Talk:Connick v. Thompson

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases High‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

United States courts and judges Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Neutrality

There is a large paragraph of references to opposition to the opinion, but nothing from the other point of view. I personally strongly oppose this decision, but still, the article at this point is slanted to one point of view. As such, I have labeled it appropriately. Safiel (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fairly summarized all of the articles that I could find on the subject. I did not find a single positive comment about the decision in any publication, even a weblog. Predictably, conservative weblogs ignored the decision. I invite you to find a counter-example. Rather than simply tagging the article and walking away, please look at the media coverage of the decision and attempt to improve my wording. — goethean ॐ 19:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not being overly critical of your efforts and as I said before, I strongly oppose the Opinion of the Court. I agree there is not much out there in support of the opinion, so I am going to try to summarize reasoning from the Opinion of the Court and the Scalia concurring opinion in order to provide some balance. Safiel (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was depending on secondary sources, which I think is appropriate. — goethean ॐ 13:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that I summarized the media coverage of the decision fairly, I think that you should rmove the template. — goethean ॐ 14:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naming The Plaintiff

The plaintiff himself (Johnathan Thompson) is never named here and I feel his story--which would contribute to the article--is lost to history here. Is there a place to give him a name within the article? His own section? Is the man himself notable enough for his own article to link out? Birkwad (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, Hi Birkwad, I believe he is notable. He is now an activist, and also is the founder of two organizations. One of them is Resurrection After Exoneration. Karl Twist (talk) 08:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]