User talk:Tom Morris

Welcome!

Welcome to the Citizendium! We hope you will contribute boldly and well. You'll probably want to know how to get started as an author. Just look at CZ:Getting Started for other helpful "startup" links, and CZ:Home for the top menu of community pages. Be sure to stay abreast of events via the Citizendium-L (broadcast) mailing list (do join!) and the blog. Please also join the workgroup mailing list(s) that concern your particular interests. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forums is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any constable for help, too. Me, for instance! Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and have fun! Aleksander Stos 07:43, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

Hastiness

You might want to let more than an hour or so go by before you consider a question closed; I was researching a considered comment at Talk:The Republic and while I was doing so, found out that the page had been moved out from underneath me. J. Noel Chiappa 19:02, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

I'm very sorry about that. I hope that the move to The Republic (dialogue of Plato) is satisfactory. --Tom Morris 19:08, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

I'm OK with it, but I don't know about others. J. Noel Chiappa 20:13, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

Scientology & Criticism

Tom, see this section about the CoS. We absolutely must do better on this; while I don't disagree with the presence of the content, I have to agree with Stephen that it is extremely amateurish and too 'pedian for us. --Robert W King 09:28, 28 April 2008 (CDT)

see my response on Talk:Church of Scientology. --Tom Morris 11:15, 28 April 2008 (CDT)

Self-harming

Enough of that! Your content is very impressive. Good luck with the research day. Ro Thorpe 10:17, 29 April 2008 (CDT)

Supreme Court

I've been away from CZ for a couple of months and just noticed you changed the name of the U.S. Supreme Court in the article I wrote about Miranda, and I wanted to bring a couple of points to your attention in case you're not a lawyer or legal writer and so not familiar with common conventions in the U.S. (1) The formal name of the federal high court is not "Supreme Court of the United States" but "Supreme Court of the United States of America," but its Blue Book designation is "U.S.," so it's generally referred to in even formal legal writing as "U.S. Supreme Court." (2) To be consistent, if you're going to call it "Supreme Court of the United States," you should call the state court mentioned in the article the "Supreme Court of [the State of] Arizona." The reason that isn't the usual practice is that when you're reading anything that frequently mentions courts' names, having the jurisdiction first in each court's name makes for faster reading and better comprehension. -- k kay shearin 23:10, 18 May 2008 (CDT)

I made no judgment as to the validity of the name. I followed common usage on other articles and the website of the Supreme Court in changing them so they all point to the same place. Feel free to use the talk page on Supreme Court of the United States to discuss the naming with those in the Law workgroup. --Tom Morris 03:08, 19 May 2008 (CDT)

This problem should also be mentioned on the discussion page of CZ:Naming_Conventions, as some people there are convinced that there is one common name for anything and no problems of deciding names for article titles. Given that that is the policy page for CZ, it ranks higher than the Law workgroup. My initial comment is that it is against CZ policy to refer to the United States of America as "United States", although if it is a formal name then that would not be true. From what I read above, U.S. Supreme Court would seem a better designation. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 06:07, 19 May 2008 (CDT)

Martin Heidegger

I recently started the Martin Heidegger page, mainly so as to have some live content for the related articles pages elsewhere (Amish/Related_Articles since some have asserted that the Amish may have achieved the "free relationship" to technology that Heidegger called for). Be that as it may, I am a bit concerned that I have put too much emphasis on Heidegger's Question Concerning Technology in the intro section because of my own interest in that question.

Just thought you should know since Heidegger is on your "to do" list. Anyway, I have no immediate plans to develop the Heidegger article beyond its presnt introduction stage, so feel free to have at it.

James F. Perry 22:58, 25 May 2008 (CDT)