Talk:J. Rodney Gilstrap

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

United States courts and judges Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Political contribution history[edit]

Why did Wynonna22 remove the Judge's political contribution history? The links are valid and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.165.172.37 (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016[edit]

Not from the US or the UK. Judges can face some public questions in my country. Don't know the rule in the US. Looks this judge did in 2015 almost half of the patent cases. See https://store.law.com/Registration/ResetPassword.aspx?mode=verify&u=DirkNN%40euphonynet.be&p=CC&v=6F648B2E-BB5F-45E0-B9E6-43B9943D658C Think worth mentioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.101.91.31 (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Potential POV problems and general wierdness[edit]

So looking through the edit history of this is really strange in that almost all of the content comes from anonymous sources. That isn't anything problematic in itself but the section now title notable decisions also just makes me uncomfortable. For a judge who is noted for his problematic relationship with patent trolls (e.g., this, this, or this articles) every single noted decision save one notes him as coming down against IP holders. Individually no big deal but accumulated this is a really strange set of cases to identify and use to creates a very different narrative than most people would tell about the subject of the article. The telling part is the summaries and the absence of any sort of case histories that provide a more complete picture. It seems targeted.

I'm going to update the list tonight and I will be curious to see what happens.