Talk:Zone of Death (Yellowstone)

"Yellowstone" as disambiguator

WanderingWanda moved this page to Yellowstone's Zone of Death. I object to this move, because it is not what the subject is commonly called in English (per WP:NATURAL). But I do like the idea of using "Yellowstone" as a disambiguator.

How about if we move this article to Zone of Death (Yellowstone) instead? That would leave the subject as "Zone of Death", but would be easy to find by editors (also per WP:NATURAL).

Thoughts? — hike395 (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Support Sounds good to me. --Pokechu22 (talk) 05:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Fine with Zone of Death (Yellowstone), but I can point to a few sources that call it "Yellowstone's Zone of Death, or similar: Yellowstone's 'Zone of Death', Yellowstone's Zone of Death, Yellowstone's Zone of Death, Yellowstone's "Zone of Death", Yellowstone Zone of Death. It's true that sources call it just "Zone of Death" more often, but per WP:NCDAB, Natural disambiguation that is unambiguous, commonly used, and clear is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I acknowledge WP:NCDAB. Two out of those sources call it "Zone of Death" in body of the article, and only "Yellowstone's Zone of Death" in the headline. I'm a bit suspicious of using headlines as sources for naming, because they are usually compressed and click-bait-y. I couldn't fine "Yellowstone Zone of Death" in the Joe Picket book, only "Zone of Death".

If you're content with Zone of Death (Yellowstone), I would still prefer that. — hike395 (talk) 07:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Alright, let's move it to that. (If anyone objects, of course, they can start a formal RM.)

Incidentally, I finally realized why I hated "Zone of Death (legal)" so much: "legal" is an adjective, and that makes it sound weird. I guess it also goes against WP:NOUN, assuming that applies to disambiguation phrases. WanderingWanda (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the page! Yes, it probably should have been "Zone of Death (law)", but "Zone of Death (Yellowstone)" is much better. — hike395 (talk) 06:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of Workarounds

Article should explain whether ex post facto settlement of people in the Zone for the sole purpose of being to empanel a jury would work?

Otherwise, would the legal solutions mentioned be OK to implement after such a crime took place, or would that be considered ex post facto law?

Swiss Frank (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Loophole location

The first line says " result of a reported loophole in the Constitution of the United States"

Isn't the loophole in the law, not the consitution? The constitution just exists, the loophole was created by lawmakers, not the consitution.

Bomberswarm2 (talk) 04:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

You are correct. This is not a constitutional loophole. This is an organization of the federal courts loophole, or even better, a jurisdictional definition of Yellowstone National Park loophole. There is no constitutional defect here. 174.166.142.167 (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The article mentions the Constitution several times, so be careful how you interpret this. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

what about Montana?

The article's focus is on the Idaho part of the park, but the same logic applies to the Montana part. —Tamfang (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)