Talk:Berghuis v. Thompkins

Justice name check

The "Associate justices" listed in the infobox as dissenting include Justice David Souter, whose name is not listed in support of the ruling or dissent. The dissent was by Justice Sonia Sotomayor whose name is omitted from the list of associate justices.

Can someone check this? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed It was a template code error which listed the justices before Souter's retirement. Thanks for pointing out the error. —Kevin Myers 06:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Note for future - eventually when Law Report 560 is complete, the citation will need to be updated to reflect its permanent reference. For now it is simply "560 US (tba)". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Berghuis v. Thompkins/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GregJackP (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Pass quick-fail check.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Criteria detail

• Well-written:

the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and

• Several small errors. Right to silence should be replaced with right to remain silent. The Butler case should be spelled out for the first use, i.e., North Carolina v. Butler followed by the case cite, as you did later with the Miranda case. It's easier to use {{ussc|vvv|ppp|year}} than spelling it out. Miranda should probably be italicized. It is done in some places, yet not in others. This is all for clarity as to what you are writing about.  Done

it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

• You may want to expand the 'Other opinions' section - one sentence orphan paragraphs are discouraged.  Done

• Factually accurate and verifiable:

it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

• Sources are not properly cited. Instead of "text of the decision" it should be cited as "Berghuis v. Thompkins, No. 08-1470, slip op., 560 U.S. ___ (2010), text of the decision" (linked) You may want to consider just citing to that, rather than the individual pages as you do later on in the references. Same for the other court cases. "Citing" is not needed. Ref #3 is actually a footnote, not a reference, and probably should be separated. All caps should be removed from one of the citations.  Done

it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and

• see above.  Done

it contains no original research.

•  Done

• Broad in its coverage:

it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

•  Done

it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

•  Done

• Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

•  Done

• Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

•  Done

• Illustrated, if possible, by images:

images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

• Not required, but you might want to consider adding an image of the justice delivering the opinion and the dissent.  Done

images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• See above.  Done

Comments

Very good article. You may also want to look as WP:SCOTUS for the format that they recommend for Supreme Court articles, and consider modifying the article to match, although if you chose not to, it would not prevent promotion. I've put it on hold so it can be worked on. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Updated comments. GregJackP (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That was fast! Comments on the couple of points outstanding:

1. Prose "MOS" is still flagged as "-" but all comments of matters to address have been struck through as dealt with. Is anything outstanding here?
2. The word "citing" is there deliberately, for clarity. Although not standard in SCOTUS articles, I think it's still better practice for Wikipedia decision citations. It is crucial that a reader can distinguish between article content where the Wikipedia editor has selected the supporting citation, and content where the Court selected the supporting citation. Apart from the section title (which is not by itself sufficient) a reader of the article has no way to tell if a citation of Moran v. Burbine is myself having selected the case to back up our article, or a case cited in the decision that is then re-cited by myself to show where the decision drew upon. Those seem crucially important things to distinguish. Similarly suppose I cited the same case in some sentence elsewhere, both cites would then have the same text; how would it be clear which citation was added due to my choice as an editor and which was the court's cite in its decision. Although context should make it clear, I have preferred not to assume, for clarity's sake, and where it's a court citation I have added the one word Citing... before the case name to make it clear.

As an aside on page numbers in the decision, I see you have cleared this point, but the rationale may be of interest. The decision is a 46 page document. A Wikipedia reference isn't going to be "readily verifiable" if it tells the reader to go read a 46 page document and the statement is "in there somewhere". I think WP:V and WP:CITE require that a cite from a lengthy document should give more exact information (such as a page, section, line, etc) so that readers can easily locate the cited material if they want to verify it.

Hopefully at the least, this small amount of extra detail in the citations (noting when a reference to another case is a citation of the court) isn't a problem from a GA criteria perspective. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• For consistency, ref #12 should be cited in the same manner as the other Berghuis refs, or changed to another instance of ref #1. Ref #9 needs the original opinion cite, i.e. 423 U.S. 96, 103, and the date of the decision. Suggest combining ref #9, #14 and #20 as they are the same cite. Refs #16/18/21 needs the date of the decisions. I think that would take care of the last issues. Good work. GregJackP (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Above done. Also, all remaining cites converted to {{ussc}} format where it seemed likely to be correct (ie where they had a "XX U.S. XX DATE" format already). Can you check the diff and make sure none were converted that should have been left as they were before? Otherwise I think, done. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Congratulations, I agree. GregJackP (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Italics

Several of the quotes in the "Rationale" section are in italics. Is the emphasis in the original or is it added? If the quotes were not in italics, it should not be in italics here. See italic type. If the author of that section wishes to add emphasis, the disclaimers "(emphasis added)" and "(emphasis in the original)" should be used depending on the circumstances. The US Supreme Court often uses italics for emphasis and will add the two disclaimers when quoting previous opinions. The quotation is more meaningful if we can tell if the emphasis is coming from The Court or the author(s) of the article. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Confusing sentence in introduction

The sentence is "Others saw the ruling as a sign of strength and a signal that the Court, under its own impetus, was willing to address known issues resulting from the view of terrorism as crime." Am I being stupid here? This makes no sense to me. I think this and the sentence after should be rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masonpew (talk • contribs) 09:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Definitely agree, no idea what this means or how it's relevant. Austincarrig (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Masonpew Yeah, that read to me as a desperate attempt at false balance. "A show of strength against crime" (or whatever) by the Supreme Court is utterly irrelevant to what the case means. lethargilistic (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Masonpew Oh, I see. More specifically, the sentence (which I removed) was putting undue weight on an argument from John "Torture Memo" Yoo that is reflected in the reactions part of the article. Presenting the reactions to this case as "divided" just because of his response that brings terrorism up out of nowhere is UNDUE af, IMHO. lethargilistic (talk) 12:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article does not meet the good article criteria anymore. Some of my concerns are listed below:

• There is a lot of uncited text, including entire sections.
• The article relies on a lot of large block quotes. These should be summarised and reduced when able.

Is anyone interested in fixing up this article, or should it go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Berghuis v. Thompkins

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

There is a lot of uncited text, including entire sections. The article relies on a lot of large block quotes: these should be summarised and reduced when able. Z1720 (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I can take a look at some of this. I agree that block-quoting the reactions and background material doesn't work. However, I don't see a problem with quoting significantly from the opinion itself. It's an effective summary of a public domain text where the specific language is important. Paraphrasing it risks making the document less useful and potentially less accurate. lethargilistic (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Please make sure that you follow MOS:Law when evaluating this GA article. As to other comments, the block quotes are limited and appropriate when discussing this legal issue. GregJackP Boomer! 04:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

This is not a GA by current standards, in my opinion. For one, it cites few reliable sources and instead relies mostly on the text of the decision itself. For another, it's rather poorly written and formatted.  White Whirlwind  12:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Citing primarily to the case in the decision section is well-accepted. Outside of that section, the article cites primarily to other sources. lethargilistic (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, quoting large sections introduces legalise into the article, making it harder for the reader to understand the arguments. If the reader wanted to read the decision, they would have looked up the original text. As an encyclopedia, we are supposed to be a tertiary source and provide summaries of the decision: if this was a fiction article writing a plot section, I would encourage editors to remove quotes from the piece of fiction and instead summarise the plot. The lack of citations in other sections, including the entire "Legal background" section, has not been addressed yet. Also, the "Media response" section puts a lot of weight on the opinions of three sources, while the subsequent paragraph mentions sources that are only used to state that they reported on the case, without using those sources as inline citations for the information in the article. I suggest that this section be formatted more like the suggestions in WP:RECEPTION: while it is an essay for how to format reception sections for media, it would be helpful for organising and summarising the information in that area more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720:. This isn't a piece of fiction, it's an article on a landmark legal decision by the US Supreme Court. It is completely appropriate to quote a few sentences to show the legal principle decided, especially when you consider the length of the opinion, including any concurrences or dissents. GregJackP Boomer! 04:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@GregJackP: It is appropriate to use some quotes from the case, but I think the article relies on quotes too much, as much of the prose is quotes, especially in the "Majority opinion" and "Sotomayor's dissent" sections. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720: - You stated that much of the prose is quotes, which is not true. There are just under 6200 words of text in the article, of which only 232 words are in the block quotes, a mere 3.7% of the total. The vast majority of the article is prose. In comparison, in a featured article on a court opinion (United States v. Washington), block quotes make up 3.3% of the total. GregJackP Boomer! 23:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@White whirlwind: Please refer to MOS:Law, which states that for articles on legal opinions can use both primary and secondary sources. Both are reliable sources, and your objection seems to be that their are not sufficient secondary sources. Just under half of the references are reliable secondary sources (20 of 41), and the others are all reliable primary sources (21 of 41). The formatting follows U.S. Supreme Court Style Guide, and is written in the same style as other featured and good articles on SCOTUS cases. I'll defer to others on whether it is poorly written or not. GregJackP Boomer! 04:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Not quite. Like all niche policies, MOS:LAW is inferior and subservient to general policies such as WP:NOR. NOR specifies that articles should be "based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on ... primary sources."  White Whirlwind  13:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Citing the document as a primary source in the article about that document to make straightforward statements about its content is not OR. WP:NOR says "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, ...an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." When WP:NOR says the article ought to rely "to a lesser extent" on primary sources, that means at least half of the references should be to secondary sources (minimum, of course, and I'm aware that that's an essay). In context, that is an expression that the article needs to "establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." (The latter is operative now, obviously.) In this article, the opinion is being cited for its contents and nothing more. Per WP:NOR, where there is no neutrality issue like undue weight, "a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents." The article needs at least one more secondary source to get over the minimum by Greg's count, but it's otherwise fine on this point. lethargilistic (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I did not say using a primary source was OR; I said only that NOR requires articles to be based primarily on secondary sources. Moreover, whether it is "straightforward" to summarize a case using itself as a primary source is still up for debate on this site. I have always been on the "no" side of that argument. There are many benefits when editors follow secondary sources' description of cases instead of trying to summarize cases directly: It avoids problems of WP:WEIGHT, it avoids the wide discrepancies in editors' legal training and understanding, and so forth.  White Whirlwind  18:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@White whirlwind: Please provide a cite to a policy that states that MOS:LAW is inferior to WP:NOR, and please point out where in the article that there is original research. GregJackP Boomer! 22:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@GregJackP: NOR is a policy and MOS:LAW is a guideline. WP:PG states, "Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards all users should normally follow" while "Guidelines are sets of best practices supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Policy is seen on Wikipedia as superior to guidelines and should be followed except under exceptional circumstances. Z1720 (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720: - I'm aware of the difference between the two, White whirlwind (talk · contribs) made a statement that asserted that MOS:Law was inferior to WP:NOR, and I'm asking for a cite to a reference that categorically states what he asserted. What you stated here doesn't do that. Neither does WP:NOR really apply to this article, and the sentence he quoted is akin to dicta instead of being on point for the policy he is citing. As lethargilistic (talk · contribs) pointed out, all the article needs is one additional secondary source to be primarily based on secondary sources. GregJackP Boomer! 23:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The categorical fact follows eo ipso from the distinction Z1720 mentioned; WP:NOR is part of the Five Pillars, but the MOS and its subvariants are not. Why any experienced editor would need a cite for that is beyond me. To your second point, I have no idea whether the article currently contains any original research. That is irrelevant here, because neither I nor anyone else (if I understand them correctly) has claimed it does. The provisions of WP:NOR apply to every article on Wikipedia whether they contain original research or not, just like WP:NPOV and the other fundamental policies always apply. Returning to the issue at hand, in its present state this article does not rely on primary sources only "to a lesser extent". That contravenes NOR, and it should be fixed before we allow the article to retain its GA imprimatur.  White Whirlwind  14:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think NOR and MOS/Law are that much in tension, myself. In any case, you said this issue of whether or not a description of a opinion can be primarily cited to the case itself is unsettled and that you have always come down on "No." You have also said that nobody is alleging the article has a problem with original research. I don't see any concrete neutrality/viewpoint problems here, and the subject is indisputably notable, so I think the question is moot because the problem that NOR is trying to address is addressed. So, I don't see why your particular, strong interpretation of this question should control right now, tbh. Like, fine, write articles from scratch with this restriction; I certainly won't stop you. What does this really have to do with Berghuis, an article that only I have been working on in the last week? I reassert that the amount of quotations in the case summary is fine, but I haven't copyedited that section yet. I'm going one or two paragraphs per session. lethargilistic (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying this article must have no cites to the case — although that would be my goal if I were working on it myself. I'm saying it must rely on primary (and tertiary) sources only "to a lesser extent", as WP:NOR prescribes. It doesn't, in its current state. The article relies extensively on the case as a primary source, particularly in the section "The Court's decision". That's the main problem that prevents me from calling it a GA, as I said in my initial comment.  White Whirlwind  15:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

So you don't care about the style guide and the guidelines? Are you claiming that a single sentence in WP:NOR, having nothing to do with the policy's focus on original research, trumps the consensus of MOS:LAW? Sorry, I don't buy that approach. GregJackP Boomer! 23:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)