Talk:Diane Wood

Bot-created subpage

A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Diane Pamela Wood was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for a page move

Judging from media reports, Ms Wood seems to be known most widely as "Diane Wood" rather than "Diane Pamela Wood". Given that there are no other Wikipedia articles for people called "Diane Wood" and there is no disambiguation issue, I propose the page be moved to Diane Wood. Any thoughts? — Lincolnite (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Apart from this article, all sources I've ever seen, and all lawyers whom I've ever heard refer to her, call her "Diane Wood", not "Diane Pamela Wood". Wikipedia naming conventions require that the most easily recognized name be used for an article. "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." Since such sources overwhelmingly call her "Diane Wood", that is the proper name for the article, not the current "Diane Pamela Wood". Krakatoa (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

References

It seems to me like the references I pulled out last week were more than we really needed, but now they're back in. Can anyone offer some insight on why we'd need 15 sources saying that Wood was a likely candidate? — Bdb484 (talk) 05:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

When it becomes difficult to read or edit an article due to reference overload, you're right, we need to use a bit of discretion in terms of references. I just did some reference wrangling in that particular section. The remaining ones fully and clearly cover the brief mentions, and I think provide more than adequate direction for further research. For everything else, there's Google News.  :) user:J aka justen (talk) 05:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

restoring her middle name to the lead

Per MOS:BIO#Names: "While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known. Many cultures have a tradition of not using the full name of a person in everyday reference, but the article should start with the complete version."

I'd restored it from a vandal replacing Pamela with rofl. While I was restoring it, I figured I'd source it.

The above talk page section refers to the article title, not to mention in the lead. Her full name is encyclopedic and important. I would like to restore this, or you may. If you disagree, please state why. TransUtopian (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Moot as self-reverted. Thanks. TransUtopian (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

References

We've been here before, as can be seen from the discussion in May 2009. Once again, there is a horrendous reference bloat. User:Winter5210 is convinced that we need 11 references in the lead and 7 in the body to establish that she has been widely considered one of the most likely people for Obama to nominate to the Supreme Court. Not only is that far more references than necessary, there is no reason for the lead to be the primary location for for these references. There is not real controversy here, so the need for references in the lead is exceedingly small. The lead section, per guidelines, is supposed to be a summary of the article. As such, support for its propositions should primarily come from the body text. Finally, many of the references Winter5210 is so keen to protect in the lead do not support the proposition they follow.

In addition to the references about the Supreme Court, Winter5210 also seems to believe that references regarding purely biographical information, her name and place of birth, and about a commentator's description of her must be in the lead, and not in the body. This is such an obvious of policy that I hope he will simply relent rather than prolonging that particular issue. -Rrius (talk) 00:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

In the last few minutes, not only have Winter5210 and an IP editor inexplicably re-added the refs that do not support the post-Stevens retirement speculation, they have added more to the lead, bringing the total to 13, and removed all but one from the generic statement about speculation in the body text. This is truly getting bizarre. -Rrius (talk) 01:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Rrius. The lead usually doesn't have any footnotes at all, but merely summarizes what's in the main article text, which is where the references go. It's not in any doubt that Wood's on the list for the Stevens slot, in fact she seems to be in the top three short list. Three or four references for this, from major outlets like the NYT and CNN and so forth, should be more than sufficient. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I second this position. Too many references detracts from the article. Moreover, and speculation on her potential nomination to the Court must be tempered, per WP:CRYSTALBALL. If we can't get a response from the user/editor, and he/she continues to edit war, I'd support taking this to RFC.DCmacnut<> 03:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, I've stopped moving around the references that you want to move. Move them all to the body if you like. I was only curious why you insist on truncating the quotation, which has been the subject of our disagreement since last night. (Winter5210 (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC))

The statement, including the quotation, belongs in the body text. Whether it should be in anyway a part of the summary is a matter of debate. I tend to agree with you that her being considered an intellectual counterweight is significant enough to be summarized in the lead. However, it should be summarized, not duplicated. It is enough that the quote and reference are in the body text. -Rrius (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I stand corrected (on pretty much all points). (Winter5210 (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC))

We all have to be new sometime. -Rrius (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The references are shaping up. Why doesn't someone nominate this and the John Paul Stevens article at WP:GAC?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a veteran of many GAC efforts, but I think stability matters, and the article would destabilize is she is nominated. If I'm right about that, I counsel delay. -Rrius (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

There's too much that's unsourced, especially in the first three sections, for this to succeed at GAN. And the sources that are used are law school bio's and the like, which aren't always the best. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping someone might add a few refs to get this through. How about the Stevens article? Somebody here could probably shepherd that one through.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The Stevens article was better than I expected when I looked at it a couple of days ago, but it would need some work for GA. There have been some good newspaper articles lately about his style of work and personal demeanor that should be incorporated as well. Last time I checked, the only SCOTUS justices at GA are Stephen Breyer (which got it several years ago and probably would need work to meet a GAR) and Sonia Sotomayor (which is recent and still in good shape). Wasted Time R (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Noteworthy rulings

The entries in this section should probably each have a secondary source showing that someone besides a Wikipedia editor thought these were noteworthy.   Will Beback  talk  23:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The section should be called something different. These opinions are representative works of a public figure that are part of the public record. Anyone is free to read and summarize them.

Representative rulings

The representative rulings are short summaries of published decisions of a federal court, which are in the public record and subject to review by any user. The decisions are the integral part of this public figure's work. They do not run afoul of neutral point of view rules. (Winter5210 (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC))