This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Baker v. Nelson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
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. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Contrary to the thoughts of an editor who wishes to insert Weasel Words into the article, it is undisputed that Baker is a precedent. The Supreme Court has categorically Stated that summary decisions are decisions on the merits and are binding on all lower federal courts. As the article already explains, this precedent is limited to some degree when compared to a full decision on the merits. Inserting the Weasel Word "may" in front of "constitutes a decision on the merits" in the opening is an absolutely incorrect statement. Even those individuals who think that Baker doesn't apply to the current debate on marriage, do not dispute that it is a precedent. The editor who continually is making these edits, seems not to understand what "distinguishing" a case actually does. I would ask that the inaccurate edits cease, as they make categorically incorrect statements. Ghostmonkey57 ( talk) 15:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I have worked as an appellate attorney for 20 years, so I am quite familiar with the distinction between disputing Baker's status as a precedent, and distinguishing it from subsequent cases. Ghostmonkey's categorical assertion in the main article regarding Baker's status are appropriate for an appellate brief, but not in an encyclopedia article. In this talk forum, Ghostmonkey even admits that Baker's precedential value is "limited to some degree when compared to a full decision on the merits;" yet no such qualification (dare I say it -- weasel words!) appear in his version of the article.
The federal judiciary, and all parties to the various litigations, are uncertain as to Baker's authority. The article admits this, in its discussion of subsequent cases. Moreover, that uncertainty will remain so until SCOTUS answers the question, if they ever do. To say otherwise is argumentative, and violates wikipedia's neutral POV rules.
I am open to negotiation regarding the actual language used in the article. Perhaps language that "some commentatators and some lower courts have held . . ., while other courts and commentators state that . . . " But not Ghostmonkey's unequivocal and unsupportable assertions. Jim Simmons ( talk) 04:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully I'm putting this in the correct spot. The sentence "As of October 2014, no U.S. Court of Appeals has held Baker to be controlling on the subject of same-sex marriage" is wrong. The 8th Circuit has said that Baker is binding, in Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning. I think what the sentence is really trying to say is that after Windsor, no appeals court to consider the question has found Baker binding, including the 4th, 7th, 9th, and 10th Circuits. 24.57.210.141 ( talk) 07:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I tagged the article for primary sources. While there are a few secondary sources, the vast majority of the refs are to primary sources. WP:MOSLAW allows the use of primary sources (and gives them priority in the event of a conflict between primary and secondary sources), but it also requires the use of appropriate secondary sources. On a case this old, there should be plenty of law journal/review articles, plus books, news, etc. GregJackP Boomer! 01:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
It appears from the Talk history, that most of the concerns about the un-encylopedic nature of this article have been aired without meaningfully addressing the underlying issues.
I am going to replace the most unhelpful portions, 4.1 Baker in federal courts and 4.2 Baker in state courts, with a simple summary of the conflicting state affairs as summarized by recent, reliable sources. That shouldn't require 150 words.
If you care to defend the present tome, please share you reasoning here.
Wonderbreadsf ( talk) 22:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm reverting a recent addition [2] because it is a discussion of the Windsor precedent. The content itself was quite good. (It was already in the Windsor article, so there was no point in moving it over there.) Neither the added text nor the underlying sources said anything about applying Baker. Wonderbreadsf ( talk) 17:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Baker v. Nelson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
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. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Contrary to the thoughts of an editor who wishes to insert Weasel Words into the article, it is undisputed that Baker is a precedent. The Supreme Court has categorically Stated that summary decisions are decisions on the merits and are binding on all lower federal courts. As the article already explains, this precedent is limited to some degree when compared to a full decision on the merits. Inserting the Weasel Word "may" in front of "constitutes a decision on the merits" in the opening is an absolutely incorrect statement. Even those individuals who think that Baker doesn't apply to the current debate on marriage, do not dispute that it is a precedent. The editor who continually is making these edits, seems not to understand what "distinguishing" a case actually does. I would ask that the inaccurate edits cease, as they make categorically incorrect statements. Ghostmonkey57 ( talk) 15:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I have worked as an appellate attorney for 20 years, so I am quite familiar with the distinction between disputing Baker's status as a precedent, and distinguishing it from subsequent cases. Ghostmonkey's categorical assertion in the main article regarding Baker's status are appropriate for an appellate brief, but not in an encyclopedia article. In this talk forum, Ghostmonkey even admits that Baker's precedential value is "limited to some degree when compared to a full decision on the merits;" yet no such qualification (dare I say it -- weasel words!) appear in his version of the article.
The federal judiciary, and all parties to the various litigations, are uncertain as to Baker's authority. The article admits this, in its discussion of subsequent cases. Moreover, that uncertainty will remain so until SCOTUS answers the question, if they ever do. To say otherwise is argumentative, and violates wikipedia's neutral POV rules.
I am open to negotiation regarding the actual language used in the article. Perhaps language that "some commentatators and some lower courts have held . . ., while other courts and commentators state that . . . " But not Ghostmonkey's unequivocal and unsupportable assertions. Jim Simmons ( talk) 04:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully I'm putting this in the correct spot. The sentence "As of October 2014, no U.S. Court of Appeals has held Baker to be controlling on the subject of same-sex marriage" is wrong. The 8th Circuit has said that Baker is binding, in Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning. I think what the sentence is really trying to say is that after Windsor, no appeals court to consider the question has found Baker binding, including the 4th, 7th, 9th, and 10th Circuits. 24.57.210.141 ( talk) 07:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I tagged the article for primary sources. While there are a few secondary sources, the vast majority of the refs are to primary sources. WP:MOSLAW allows the use of primary sources (and gives them priority in the event of a conflict between primary and secondary sources), but it also requires the use of appropriate secondary sources. On a case this old, there should be plenty of law journal/review articles, plus books, news, etc. GregJackP Boomer! 01:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
It appears from the Talk history, that most of the concerns about the un-encylopedic nature of this article have been aired without meaningfully addressing the underlying issues.
I am going to replace the most unhelpful portions, 4.1 Baker in federal courts and 4.2 Baker in state courts, with a simple summary of the conflicting state affairs as summarized by recent, reliable sources. That shouldn't require 150 words.
If you care to defend the present tome, please share you reasoning here.
Wonderbreadsf ( talk) 22:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm reverting a recent addition [2] because it is a discussion of the Windsor precedent. The content itself was quite good. (It was already in the Windsor article, so there was no point in moving it over there.) Neither the added text nor the underlying sources said anything about applying Baker. Wonderbreadsf ( talk) 17:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)