| Revision as of 16:30, 29 November 2009 editCdogsimmons (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers17,291 edits →Contradiction tag: added comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:37, 29 November 2009 edit undoBillyboy01 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,196 edits →Contradiction tagNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| *'''Oppose''' this absurd merge proposal. '']'' is the article about the case decided by the ]. The article ] is about the ] that arose out of precedent set by the case, but has evolved its own history and case law of its usage since then. The article about the Supreme Court case will obviously be expanded to include much more info on Majority and Dissenting opinions, and commentary on the case itself. The article on the form of ] will certainly be expanded, and already has been a bit, to include more info on the usage of the plea in history since the case, and commentary on its usage by scholarly sources. ''']''' (]) 14:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC) | *'''Oppose''' this absurd merge proposal. '']'' is the article about the case decided by the ]. The article ] is about the ] that arose out of precedent set by the case, but has evolved its own history and case law of its usage since then. The article about the Supreme Court case will obviously be expanded to include much more info on Majority and Dissenting opinions, and commentary on the case itself. The article on the form of ] will certainly be expanded, and already has been a bit, to include more info on the usage of the plea in history since the case, and commentary on its usage by scholarly sources. ''']''' (]) 14:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Oppose merge''' The doctrine and the case are separate things which are both notable.--] (]) 16:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC) | *'''Oppose merge''' The doctrine and the case are separate things which are both notable.--] (]) 16:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Oppose contradiction tag for this article'''. The contradiction tag seems to stem from a disagreement as to what a defendant is conceding when they enter an Alford plea, particularly as is relates to the strength of the evidence that exists in the case (see ], ], and ]). This article largely focuses on the details of the Alford case rather than the implications of an Alford plea (as it should). The intro sentence ''"This type of plea has become known as an Alford plea, differing slightly from the nolo contendere plea in which the defendant agrees to being sentenced for the crime, but does not admit guilt"'' is rather neutral and is unlikely to be in contradiction with whatever accurate wording emerges in other articles when the related Alford plea discussions are resolved. ] (]) 17:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Improved == | == Improved == | ||
Revision as of 17:37, 29 November 2009
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the North Carolina v. Alford article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Contradiction tag
Please see Alford plea article where a different definition is given. Apparent POV fork; possible merger? Redheylin (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Removed this tag. Redheylin (talk · contribs) has failed to make his point about a purported contradiction, and has failed to present any sources to back up his argument. Cirt (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Update: Self reverted my removal pending discussion of Redheylin's actions. Cirt (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose this absurd merge proposal. North Carolina v. Alford is the article about the case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The article Alford plea is about the guilty plea that arose out of precedent set by the case, but has evolved its own history and case law of its usage since then. The article about the Supreme Court case will obviously be expanded to include much more info on Majority and Dissenting opinions, and commentary on the case itself. The article on the form of guilty plea will certainly be expanded, and already has been a bit, to include more info on the usage of the plea in history since the case, and commentary on its usage by scholarly sources. Cirt (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose merge The doctrine and the case are separate things which are both notable.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose contradiction tag for this article. The contradiction tag seems to stem from a disagreement as to what a defendant is conceding when they enter an Alford plea, particularly as is relates to the strength of the evidence that exists in the case (see Talk:Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)#Alford Plea, Talk:Alford plea#Tags, and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Cirt). This article largely focuses on the details of the Alford case rather than the implications of an Alford plea (as it should). The intro sentence "This type of plea has become known as an Alford plea, differing slightly from the nolo contendere plea in which the defendant agrees to being sentenced for the crime, but does not admit guilt" is rather neutral and is unlikely to be in contradiction with whatever accurate wording emerges in other articles when the related Alford plea discussions are resolved. Billyboy01 (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Improved
I added cites for every single sentence in this article. I will come back later to improve the article further. Cirt (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Categories: