Wikipedia

Talk:Bush v. Gore/Archive 2

< Talk:Bush v. Gore
Latest comment: 2 years ago by John Z in topic A Very Biased, Misleading Article
Archive 1 Archive 2

Inconsistent discussion of precedential value

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The intro says that the opinion states that it "could never be cited as precedent." In the body of the article, the actual quote is given, and it is stated that the ban on use as precedent is an interpretation by "critics." The unsourced absolute statement in the introduction is significantly qualified in the body. Is there any objection to changing the introductory sentence to the following: "Highly controversial, the decision itself limited its holding to the facts of that case, causing critics to accuse the conservative majority of simply picking a winner rather than relying on sound jurisprudence."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.103.61.232 (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Done (using a quotation).198.228.201.156 (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Landmark?

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Wait, this is a landmark decision? I though landmark decision meant that it changed the direction of jurisprudence and was highly respected by future courts. This case explicitly said in shouldn't not guide future cases and is pretty much respected by nobody. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point. "Landmark" should be removed.--JayJasper (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Done. SMP0328. (talk) 04:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistency

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I feel like the statement in this article is at odds with the statement in the 2000 election article, but I don't know enough about this to say which is right. Does anyone have any insights? Maybe they're not inconsistent for an obscure reason not readily apparent?

This article says, "If Florida's 67 counties had carried out the hand recount of disputed ballots ordered by the Florida Supreme Court on December 8, applying the standards that election officials said they would have used, Bush would have emerged the victor by 493 votes.[1][2]"

The 2000 election article says, "However, had the Gore campaign asked for and received a statewide recount, the same research indicates that Gore would have probably won the recount by about 100 votes statewide, consequently giving him Florida's electoral votes and victory in the Presidential election.[4][5]"

It seems to me that both articles are referring to a hand recount of the entire state's ballots, but obviously there's a discrepancy. AgnosticAphid talk 23:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's an inconsistency, or if one or both articles simply needs a change of wording. For now, I'm copying your comment at the other talk page so anyone watching either of these articles will read of your concern. SMP0328. (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
So, the "issue" is that I assumed that the "hand recount of disputed ballots ordered by the Florida Supreme court" was the same as "a statewide recount," so I thought the numbers should be the same. But apparently that's not the case, although I'm not clear on the particulars. I am planning to give this some additional thought. But upon review of the archives it seems that because Gore didn't ask for a statewide recount people here have decided that it's not worth mentioning what the outcome would have been if he had. At the moment, I can't say I disagree.
I can't really see a way of making it more clear without adding the objectionable content here (it seems like clarifying the statement here could require referencing the statewide recount we aren't mentioning). But I did want to leave this here for more enlightened editors. AgnosticAphid talk 00:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Potential Inaccuracy: 7-2 vs. 5-4 holding on equal protection issue

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I would like to resurrect this debate, available in the archived Talk pages.

For what it's worth, the source cited for labeling the equal protection issue a 7-2 holding, Oyez's synopsis, is incorrect. The opinion itself PDF (linked to by Oyez) clearly indicates the support of 5 justices for the per curiam opinion, Rehnquist's concurrence, and full dissents by the other justices.

The per curiam opinion was supported by 5 justices; 4 dissented and did not join any part of it. Two of those 4 justices identified a separate equal protection issue, not an issue to the 5-justice majority's (which they would have joined if they agreed). Citing the opinion as 7-2 on the equal protection issue requires us to tell those 2 justices that they did not know what they were doing when they dissented and did not concur. But we cannot rewrite that history. The 5-justice majority identified equal protection issue A and remedy X, the 2 justices identified equal protection issue B and remedy Y, and the remaining 2 justices identified no equal protection issue while arguing for remedy Z. That's 5-4, not 7-2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradleee (talk • contribs) 19:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

That still means seven Justices agreed that the Equal Protection Clause had been violated. SMP0328. (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
No, it means there were 7 who said there was an issue. Bradleee is correct. 2 of the 7 did not say that it was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. I probably have some more arguments in those archives.John Z (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
The Opinion of the Court said there were seven Justices who believed that the Florida Supreme Court's ruling violated the Equal Protection Clause ("Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy"). That means the binding opinion in Bush v. Gore clearly stated that it had the following of seven Justices. SMP0328. (talk) 04:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
If "it" refers to the per curiam, that is indisputably wrong, and I hope it isn't anywhere in the article. If "it" refers to 7 say Equal Protection violation, then it makes sense, from that sentence, but that sentence is very hard to square with the dissents and so must be understood very narrowly. So 7 say Equal Protection Violation is still imho wrong or very misleading. From the archives, I see we've had this argument before. No time or energy to continue it now.John Z (talk) 08:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The "Other issues" subsection

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Seems like this subsection is now long enough to break up into specifics. Will do so.64.251.57.34 (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Kennedy's and O'Connor's opinion

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the right column in subsection Case opinions there is absolutely nothing about Kennedy's and O'Connor's opinions. I think it will be right to write there (or describe) something about their decisions regarding this case. 217.76.1.22 (talk) 09:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Hello, IP editor. I don't believe that either Kennedy or O'Connor issued an opinion in this case, which is why the opinions part of the infobox doesn't mention them. Some people speculate that one of them wrote the per curiam opinion, but that's just that, speculation. AgnosticAphid talk 19:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Updates made

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Deleted "The 2000 Presidential election took place on November 7, 2000." and re-worded and moved it to the beginning of the article. It did not make sense originally. Did not make sense in former place and makes much more sense now.

In response to "‎Reconsideration by Justice O'Connor": omitted entire section as it questions the neutrality of the article which would be in violation of the wikipedia policy NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabour (talk • contribs) 05:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I modified your edits a bit, for the reasons explained in the edit summaries. Hopefully, that will be okay with you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bush v. Gore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Bush v. Gore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Bush v. Gore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Tense

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

An anon insists that the past tense be used for the opening sentence of the article, while I believe the present tense is better. I've read the MOS and find it inconclusive. I would like to hear what other editors think on this matter. SMP0328. (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Deeply in the area of editorial discretion here. The case is over, so it was the case. But no case has surpassed it in this issue, so it remains the case. A non random sample of other important scotus cases. Notably there does not appear to be a pattern regarding if the case is still controlling or influential. (Personally I don't consider Bush to be either, as it doesnt have much legal effect outside of those immediate circumstances). If there is a pattern, it is that older cases move to was and newer cases are is. This case is in somewhat of a grey area in that regards imo, however over time it seems that eventually "was" will win. very weakly was, but really this is not something to fight over, as there is no clear rule or standard, however I do note that Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Supreme_Court_cases/Style_guide uses "was" in its example. RoeWade=is, BrownBoard=was, Heller=is, DreddScott =was, korematsu=was, lawrence=is, Obergefell=is, Burwell=is, Terry=was, miranda=was, Miller=was, Wickard=was, Hustler=is, Slaughter-House=was, Chevron=was ResultingConstant (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Consider the sentence phrased slightly differently: "The case which decided the 2000 US presidential election is/was Bush v. Gore" - one seems obviously wrong and the other obviously right. I trust that you would agree. Whether the thing is the grammatical agent or patient does not, it seems to me, change whether it is correctly described in the past or present tense. As a thing that happened on a specific date many years ago, the past tense is correct.
Of course it is possible that there is a legal style guideline about describing such things that means the present tense should be used in spite of the wider conventions of the English language. That is why I said in one of my edit summaries "unless there is style guidance saying otherwise, this is correct. I could not find any such guidance." I must say I find SMP0328.'s attitude very troubling. Look at their edit summaries:
I hope that in future this user will use accurate edit summaries, and will do so if asked to provide a guideline in support of an edit. 2.25.45.251 (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
You complain that I never referred to a style guideline in my edit summaries, but neither did you. You didn't provide any edit summary in your original edit. I was never dishonest in any of my edit summaries. You are bound and determined to have the past tense used in the opening sentence. I believe the present tense should be used. The MOS, as I cite in my first post in this thread, is inconclusive. Instead of being accusatory, please explain why you believe the past tense is correct. I do not believe either tense is "obviously correct." We simply have a good-faith disagreement. Please respect my opinion as I respect yours. SMP0328. (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Four county recount

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The way the introduction is written implies the recount was statewide when in fact it was only done in four counties in the Miami area. This seems an omission as currently written and mention of this fact made. I can do so unless there is disagreement, one clause or sentence should suffice. Sych (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The decision related specifically to the statewide recount of undervotes ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, not the original recount of four counties that was sought by Gore. Jeff in CA (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Vanity Fair article

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The article blindly follows the Vanity Fair article which is unsourced, full of speculations without proof ("one clerk said this, another one pointed out that...") and completely one-sided. Therefore, I believe a large portion of it should be deleted or rephrased. More specifically, the part describing what was going at the Supreme Court on behind the curtain. 89.103.134.138 (talk) 12:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:DEPREC states, “Vanity Fair is considered generally reliable for popular culture,” and rates it a green checkmark. This means, “The source has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team,” and “Arguments to exclude such a source entirely must be strong and convincing.” Jeff in CA (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Do we consider law to be pop culture? This article is about a legal case. Wqwt (talk) 04:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Is the information I was refering to a "popular culture"? I would say no. Moreover, these are very serious accusations against justices of the Supreme Court, suggesting their bad faith in their decision making. Do you still believe it is enough to keep them based on an article in Vanity Fair, which is a reliable source for "popular culture"? 89.103.134.138 (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I started a discussion about vanity fair's reliability at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Vanity_Fair_partisanship. Wqwt (talk) 05:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Broken Reference

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Something isn't quite right with reference [15], in that the first link seems to properly point to the decision, but the archived link seems to point to something relating to the DNCC, and having nothing to do with the reference. I propose that the broken link simply be removed, since the first link at least for now works just fine.Pigdog234 (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The original link no longer lead to the source, hence it is a dead link. Part of adding the archive link is leaving the dead link in place. SMP0328. (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. The original link works just fine. The issue is the archival link is incorrect, and points to something that is not relevant to the reference. A better link might be https://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-supreme-court/1489353.html, but I'm not expert at this.Pigdog234 (talk) 07:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I replaced the dead link with the one you provided. Thanks for your help improving the article. SMP0328. (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

A Very Biased, Misleading Article

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This is a very biased, misleading article on Bush v. Gore and on Al Gore's efforts to get cherry-picked recounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikegriffith1 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

How is the article biased and misleading? X-Editor (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
The main problem I see is the other way - the idea that this was in any serious way 7-2. Discussed in the archives by myself and others. There is misleading "scholarship" on this since shortly after the decision was made, based on one extremely misleading sentence in the per curiam. There is good scholarship too out there, but it is exactly the sort of thing that people aiming at genuine scholarship aim away from imho.
But Wikipedia is not part of the US legal system. If the US Supreme Court majority wrote in a per curiam that 2 + 2 = 5, that would not bind us to saying so, though it might arguably bind the US legal apparatus in some way. We would say something like "SCOTUS declares 2 + 2 = 5". We would not say in wikipedia's voice, as if it were undisputed or indisputable, simply "2 + 2 = 5". This undue respect for the Supreme Court is a crucial wikilawyering point that people who are lawyers in real life instead might not grasp at first. :-) (See archives) But it does still mislead people. Seeing people thus misled on another internet forum is what made we return to comment here just now.John Z (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bush_v._Gore/Archive_2&oldid=1136584405"