![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Well, the section on the Supreme Court overrule has a main article link to 2011 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States#American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock. The per curium opinions article is by its very nature a list of summaries and no case on that page is a main article - this is the main article. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I wrote the [ Wolf PAC article]. In the process, I did the original research on the rarity of this type of summary reversal via a search of the Lexis Nexis Supreme Court Lawyers Edition database (a paid database to which I cannot link). I realized that I neglected to include the conclusion to that research in the article, as I published it quickly before I had completed the research. Since Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, it is important that the conclusion that I am citing be in the article or it is not reliable enough for Wikipedia. I originally used the article as a source for something that is really better cited to the original decision and I agree with that change, but as it now says "citation needed" for the statement that this is the first such case since 1968, I am adding back the reference to the Wolf PAC article, which I amended to include the conclusion to my original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.224.254 ( talk) 15:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
There was obviously more significant analysis in the Montana State Supreme Court, and their opinion made bigger news, but it seems like the highest Court decision should come first and then review the prior history. It should also probably be changed so that American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock is the main name with Western Tradition as the alternate that redirects there, since American Tradition was the name as used in the Supreme Court case. I don't really have a strong opinion on this, I just thought that might be more appropriate. I'll leave it to others to agree or disagree and make the change or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.224.254 ( talk) 15:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Sfieldman ( talk) 18:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)This has become a famous case and it is ALWAYS referenced with the Supreme Court decision when discussed, not the State case. The case is commonly talked about in reference to how the Supreme Court overturns state campaign finance laws, not how States have challenged the Citizens United decision. It should absolutely be switched so that Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Montana redirects to American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock and not the other way around. A Google Search of both case names using quotations and restricting it to the last year shows 18 results for "American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock" compared to 1 for Western Tradition and that one is a wikipedia page that uses the old name so that it will correctly link to this article. If you remove the restriction of 1 year, you get 33 results for the Western Tradition case name (when using quotes). Many of those are wikipedia pages, articles that were written before the SCOTUS decision, or technical writing that often uses both case names. For the SCOTUS name of the case, you get 1,670 results.
The result of the move request was: Moved. There's a consensus for move. ( non-admin closure) – Ammarpad ( talk) 10:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Montana → American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock – The new name, which is currently a redirect to this page, is the name for this case when it was appealed to the Supreme Court. This has become a famous case and it is ALWAYS referenced with the Supreme Court decision when discussed, not the name used in the State Court system. The case is commonly talked about in reference to how the Supreme Court overturns state campaign finance laws, not how States have challenged the Citizens United decision. It should absolutely be switched so that Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Montana redirects to American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock and not the other way around. A Google Search of both case names using quotations and restricting it to the last year shows 18 results for "American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock" compared to 1 for Western Tradition and that one is a wikipedia page that uses the old name so that it will correctly link to this article. If you remove the restriction of 1 year, you get 33 results for the Western Tradition case name (when using quotes). Many of those are wikipedia pages, articles that were written before the SCOTUS decision, or technical writing that often uses both case names. For the SCOTUS name of the case, you get 1,670 results. Similar results appear if you leave off the "inc." in both case names. Sfieldman ( talk) 01:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Well, the section on the Supreme Court overrule has a main article link to 2011 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States#American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock. The per curium opinions article is by its very nature a list of summaries and no case on that page is a main article - this is the main article. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I wrote the [ Wolf PAC article]. In the process, I did the original research on the rarity of this type of summary reversal via a search of the Lexis Nexis Supreme Court Lawyers Edition database (a paid database to which I cannot link). I realized that I neglected to include the conclusion to that research in the article, as I published it quickly before I had completed the research. Since Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, it is important that the conclusion that I am citing be in the article or it is not reliable enough for Wikipedia. I originally used the article as a source for something that is really better cited to the original decision and I agree with that change, but as it now says "citation needed" for the statement that this is the first such case since 1968, I am adding back the reference to the Wolf PAC article, which I amended to include the conclusion to my original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.224.254 ( talk) 15:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
There was obviously more significant analysis in the Montana State Supreme Court, and their opinion made bigger news, but it seems like the highest Court decision should come first and then review the prior history. It should also probably be changed so that American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock is the main name with Western Tradition as the alternate that redirects there, since American Tradition was the name as used in the Supreme Court case. I don't really have a strong opinion on this, I just thought that might be more appropriate. I'll leave it to others to agree or disagree and make the change or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.224.254 ( talk) 15:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Sfieldman ( talk) 18:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)This has become a famous case and it is ALWAYS referenced with the Supreme Court decision when discussed, not the State case. The case is commonly talked about in reference to how the Supreme Court overturns state campaign finance laws, not how States have challenged the Citizens United decision. It should absolutely be switched so that Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Montana redirects to American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock and not the other way around. A Google Search of both case names using quotations and restricting it to the last year shows 18 results for "American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock" compared to 1 for Western Tradition and that one is a wikipedia page that uses the old name so that it will correctly link to this article. If you remove the restriction of 1 year, you get 33 results for the Western Tradition case name (when using quotes). Many of those are wikipedia pages, articles that were written before the SCOTUS decision, or technical writing that often uses both case names. For the SCOTUS name of the case, you get 1,670 results.
The result of the move request was: Moved. There's a consensus for move. ( non-admin closure) – Ammarpad ( talk) 10:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Montana → American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock – The new name, which is currently a redirect to this page, is the name for this case when it was appealed to the Supreme Court. This has become a famous case and it is ALWAYS referenced with the Supreme Court decision when discussed, not the name used in the State Court system. The case is commonly talked about in reference to how the Supreme Court overturns state campaign finance laws, not how States have challenged the Citizens United decision. It should absolutely be switched so that Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Montana redirects to American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock and not the other way around. A Google Search of both case names using quotations and restricting it to the last year shows 18 results for "American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock" compared to 1 for Western Tradition and that one is a wikipedia page that uses the old name so that it will correctly link to this article. If you remove the restriction of 1 year, you get 33 results for the Western Tradition case name (when using quotes). Many of those are wikipedia pages, articles that were written before the SCOTUS decision, or technical writing that often uses both case names. For the SCOTUS name of the case, you get 1,670 results. Similar results appear if you leave off the "inc." in both case names. Sfieldman ( talk) 01:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)