Talk:Shadow docket

History merge notes

From February 2021 to September 2021, Sdrqaz worked on a draft for this article at Draft:Shadow docket. On September 1, 2021, Jaydavidmartin published an article in mainspace about the same topic. The content of the two versions of the draft have now been merged together, and to help preserve the attribution required for the merged content, I have also merged the revision histories of the two versions. All of the revisions from 01:04, 6 February 2021‎ to 19:50, 1 September 2021‎ were from Sdrqaz's version, and all the revisions from 22:09, 1 September 2021‎ through 02:48, 2 September 2021‎ were from Jaydavidmartin's version, and the two versions were merged together at 02:54, 2 September 2021‎. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 04:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

WaPo source

• Barnes, Robert; Berardino, Mike (2021-09-30). "Alito defends letting Texas abortion law take effect, says Supreme Court critics want to intimidate justices". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2021-10-01.

Just wanted to note that the above article in The Washington Post has some interesting quotes regarding the term "shadow docket" from Justice Alito, and it also mentions Justice Kagan's dissenting opinion in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, in which she became the first justice to use the phrase "shadow docket" by writing: "In all these ways, the majority’s decision is emblematic of too much of this Court’s shadow-docket decision-making — which every day becomes more unreasoned, inconsistent, and impossible to defend." Mz7 (talk) 08:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mz7: Ah, interesting. I had previously removed a statement saying that Associate Justice Kagan was the first to mention it in an opinion, as it seemed like original research. I'm a little doubtful that the reporting is correct, though. Vox had previously reported that Associate Justice Sotomayor had used the phrase in a September 2019 case, Barr v. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant. Admittedly, that use was because she was mentioning Professor Vladeck's "The Solicitor General and the Shadow Docket". Sdrqaz (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah yeah, I think the relevant distinction is that Sotomayor was merely citing the title of someone else's work, whereas Kagan was the first justice to use the phrase in the first instance. I wonder if there is a way to mention both instances in the article. Mz7 (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The statement from The Post might have to be attributed. "[F]irst justice to use the phrase when she dissented in the Texas case" is pretty unequivocal and doesn't allow for much wriggle room (if I twist the reporting into "first to use the phrase in the prose of a Supreme Court opinion" we may be straying a little too far into OR territory, frustratingly). I'll try and think of something. Much of the Wikipedia article as written is pretty slanted towards the critics of the shadow docket (as allowed for per WP:WEIGHT in my opinion), but given it's rare to have a vocal advocate for the shadow docket, there's probably some valuable quotes from Justice Alito to add in too. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

GA?

@Mz7 and Barkeep49: I was wondering what your thoughts on the page's viability for Good Article status were (pinging Barkeep because I had spoken to you regarding this page nearly eleven months ago). I think an FA for this is near-impossible (that is, until the Supreme Court stops using it) due to its need to be comprehensive, but GAs need only to address the topic's main aspects. Another hurdle it may face is neutrality, but I don't think the article is unduly weighted – reliable sources have been near-universal in their criticism. There is no rush in replying: I understand that y'all are probably busy, given the time of the year. Best wishes, Sdrqaz (talk) 03:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz I think just about any article can be brought up to GA with a willing editor and a competent reviewer. I see no reason to think that couldn't be the case here and would encourage you to put it in the nominations queue. That should also give you some time to work on it as that queue tends to be slow. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Thank you for the encouragement. With the GAN backlog drive coming up, I fear that I won't have as long a "grace period" before a reviewer comes along (the shadow docket is a relatively "in" thing at the moment too). Are there any recommended changes you'd suggest before then? Sdrqaz (talk) 21:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

A quick look suggests you have most of the sources I found after a quick search. The one piece I would suggest is some more numerical detail about its use as I think it's missing the last couple of years (certainly missing complete use in 2021). I also hate section titles called "criticism". Could that be rephrased to something more like "Analysis and commentary"? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Barkeep. I've tried to make a bit of a hacky workaround for the statistics, since the analysis did cover most of 2021. The problem with Supreme Court terms is that they begin in October, so we're barely into the 2021 term and analysis hasn't started (at least not a holistic one). I wasn't terribly happy with that section title either: it was a holdover from another user's contributions (I had it previously named "reception"). I hadn't changed it when merging because the section was effectively wholly negative, but I agree that it's not great and have changed it accordingly. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz: Sorry for my lack of response to your ping. I can see that you've already nominated the article to GAN. Good luck! As you know, I am quite interested in this topic personally, so I'm somewhat inclined to do the GA review myself—but it's not clear to me whether I'm too involved to do so. Mz7 (talk) 09:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mz7: No worries – it's a busy time of year for many. I'd argue that under the regulations, you haven't "made significant contributions to the article prior to the review" in the sense of adding prose to the article itself, though your advice has been very helpful. It seems kosher to me, though it is of course up to you. Best wishes, Sdrqaz (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Photo error

The supposed photo of the Rosenbergs is not in fact J. and E. Rosenberg. Georet5813 (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

good article

This is a really good article. Kudos to @Sdrqaz for getting this going. Hannahthom7 (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)