politics in defense of her client. If you support the government, then you think that her radical politics caused her to cross the line in her practice of law. Thus, if she does not belong in the category of radical lawyers, then nobody does.
Furthermore, the change in phraseology of the first paragraph is wrong. As rephrased, the new sentence implies that Stewart is still practicing law. As she is now a convicted felon and cannot possibly avoid disbarment, she should not be described as one who is presently practicing law, but rather someone whose occupation has been in law.
You're both incorrect. When the jury verdict of guilty was returned, Stewart was disbarred by operation of New York law. Any further proceedings were only paperwork -- by law she was barred from acting as a lawyer from that moment on. Finally, the change to "defend the rights" is not viewpoint neutral because it assumes that Stewart's actions have constituted effective, lawful defense of rights rather than simply acting as counsel.
LYNN STEWART DIDN'T REPRESENT HERSELF
I was there. There's an opinion by the judge denying her attempt to represent herself.
These quotes are propaganda for lynne stewart's view of the world, and should not be included in the article.-- Henrybaker 13:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Where's the NPOV thread? How is it not NPOV?
what is the source for this statement - "Indeed, the evidence showed that, after Stewart issued the press release, she was told that Rifai Taha, a militant terrorist in Egypt who was associated with Osama bin Laden, viewed the press release as support of Taha's desire to return the Islamic Group to violence."? Doldrums 16:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Someone added a category at the bottom saying Lynne Stewart was Jewish. She is not, according to her web bio at http://www.lynnestewart.org/bio.html. I've been following her saga very closely and I've never heard her described as Jewish. If the person who added the category knows something I don't, he/she should prove it. Syntacticus 00:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC) She is not Jewish 68.230.130.87 12:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Tommy
She looks like Buddy Hackett in that pic at Lynn Stewart org
This paragraph:
Appears at the end of both the introduction and the section Support and opposition. -- Wfaxon 18:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
This page is rather biased against Lynne Stewart, as is evidenced by the amount of hysteric pandering about Stewart's so-called relationship to the War on Terror. Perhaps someone would like to take this up. Ptcollins 05:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Ptcollins: Lynne Stewart is a convicted felon who was found by a jury to have provided material support for a terrorist group. If anything, I think the article goes too easy on her so much so that it might be a pro-Lynne Stewart NPOV violation. What exactly do you object to? Some of the statements in the article may sound harsh but I've been following the case very closely and do not see anything in the article that is inaccurate. Syntacticus 22:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I removed a reference to Stewart as a "mob lawyer" and the "Madame Defarge of the left." The paragraph lists a reference, which does make either accusation.
Whoever wrote the above: I put in the "mob lawyer" and the "Madame Defarge of the left" phrases which I found in the Matthew Vadum article sourced at the bottom of the wikipedia article. I thought providing a brief excerpt would help the reader. Did I violate a rule without being aware of it? Syntacticus 22:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
No, you got it right. I used the wrong link, because the page didn't scroll all the way down.
How in the world is this article even remotely biased against "Lynne"? It's not. And just a little hint: if you want to avoid the appearance of bias, you probably shouldn't act as if you are on a first name basis with someone.
She was given 28 months, more details at CNN ( http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/16/terror.trial.ap/index.html) -- OMG LAZERS 18:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
This article does not contain a clear and chronological account of her life. It just merely talks about controveries and various other prominent recent events in her life. Anyone care to actually write a biography section for her? The other stuff can stay, but this article needs to give a sense of what this woman has done in her very long life. She was born in 1939 after all.... UberCryxic 19:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
UberCryxic: You may find her bio at her defense fund's website at: http://www.lynnestewart.org/bio.html Syntacticus 22:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Right, so if you care so much, put the details in. I am trying to help. Syntacticus 22:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Someone has purged the article of helpful references and external links that painted an unflattering picture of Lynne Stewart. I will restore them. Syntacticus 22:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
In the "Breast cancer diagnosis" section of the Wikipedia article , Lynne Stewart is quoted as saying, "The government and the probation department have teamed up as only they can, with very little reason and with a great many begging of the question, to ask for a 30-year sentence … ." I wonder if this is a correct quote. As it is, it is a very ungrammatical, almost illiterate statement. The phrase " begging the question" means to presuppose what you are trying to prove. Lestrade 22:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
Lestrade: Yes, that is absolutely a fair question. The quotation appears in a radio interview that Stewart granted. A copy of the interview is available here: http://lawanddisorder.org/media/lawanddisorder07242006.mp3. The interview is somewhere around the two-thirds or three-quarters mark on the MP3 file. I guess sometimes people don't speak clearly or grammatically. Maybe she was experiencing what we older people like to call 'brain farts.' Even though the sentence was awkward, I thought it best to be accurate so I inserted the rambling verbatim version of the sentence in the article. Editing direct quotations when dealing with controversial subject matter is often a very bad idea. I hope you agree. Syntacticus 00:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Lestrade: The more I read of your insights, the more I like you. I especially enjoyed your comment about LS being able to seek damages for having her wrist slapped. I am not one for conspiracy theories, but I thought it strange that as soon as LS was in the media spotlight earlier this week (during the sentencing) suddenly all these references and links to the Communist, anti-American lawyers' group, the National Lawyers Guild, magically appeared in the LS entry. Perhaps these "people's lawyers" are doing what they can to shape public perception of their comrade. Syntacticus 00:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
It was somewhat disconcerting to come on the discussion page of this woman and read that "Someone has purged the article of helpful references and external links that painted an unflattering picture of Lynne Stewart."
There are currently a dozen outside sources, most of which are heavily in favor of Lynne (the others are, at best, neutral). The following is to correct the balance (somewhat).
Politics is not the issue here, though it does seems to be your issue. Bustter ( talk) 18:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Much of the information is duplicated (e.g. the sections on "Controversy" and "Felony Conviction") from different points of view. May I ask that the duplication be eliminated and some "sections" merged in an attempt to get a NPOV? I don't know the subject well and can see that any attempt to NPOV this will be controversial, but I hope somebody will make the effort to try. Thanks Smallbones 10:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Discover the networks is not an acceptable external link per our policy at WP:EL. Consider removing it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a dispute about the validity of information sourced to Discover The Networks.
"Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority," are rarely acceptable external links. Why are [2] and [3] being consistantly reinserted? Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I once heard a story that may provide a useful illustration.
Wikipedia has more than a million articles, some of which probably don't belong here. No one person is responsible for weeding the whole garden, and it would be impossible for a single editor to try.
The flip side of this, of course, is that the argument "We have an article on Y and Z, so we shouldn't deleted X because it is at least as important" (which is sometimes seen on AfD) has very limited weight.
If you believe that an article has been nominated for deletion in error, then make your argument (clearly, concisely, politely, and where possible with reference to policy and guidelines) at AfD. If you believe that a nomination is legitimate but that other, similar articles have been missed, then make the nominations yourself. (You can ask at the Help Desk if you're not sure how.) Whatever you do, don't nominate an article for deletion – or demand that someone else do it for you – just to try to make a point.
Hope that helps. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
following xferred from H's talkpage: "...Hope that helps. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 15:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Seems odd to have a "Lynne Stewart Trial" article without a "Lynne Stewart" article. Did this just happen? [5] Anyway, renaming it (back??) would give a home for pre- and post-trial material on her. Andyvphil 13:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Can the article objectively attribute criminal felony to her or should it characterize her as an idealistic, romantic, leftist political activist who "sticks it to the Man" as well as "robs from the rich to give to the poor?" Lestrade 17:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Lestrade
It is possible that Wikipedia is guilty of favoring the Dutch view in its article Theo van Gogh (film director). Instead of describing Mohammed Bouyeri's act as an act of duty, it uses the words "murder" and "assassination." In accordance with Otto's statement, Wikipedia should not make declarations that may be the view of one culture or nation and are in opposition to the views of another culture or nation. We should not allow assertions per se but should include the views of all people, including Saudi militants. Your posting wonderfully explains the light sentence that was given to Lynne Stewart. She simply was not a felon per se. She was merely guilty of misdemeanors. Of course, if she was a Dutch citizen and performed her actions in Amsterdam, she might even have been applauded and rewarded. It is quite possible that someone who defrauds the Dutch government and conspires with terrorists can be considered to be one of its best and most admired citizens. But, since I am not a Dutch citizen, I am unfamiliar with the laws of Amsterdam. Do you think that Lynne Stewart would have been freed by a Dutch court? How would her actions have been viewed in Holland? Are all judgments regarding human behavior merely relative to local regions? Can there be any laws that are standard and conventional with reference to all humans? Lestrade 15:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Fine, then she is a felon. According to the legal system of her country, and the court of which she is (was) an officer. She must think she is a convicted felon herself, or she would not be appealing her designation as such. 84.69.173.228 ( talk) 10:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
What is a "terrorist conspiracy"? What is a "murder conspiracy"? What is a "militant terrorist", and what reliable source called an individual that? What specific acts was Ms. Stewart charged with, which charges were dropped, and which charges was she found guilty on? (Yes, please identify which statutes were alleged to be violated, and which statutes the jury held to be violated, in the U.S.C..)
Terms like "terrorist conspiracy", "murder conspiracy", and "militant terrorist" are extremely vague and pejorative terms, and ought not to be bandied around with abandon. Though some might not like the subject of the article, or what they allegedly did, perhaps myself included, there are 2 issues to consider:
These policies are necessary to uphold. It would be wise for everyone to familiarize themselves with these policies prior to making statements not backed by reliable sources.
Katana0182 ( talk) 23:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious what prompted the above. Stewart is a convicted felon. A court found her guilty of participating in terrorism. She violated her own profession's code of ethics and was automatically disbarred upon conviction. Libeling her is a near impossibility. Syntacticus ( talk) 22:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I think terrorist conspiracy is self-explanatory thus: an old time stalinist crone conspired with prisoners to unleash terror on new york; (conspiracy = met to plan mass murder). Miltant terrorist: from wiki, Militant = "A militant engages in violence as part of a claimed struggle against oppression." Terrorist, from wiki = "Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants." So, the militant communist crone conspired with muslim terrorists to kill non-combatant capitalists and/or jews in the WTC. Thereby making her a militant terrorist. Does that do it for you, Katana? or do we need to continue playing the Leninist word game? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.184.64.51 (
talk)
05:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Bali ultimate made a destructive and apparently not good faith edit to the Lynne Stewart article wiping out a great deal of valuable info from reliable sources in one fell swoop. I corrected the edit [ [6]] and urge others interested in this article to be vigilant and protect it from such edits. Bali ultimate has a history of behavior inappropriate to Wikipedia (see my talk page). Syntacticus ( talk) 22:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I've rarely seen an article this biased and unsourced, with shrill and hysterical personal attacks substituting for reference material. Some sections contain outright gibberish, as if the people writing them were too berserk even to pay attention to basic grammar and spelling. For example, the "support and opposition" section opens with this mess: "Stewart's most outspoken opposition was from the militant Jewish Defense Organization that had protests at her house during the trail calling her an ally of Shaeik Rahmn and an enemy of Jews,Israel and America." Support came from the far-left communist National Lawyers Guild of which she was a member." There aren't even spaces after commas in this, it has a lonely quotation mark with no partner in it, it misspells a simple word like "trial" and then goes on to describe the National Lawyers Guild as "far-left" and "communist" which is not NPOV and value-laden. Give me one reason why there should not be one or more banners on top of this article contesting its neutrality or violations of BLP. I'm not personally editing it, because I am a member of the National Lawyers Guild myself and, unlike some fanatics, don't edit in blatant violation of conflicts of interest. However, I can certainly find people without such conflict to edit it if it isn't fixed in an orderly manner and promptly. muldrake ( talk) 17:24, 3 Apr 2009 (EST)
Is very POV, of course, but gives you the subjects views directly. I think it should be put in the 'Links' section as an aid to researchers.
The website is called 'Justice for Lynne Stewart', and personaly, I hope she gets it. 84.69.173.228 ( talk) 11:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Note, everybody probably hopes she gets justice. Get it?
I've removed "convicted felon" from the first sentence, because I think it clearly pejorative and obviously agenda-laden. That she was convicted of a crime is clearly covered in the next paragraph. Same goes for the box. The way it was it appears someone is really trying to lay it on that she was convicted of a crime (conviction date?) when it is obvious from the rest of the article. as a summary, however, it seems totally agenda-laden. Baxter42 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC).