Talk:Mount Laurel doctrine

Law Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New Jersey Low‑importance

	New Jersey portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bias

This article is heavily biased against this court decision. Several sections appear in violation of Wikipedia policies. The "Case Study" appears to be original research Wikipedia:No original research. Titling sections "Legislator's Outcry" and "Public Outcry" are similarly unacceptable because they imply the public or a profession as a whole is upset when it is only a limited percentage who feels this way. When there is controversy, it is also imperative the article make this clear. However, overusing terms like "controversial" can bias people's views, and is against the style manual. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Also should be balanced by elaboration on housing affordability issues in the state.

I concur with this. All court decisions are "controversial," as they are brought to the court as controversy. But the decision has withstood the test of judicial review. It is in that sense no longer controversial. It may be politically-charged, but that should be described more carefully. I have never edited an article, and so don't want to touch this, but i would remove any mention of controversial except those that refer to a subsequent court decision which reversed it. Ztumin (talk) 09:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC) Zach[reply]

Article move

This page was moved from Mount Laurel Doctrine with the comment that the new title Mount Laurel Decision is correct. As a practicing New Jersey lawyer with some knowledge of this area I disagree. The term "Mount Laurel Doctrine" refers not only to the two decisions with that name but the decision that New Jersey's constitution imposes obligations on municipalities to provide a realistic opportunity for affordable housing and to subsequent refinements and is so understood by those who work in that field.

As I'm not entirely sure of the protocol, I'm not just going to move it back, but I am posting this comment and will monitor for a while.

Jay Bohn 21:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed article move

It seems to me that, per WP:CAPS, the title of this article should be Mount Laurel decision, not Mount Laurel Decision. Does anyone have a problem with that? Neutron (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I was surprised when I saw Doctrine capitalized. Alansohn (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That brings up another question. Noting the discussion above, as well as the original name of the article (Mount Laurel Doctrine), should the title be "Mount Laurel decision" or "Mount Laurel doctrine"? The article is about more than just the decision, and there were two major decisions, not one. Neutron (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mount Laurel doctrine. 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) 20:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]