Talk:Habeas corpus

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Habeas corpus article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 12 months

Human rights High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Correction and Detention Facilities (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Correction and Detention FacilitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesTemplate:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesCorrection and Detention Facilities

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Social and political Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Social and political philosophy

Latin Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Dubious claim - United States

The claim made in the United States section (shown below) makes claims I cannot verify and in modern times appears to be unrealistic.

When the original thirteen American colonies declared independence, and became a republic based on popular sovereignty, any person, in the name of the people, acquired authority to initiate such writs.

The main article points out, at length, the difference between the implementations of writs in the US and England. Such differences however only allow for a person to petition a court for a writ of habeas corpus if they are a federal prisoner and meet the criteria set out here. It would seem more appropriate the text reflect the realities presented in the main article which provides a much stricter definition for who may petition for a writ. Generically Named (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reference restoration

A reference to a book by Erwin Chemerinsky was removed with the note, "removed citation to book that contains factual errors and describes Korematsu as "the evacuation of Japanese Americans from the west coast during World War II". The book supports the point for which it was cited here. No errors are identified. The quotation is accurate, but it is the quotation of a footnote that briefly describes the court's treatment of the case -- and while a discussion of the case probably should consider the known but unstated implications of the decision, that was not the purpose of the footnote. I am thus restoring the reference, as there appears to be no valid basis for its removal. At the same time, were an effort made to improve the article's content and references, as opposed to stripping references and leaving its content unsupported, I would have no objection. Arllaw (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The book does in fact contain blatant errors. For example, it identifies the protection from self-incrimination as being a Fourth Amendment guarantee. It also refers to the internment of Japanese Americans as an "evacuation". While the book certainly does support the point for which it was cited here (I added the citation myself assuming anything by Chemerinsky would be RS), these are not minor typos that occur in all RS. These kinds of errors indicate the editing of the book before publications falls short of Wikipedia standards. Wrensewn (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And, I may be wrong that he said the privilege against self-incrimination is part of the Fourth Amendment. As gramamtical point it is perhaps more about misunderstandings that may arise from injudicious and unnecessary use of the semicolon:

Prior to the Warren Court, which began in 1953, the Court construed the Fourth Amendment's limits on police conduct narrowly; it protected the privilege against self-incrimination, but only from egregious police abuse; and it applied the rule that evidence gained illegally by the police could not be used against a criminal defendant only to federal law enforcement, not to state and local police.

Looking at it again, I think I am wrong, strictly as a point of grammar, but in the defense of the English language some sentences should not be written anyway.

The book has an obvious liberal tilt and is shady. I know some specialist sources use evacuation uncritically (including Oyez), but an overwhelming and clear majority qualify this for laypeople as a "forced evacuation", or "evacuation and resettlement", and most commonly "internment". There are so many more examples. There was a lot to commend the book. I like that it is an approachable, easy to understand overview of relevant constitutional issues in criminal law, including habeas. I have been thinking over citing it in other articles, however, I would only use it with attribution, and the content at issue in this article is factual and can be cited to a less biased source. Wrensewn (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That a one sentence footnote that correctly recites the holding of a Supreme Court case is not fully detailed and nuanced is not surprising, nor is it in any way fair to suggest that the book or Chemerinsky was minimizing Korematsu and its consequences. It is good of you to clarify that your claims of error were predicated upon your misreading of a sentence from the preamble to Chapter Five. The book (including within Chapter Five) repeatedly describes the right against self-incrimination as flowing from the Fifth Amendment, not once from the Fourth. That you personally believe the book to have a "liberal tilt" or to be "shady" is duly noted, but is not a basis for reference-stripping. Arllaw (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're talking about different parts of the book. If the sentence in Chapter 5 is grammatically correct it is relying on a grammar point of some obscurity that is unknown to me. If there are two or more semi-colons in a sentence I would expect a list, which this plainly is not. It could just be enhanced by adding more citations instead of being removed, though I have doubts.Wrensewn (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]