Jump to content

Talk:David Prosser Jr.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:David Prosser, Jr.)

NPOV or not?

[edit]

Although someone seems to have recently added the NPOV tag, they seem to have neglected to add their reasons for doing so (Please see here). The page does seem to have a fairly large controversies section, but being well-documented, heavily reported, and quite significant, I'm not sure what can be done to ameliorate that. 68.42.243.198 (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody has came along to discuss why the NPOV tag is there and the controversies section doesn't look too disproportionate (though it would be nice for someone to fill out the voting records and etc.), I'm going to remove the NPOV tag for now. To the person who added it: Please see the NPOV dispute policy; specifically, "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies...Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." If you have an opinion as to why this article doesn't conform to NPOV and what could be done to rectify it, please express it here and I will try to help. Seleucus (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse victim criticizes ad against Prosser

[edit]

I attempted to add information pertaining David Prosser which has come to light recently which was subsequently removed. The following reference is not a primary source. If an experienced editor could review the source and add it to the article that would be greatly appreciated. http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/118650379.html

The person who removed the information intended to remove a primary source which was listed. If it is determined that this source is not allowed, so be it. Here's the source in question. Regardless, the source above from the Journal Sentinel ought to be included. http://wispolitics.com/1006/110324_Troy_Merryfield_Statement__1_.pdf

Stylteralmaldo (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The information (regarding the criticism of the ad) is in the article already (last paragraph of controversy section.) It looks like the editor just rearranged the information. Please look at the article more closely. And also, Wikipedia has a policy against using primary sources except when necessary, so the secondary source (which is also still included) should work fine alone for it. Seleucus (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bias Galore

[edit]

Due to the huge amount of bias between Prosser's and Kloppenburg's articles, I was forced in my opinion to add some information on Kloppenburg's page that involved Politifact reporting some of her statements about Prosser were considered false or barely true. Please bare with me here. It's obvious Wikipedia has a huge Liberal bias and is rooting for Kloppenburg. Please remove any biased wording. S51438 (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the majority of Wikipedia's bias is minor and is simply that Wikipedia editors skew liberal and the bias is mostly through omission (ex: a negative article about a Republican is more likely to be noticed by a Wikipedia editor and added than a negative article about a Democrat.) Bear in mind that most of us are not really experts on the subjects after all.
But in this case, I think it's safe to say that there is a considerable amount of controversy regarding Prosser and it's not so much that "Wikipedia is rooting for Kloppenburg" as a significant majority of reliable sources are 'rooting' for her. This is Wikipedia's NPOV policy, after all - we don't come to judgments, we report the judgments of relatively neutral unbiased sources. For an example, take the Libyan Revolution. We don't start from the assumption that Gaddafi is an evil dictator and the rebels are freedom fighters. But pretty much all reliable sources (minus Libyan state tv, basically) have come to some sort of conclusion along that line, and hence the Wikipedia article is 'biased' towards the anti-Gaddafi side as a result (I use this as an extreme example to make the policy clear, not to cast any judgments - I am not suggesting in any way that Prosser is in any way comparable to Gaddafi.)
Namely, Prosser has had significant controversies that have come up through the campaign and earlier in his tenure that I have tried to document impartially (if you have any specific sections you have an issue with, please point to them and I will take a look at it. Some parts I rushed so there might be issues.) For instance, I searched long and hard for Prosser newspaper endorsements, and only found the tiny Sun Prairie Star in addition to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. Kloppenburg, on the other hand, has 13 endorsements on her wikipedia page - a pretty hefty ratio. If we count only papers significant enough to have a Wikipedia entry, the ratio would be 10-1. I guess you could respond that the media is biased - but in any case, Wikipedia depends on reliable unbiased sources. And when most of them (including the honorable Justice's hometown paper) are leaning one way, there tends to be an actual real-world 'bias' in favor of a person. And there might be a few small Kloppenburg controversies (she's not qualified enough, she didn't renounce the 3rd party ad), but any impartial outsider would agree they pale in comparison to the Prosser controversies (he's literally confessed to a crime, to name one of the 'smaller' less-reported ones).
My two cents at any rate. Seleucus (talk) 04:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More biased wording. Might I add the fact that Prosser has been endorsed by the following: Former Governors of Wisconsin Tommy Thompson and Scott McCallum, former Lieutenant Governor Margaret Farrow, 4 retired Wisconsin supreme court justices, 88 currently serving Wisconsin county judges, County Executive Dan Vrakas from Waukesha, former Mayor of Kenosha John Antaramian, Independent Assembly Member Bob Ziegelbauer, every Republican Assembly and Senate Member, former Representative John Dobyns, the Milwaukee Police Association, 45 Wisconsin Sheriffs, 15 Wisconsin district attorneys, 17 past state bar presidents, Physicians for Responsible Government, the Wisconsin Restaurant Association, the Wisconsin Realtors Association, the Wisconsin Builders Association, the Green Bay Area Chamber of Commerce, the Wausau Daily Herald (Did they endorse both?), and the following law clerks; Beth Ermatinger Hanan, Allan M. Foeckler, Irene B. Katele, Tyson A. Ciepluch, Michael C. Sanders, Thomas M. Hruz, Robert H. Clarke, David A Strifling, Bryan J. Cahill, Cynthia M. Davis, Clayton P. Kawski, Joshua K. Byers, Kyle S. Conway, Rachel M. Peterson, Philip C. Babler, Attny. Gregory Cook, Attny. Scott Beightol, Attny. William Gleisner, Tyler Kristopeit, Kevin M. Kelly, Mark Dahlberg, Maude Dahlberg, Michael Kawczynski, Kim Travis, Frederic Seefeldt, Robert Kirst, Amy Winters, Carol Diehl, Mary Jo Baas, James Ribnek, David Falstad and David Strifling. Do you wanna add this in or were you too lazy to look? S51438 (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... Most of those are Republicans, for one thing, which is a bit expected ('Republican endorses conservative justice! What a surprise! Democrat endorses center-left justice! How amazing! /sarcasm). I could come with a similar list for Kloppenburg, but it's not very meaningful (the point of endorsements in Wikipedia is only to note the relatively important high-profile ones). Also, the Wausau Daily Herald endorsed both candidates in the primary and only Kloppenburg in the general, which is included in the article if you had read the section. Seleucus (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It's obvious Wikipedia has a huge Liberal bias and is rooting for Kloppenburg." The true bias is in your mind. By close reading from what you've written, anything that doesn't skew far-right is, in your view, skewed far-left. Sorry, pal. The WP crowd is, generally, too savvy to fall for this. However, there's always Conservapedia for you. Black Max (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Black Max[reply]

Any relation to William Prosser?

[edit]

Another Prosser in the legal profession, William Prosser, was the author of the famous treatise Prosser on Torts, which in revised editions is still used today. Is this Prosser any relation to that Prosser? Robert K S (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't seen any reference to this - however, info on his family background is scarce. His grandfather was a church music director and had a Welsh-sounding first name, so he could be related to the Anglican archbishop by the same name. I would think that if David T. Jr. was related to Prosser of the hornbook fame, he might have mentioned it at some point. --KeptSouth (talk) 08:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on David Prosser, Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Prosser, Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on David Prosser Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Prosser_Jr.&oldid=1205905190"