Talk:Originalism
Crap. I appear to have written this article without having signed in.--Edgerunner76 14:34, 17 September 2007 (EDT)
- Oops. Thanks Cracker.--Edgerunner76 14:44, 17 September 2007 (EDT)
- Can we put Frederick Flintstone in the people section? And by "we" I, of course, mean, I, being the shorter form of me.CЯacke® <Nevermind this is gud enuf.
I like it. By the way, this is my first attempt at making what I would call an actual article. How does it measure up? What else should I have done/need to do?--Edgerunner76 14:47, 17 September 2007 (EDT)
- Some wording issues. I am not familiar with the subject, but got the gist of it. I tidied up some of the more grating sentence structure. In doing so I may have gone away from your original intent, for which I apologise. However, this is a wiki, so you can always change it back, and I am not an originalist. :) --Remarcsd 19:52, 17 September 2007 (EDT)
- I think it's pretty good, edgerunner, especially for a first effort. I added a little to the problems section. By the way, those guys at the end - they are "considered" to be originalists - they are fierce, outspoken originalists. Especially Bork. So I think the header could be simpler and more direct. Nice work! humanbe in 20:55, 17 September 2007 (EDT)
[edit] Link from second reference is broken
I had a look on the way back machine and couldn't see it there either. What's the process for updating links?--Barryjon (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
[edit] 2A Section removed
Three points were respectively (1) predicated on a fabricated quotation - the word "standing" doesn't appear anywhere, (2) a straw man - nobody actually takes the position implied, especially as its implications would apply to the First Amendment and (3) waaaay off-mission. Frostbyte (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)