Talk:Loving v. Virginia

Plagiarism of this article

Pro memoria, I am reproducing here an e-mail I have just sent to Salon via their feedback form.  Sandstein  17:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

"Hello,

I write for Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, under the username "Sandstein". Reading Dave Singleton's article of 11 June 2017, "The wrong side of history: My uncle’s Supreme Court stand against interracial marriage" (http://www.salon.com/2017/06/10/the-wrong-side-of-history-my-uncles-stand-against-interracial-marriage-was-a-skeleton-in-my-familys-closet/), I noticed that at least one part of it appears to have been plagiarized.

Specifically, the paragraph

"The landmark 1967 decision in favor of the Lovings paved the way for an increase in interracial marriages in the U.S.; it is remembered annually on Loving Day, June 12. Beginning in 2013, the decision was cited as precedent in U.S. federal court decisions holding as unconstitutional restrictions on marriage for same-sex couples"

is very similar to the following pre-existing text in the lead of the Wikipedia article "Loving v. Virginia" (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia), but has no attribution to Wikipedia:

"The decision was followed by an increase in interracial marriages in the U.S., and is remembered annually on Loving Day, June 12. It has been the subject of several songs and three movies, including the 2016 film Loving. Beginning in 2013, it was cited as precedent in U.S. federal court decisions holding restrictions on same-sex marriage in the United States unconstitutional, including in the 2015 Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges."

I would appreciate your comments about this matter."

See WP:POW for more info on this subject.

Hopefully salon.com will address the matter. Thank you for bringing it to their attention.

Firejuggler86 (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Not a "civil rights" decision?

The claim is made by an editor that Loving was not a civil rights decision. I've reverted that edit. FindLaw, for instamce, has it on its list of "Civil Rights: U.S. Supreme Court Decisions" under "Racial discrimination". [1]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

FindLaw is simply one commercial source that a Google search for "civil rights supreme court cases" brings up, but note that there aren't really any others. There's a reason for that. "Civil rights" is not really a category of Supreme Court decisions, as a review of the literature would show. The classification would be due process or equal protection cases. Like I said, and was ignored, see any major treatise, like Chemerinsky or Nowak & Rotunda.  White Whirlwind  咨  22:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

See the 130,000 Ghits for "Loving v. Virginia" "civil rights" [2]. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia for law professionals or academics, its a popular encyclopedia where ordinary people can get information supported by reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

But the amount of Ghits in a Boolean AND search for those two terms has no relevance to the question here, which is whether or not there exists a category of Supreme Court decisions that are known as "civil rights" cases and therefore would be a major categorical descriptor in the lead. I say there is not, as the Table of Contents of reliable sources I've mentioned make clear. The Ghits results for that Boolean search goes to whether or not Loving is mentioned in connection with "civil rights" (presumably the movement), which is a separate proposition. Are you suggesting we engage in some WP:Original Research?  White Whirlwind  咨  23:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Nope, I'm suggesting that the vast majority of people would see the Loving decision as a triumph for and extension of civil rights in the US, and for that reason "civil rights" should not be removed from the article. Whether or not the legal profession or academics pigeon-hole it into their "civil right" category, however that is defined, is barely relevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

(ec) The U.S. Civil rights movement, the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 etc. were about ending racial discrimination. It is evident on its face that this case is about the same, as supported by the list cited by Beyond My Ken. We are not concerned here about classifying the case in its legal context, but in its historical and political context. Sandstein 23:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

If White whirlwind wants to discuss somewhere down in the body of the article how legal scholars categorizes the case, with cites, that would be fine, but in the lede, it definitely should be referred to a civil rights case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I never suggested "remov[ing] 'civil rights' from the article", I suggested removing it from its place in the lead sentence in which it suggested such is a categorical description, which it is not—please be careful.

Now, no one here is denying that Loving is often viewed within the context of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. As I said before (and was ignored without logical refutation), the issue here is that the language "...was a civil rights decision..." suggests that there is a category of SCOTUS decisions known as "civil rights cases". There is no such category. Talking about "civil rights cases" is inherently confusing because it sounds like you're talking about the Civil Rights Cases. You two are suggesting we invent a new category of Supreme Court decisions without any support to reliable sources. What's next, we go to zoological articles and ignore all of the taxonomic classifications that do not make sense to us and claim scientists are improperly "pigeonholing" to confuse plain old folk like us? This why we prohibit WP:OR.

I have zero objection to noting somewhere in the lead that Loving is often viewed as an event in the Civil Rights Movement (assuming it's properly supported). But as I reasoned above, implying a "civil rights" category is false and misleading.  White Whirlwind  咨  00:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Sandstein and Ken. I do not think any sensible, nontechnical reader would interpret "was a civil rights decision" as meaning, "was a Supreme Court opinion that has been placed by some authoritative body within a formal category known as 'civil rights decisions'." And certainly no one who is not a Supreme Court scholar would think that statement has anything to do with the Court's 1883 Civil Rights Cases. I believe the phrase reasonably (and accurately) introduces the article by saying that the case relates to what the ordinary reader would consider the development of what are generally understood as "civil rights" within the United States. Some political theorists would distinguish between "civil rights" and "civil liberties," and some legal scholars might distinguish between "civil rights" and "Fourteenth Amendment constitutional rights." But neither distinction, in my opinion (as someone who has worked and studied in this field for 45 years and has contributed to this article) impairs the accuracy or clarity of the article's introduction. (Running the phrase "civil rights decision" through Wikipedia's search function shows that the expression is used in the same sense in at least half a dozen other articles. And it is entirely consistent with the discussion in the article on Civil_and_political_rights.) PDGPA (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, if the consensus is lining up against me there's nothing I can do but accept it. I'll leave with a final reiteration of my feeling that "was a civil rights decision" inherently implies that there is such a thing, when there is not.  White Whirlwind  咨  03:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Thurgood Marshall

The article says "the Supreme Court issued a unanimous 9–0 decision", but wasn't the decision actually 8-0 with Marshall recusing himself because he used to be a top lawyer at the NAACP which was involved in earlier phases of the case? Not sure Marshall personally was involved back then, but other sources are pretty clear that he did not participate in the SCOTUS decision. At the very least we can cite one of those sources and change the wording to "8-0 decision with Thurgood Marshall not participating". Anyone object? Jef (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Never mind! I looked more closely at the dates involved. The Loving decision was issued on June 12th 1967, as the article says; Thurgood Marshall was nominated to SCOTUS the next day, June 13th, confirmed on August 30th, and sworn in at the start of the next term on October 2nd. He was not involved in the Loving decision because he was not yet an associate justice. So then the question becomes, were there nine justices on June 12th? And the answer is yes, for at least part of the day: Tom Clark retired that very day. So there were only eight justices from June 13th to October 2nd, but that's not relevant to the Loving case. Wikipedia has it right, the other sources I found are wrong. Jef (talk) 01:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know, the only 1967 decision from which Marshall recused himself was Katz v. United States. There were probably others given the nature of the Solicitor General position, but I don't think they're notable.  White Whirlwind  04:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Capitalization

I un-capitalized all instances of the phrase the court in reference to the Supreme Court of the United States in accordance with MOS:INSTITUTIONS and was reverted by PauAmma. In their edit summary, they quoted Capitalize names of particular institutions from WP:MOS § Proper names versus generic terms to support using the Court and wrote "Even if you believe [WP:MOS § Proper names versus generic terms does not require it], MOS:INSTITUTIONS does as well ('Full names of institutions, organizations, companies, etc. (United States Department of State) are proper names and require capitals.')".

I think PauAmma may be misreading the relevant guidelines. MOS:INSTITUTIONS states:

• Full names of institutions, organizations, companies, etc. (United States Department of State) are proper names and require capitals. Also treat as a proper name a shorter but still specific form, consistently capitalized in reliable generalist sources (e.g., US State Department or the State Department, depending on context).
  • Avoid ambiguous use of terms like "city"/"City" and "state"/"State" to indicate a governing body. Write clearly to indicate "the city council", the "state legislature", or "the state government". ...
• Generic words for institutions, organizations, companies, etc., and rough descriptions of them (university, college, hospital, church, high school) do not take capitals:

Incorrect (generic): The University offers programs in arts and sciences.
Correct (generic): The university offers programs in arts and sciences.
Correct (proper name): The University of Delhi offers programs in arts and sciences.

Naturally we would capitalize the full name Supreme Court of the United States, just as we would capitalize United States Department of State or University of Delhi (to use examples from the guideline). Similarly, we would capitalize US Supreme Court, just like US State Department or Delhi University, as this is a specific form of the name that I believe is consistently capitalized in generalist sources. The word court, however, is a common noun, much like the word department or university. In this context, the word is referring to a particular institution (just like MOS:INSTITUTIONS's example The university offers programs in arts and sciences), but that does not make it the name[] of [a] particular institution[] (to use the language from WP:MOS § Proper names versus generic terms that PauAmma quoted) despite the word being used in the institution's name (as the word university is in University of Delhi). And it doesn't qualify as a specific form of the name as it's simply a single generic word, just like department or university.

PauAmma, could you clarify your understanding of the MOS's application here? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Three things:

1. The way I read it, "Also treat as a proper name a shorter but still specific form" also applies here, so "Court". However, I don't know of a search engine that doesn't fold case and thus would let me separately search for "court" and "Court" in news.

2. This is moot anyway, since we've reached 3 reverts, so I'm not going to touch capitalization until this is somehow resolved, and maybe not at all, depending on what the resolution is or if (assuming the consensus is for "court") someone beats me to it.

3. Also maybe relevant and related even if not: "Court" is also used (qualified at least in some places) in references to the VA Supreme Court, the AL Supreme Court, and at least one each Federal District Court and state County Court. I didn't check what the full official names are for these 2 state supreme courts, but if different from the names used in the entry, they all need to be capitalized or not consistently.

The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, the word "specific" is key here. Is it your view that the word court in reference to a particular court is more specific than the word department in reference to a particular government department, the word university in reference to a particular university, or the term city council in reference to a particular city council? — 207.161.86.162 02:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

If I understand what you're asking correctly, yes because there's only one SCOTUS whereas there's several (federal) gov't department or universities. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

There is only one US State Department and only one University of Delhi. How is that any different from the US Supreme Court? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, the clause you quoted from MOS:INSTITUTIONS can't be read apart from the rest of the sentence: Also treat as a proper name a shorter but still specific form, consistently capitalized in reliable generalist sources (e.g., US State Department or the State Department, depending on context). Surely it's not your view that the phrase the court in reference to the US Supreme Court is consistently capitalized in reliable generalist sources [emphasis added], is it? This would certainly be contrary to the guidance of the current editions of The Chicago Manual of Style, The Associated Press Stylebook, and The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, which is a clear indication that, at the very least, capitalization of this term in this context isn't consistent in reliable generalist sources. — 207.161.86.162 02:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

You ask "Surely it's not your view that the phrase the court in reference to the US Supreme Court is consistently capitalized in reliable generalist sources [emphasis added], is it?" As I said earlier ('I don't know of a search engine that doesn't fold case and thus would let me separately search for "court" and "Court"') this is indeed not my position because I have no basis for a position either way. If you know of a way to search specifically for lower-case-c "court" or upper-case-C "Court" (in general or in reference to the SCOTUS specifically) that doesn't involve lots of manual tabulating, I'm interested. It would help me with some things I'd like to be able to search for. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I have no basis for a position either way. Are the three major style guides I cited, widely used in American generalist publications, not evidence that – irrespective of what the predominant usage may be – the term the court in reference to the US Supreme court is not consistently capitalized in reliable generalist sources? — 207.161.86.162 07:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

You asked. I answered. You're allowed not to like (or believe, I'm not sure) my answer. I'm allowed not to care anympre because I don't have time or spoons to. Unwatching this now. Goodbye. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

If you know of a way to search specifically for lower-case-c "court" or upper-case-C "Court" (in general or in reference to the SCOTUS specifically) that doesn't involve lots of manual tabulating, I'm interested. It's a moot point in this case, as I think we already have evidence that reliable generalist sources, either (a) usage is inconsistent or (b) the lowercase form is used consistently. In either case, the guideline mandates the lowercase form. But if you're just wondering out of interest's sake, my only suggestion would be to have a look at the Google Ngram Viewer if you aren't already familiar with it. It only uses print sources, primarily books, for its corpus, but it may be of use to you. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, interesting. Thanks. I hadn't noticed the case-sensitive toggle the last time I used it (a few weeks ago, IIRC), if it was present then. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Lastly, I believe my edit addressed every use of the term the court irrespective of what court it was referring to. In any case, I agree with you that the capitalization of the term the court needs to be consistent regardless of what court of law it refers to. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

If the standard is usage in generalist sources, then "the court" would be correct. In legal usage (in my 40+ years' experience as an appellate lawyer), the word "court" is usually capitalized in lawyers' filings referring to a particular court when the filing is made in that very court (e.g., "the Court ruled ..." or "this Court held ..."), but not when referring to some other court. Lawyers also often capitalize the word whenever "the Court" (or "the High Court") refers to the Supreme Court of the United States, even when the writing is submitted to some other court. But I agree this is not true of generalist sources. PDGPA (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll take your word that uncapitalized "court" is more common, but as I mentioned above, I'd like to know how you determined that, as it would help me with other things. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I did not "determine" that the 'c' in "the court" is not typically capitalized in generalist writing, even when referring to SCOTUS. I am not a corpus linguistics scholar. I was simply giving my (confident) personal observation or impression, as someone who reads a lot about courts, both in generalist and specialized legal materials.PDGPA (talk) 02:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Footnotes

Under Dobbs 2022 SCOTUS

Due to the statement that substantive due process may be an unconstitutional overreach, by the opinion of Clarence Thomas in Dobbs 2022, several commentators have stated that miscegenation may be soon made illegal in the United States once again. [3][4][5][6]

Seems like this could be added to this article -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)