![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am concerned about plagiarism on this page. Much of it is lifted verbatim from Findlaw.com. 69.150.233.158 ( talk) 02:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Kalen
I would suggest that information about Justice Frankfurter's dissent be added to this article. Frankfurter agreed substantatively with the Opinion of the Court, but wrote a lengthy dissent focusing on his beliefs regarding judicial restraint. Juansmith 07:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
This interpretation of Frankfurter's dissent is completely wrong. The opinion says he doesn't like making it mandatory, but he has no grounds to strike it down.
To quote, from the first paragraph:
I cannot bring my mind to believe that the "liberty" secured by the Due Process Clause gives this Court authority to deny to the State of West Virginia the attainment of that which we all recognize as a legitimate legislative end, namely, the promotion of good citizenship, by employment of the means here chosen.
The interpretation of his dissent is entirely wrong, and should be removed, or corrected. I've added in a brief section with a more accurate interpretation.
I mean, the guy had written an opinion only three years before that this decision was overturning, of course he didn't 'agree substatitively'
the reference link should be removed and or redirected http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=WV_Education_v_Barnette following the link shows a "nothing found" page on the FAC-library — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.87.246 ( talk) 03:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll bite, @ Lahaun:. Please explain why this is an improvement. postdlf ( talk) 19:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Crickets. And I see we have discussed this before here, or at least, I tried to discuss and you didn't bother. After you added it for the first time to the intro sentence of this article and I removed it back in March, you asserted your opinion without explanation, I gave a lengthy explanation of why I thought it was not a good idea, and you never elaborated or otherwise followed through. So I think it was inappropriate for you to restore your edit months later, contra WP:BRD, and without even attempting to discuss first, so I'm going to remove it again absent any substantive comment from you, @ Lahaun:, as to why it's a good idea, not simply that you want it. postdlf ( talk) 15:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Resolved at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases#Court split in lede. postdlf ( talk) 20:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
This article has so much unsorced content. We need to find some reliable sources. Weegeerunner ( talk) 21:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I have added two cleanup templates to two sections, and my reasons for doing so are explained in the templates themselves and are pretty clear, but I will repeat them here. The "Facts of the case" section fails to give specific facts related to who the Barnettes where, how many children they had, when they decided to have their children refuse to recite the pledge, when and how their children were expelled. The "Arguments" section says "Given the clear indications that at least five justices were ready to lay aside the Gobitis precedent, there was little else the state's lawyers could do," but provides no information on when or how those indications were given, ie, why they were so clear. Now seeing the discussion here that this article may contain a lot of copyright violations, I think the problems with these sections arises from excerpts being copied and pasted from a larger article on the case, so the confusing sentences were "orphaned" from their context. Mmyers1976 ( talk) 17:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
The short answer is probably a pointer to some sort of style guide for Wikipedia, but in most of the contexts where I've read about it, the capitalized form Court is used when the reference is specific to an action of the Supreme Court (or some other specific high-level court). Shanen ( talk) 04:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
From the last sentence of the Background section: "The West Virginia Supreme Court refused to force the school board from requiring children to salute the flag, which led to the federal lawsuit being filed."
The school board 'wanted' to compel students to salute the flag, and was doing so. Forcing an entity to do something it wants to do (and is doing) makes little sense; "refusing to force ..." makes almost none.
It also seems materially false, but without access to the cited reference, I'll suspend judgement on that.
I get the impression this was written by someone with poor English writing skills. "Force" reads like a default translation of a foreign word with different nuances (alternatives might be "empower", "authorize" or "affirm"). There also might me a negative missing somewhere ("refused to force the s.b. to 'not' require", etc.)
If I am misunderstanding, then the sentence should be rephrased to be more clear. 2600:4040:A055:8700:4DEB:C4BA:836:85A0 ( talk) 17:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am concerned about plagiarism on this page. Much of it is lifted verbatim from Findlaw.com. 69.150.233.158 ( talk) 02:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Kalen
I would suggest that information about Justice Frankfurter's dissent be added to this article. Frankfurter agreed substantatively with the Opinion of the Court, but wrote a lengthy dissent focusing on his beliefs regarding judicial restraint. Juansmith 07:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
This interpretation of Frankfurter's dissent is completely wrong. The opinion says he doesn't like making it mandatory, but he has no grounds to strike it down.
To quote, from the first paragraph:
I cannot bring my mind to believe that the "liberty" secured by the Due Process Clause gives this Court authority to deny to the State of West Virginia the attainment of that which we all recognize as a legitimate legislative end, namely, the promotion of good citizenship, by employment of the means here chosen.
The interpretation of his dissent is entirely wrong, and should be removed, or corrected. I've added in a brief section with a more accurate interpretation.
I mean, the guy had written an opinion only three years before that this decision was overturning, of course he didn't 'agree substatitively'
the reference link should be removed and or redirected http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=WV_Education_v_Barnette following the link shows a "nothing found" page on the FAC-library — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.87.246 ( talk) 03:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll bite, @ Lahaun:. Please explain why this is an improvement. postdlf ( talk) 19:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Crickets. And I see we have discussed this before here, or at least, I tried to discuss and you didn't bother. After you added it for the first time to the intro sentence of this article and I removed it back in March, you asserted your opinion without explanation, I gave a lengthy explanation of why I thought it was not a good idea, and you never elaborated or otherwise followed through. So I think it was inappropriate for you to restore your edit months later, contra WP:BRD, and without even attempting to discuss first, so I'm going to remove it again absent any substantive comment from you, @ Lahaun:, as to why it's a good idea, not simply that you want it. postdlf ( talk) 15:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Resolved at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases#Court split in lede. postdlf ( talk) 20:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
This article has so much unsorced content. We need to find some reliable sources. Weegeerunner ( talk) 21:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I have added two cleanup templates to two sections, and my reasons for doing so are explained in the templates themselves and are pretty clear, but I will repeat them here. The "Facts of the case" section fails to give specific facts related to who the Barnettes where, how many children they had, when they decided to have their children refuse to recite the pledge, when and how their children were expelled. The "Arguments" section says "Given the clear indications that at least five justices were ready to lay aside the Gobitis precedent, there was little else the state's lawyers could do," but provides no information on when or how those indications were given, ie, why they were so clear. Now seeing the discussion here that this article may contain a lot of copyright violations, I think the problems with these sections arises from excerpts being copied and pasted from a larger article on the case, so the confusing sentences were "orphaned" from their context. Mmyers1976 ( talk) 17:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
The short answer is probably a pointer to some sort of style guide for Wikipedia, but in most of the contexts where I've read about it, the capitalized form Court is used when the reference is specific to an action of the Supreme Court (or some other specific high-level court). Shanen ( talk) 04:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
From the last sentence of the Background section: "The West Virginia Supreme Court refused to force the school board from requiring children to salute the flag, which led to the federal lawsuit being filed."
The school board 'wanted' to compel students to salute the flag, and was doing so. Forcing an entity to do something it wants to do (and is doing) makes little sense; "refusing to force ..." makes almost none.
It also seems materially false, but without access to the cited reference, I'll suspend judgement on that.
I get the impression this was written by someone with poor English writing skills. "Force" reads like a default translation of a foreign word with different nuances (alternatives might be "empower", "authorize" or "affirm"). There also might me a negative missing somewhere ("refused to force the s.b. to 'not' require", etc.)
If I am misunderstanding, then the sentence should be rephrased to be more clear. 2600:4040:A055:8700:4DEB:C4BA:836:85A0 ( talk) 17:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)