Talk:Boy Scouts of America v. Dale

SCOTUS Info Box
Someone want to add a SCOTUS infobox to this page?

Images
"Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be of sufficient notability (relative to the article's topic)." It is unusual to highlight the role of the lawyer with regard to a particular case. More notable candidates in thise case would be Rehnquist, Stevens, and Dale(!). Dale's image should be up near the top, while Rehnquist and Stevens would fit nicely near the opinions. The problem is that there isn't much room at the top, so it might cause formatting issues to fit an image of Dale. I'll see what I can figure out. --NThurston 15:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is unusual at all. The lawyers are the ones who argue the cases the Supreme Court adopts.  There are three actors in a Supreme Court case, without which a case would not proceed.  The Court itself, and the two opposing counsel.  If it is unusual to include the role of counsel, it should not be.  The case is not about Rehnquist, he happened to have written the opinion.  When it comes to Supreme Court cases, it is murky area to say whose images belong where.  Would an image of the Boy Scouts logo be more appopriate?  The Supreme Court building?  Rehnquist?  Stevens?  Wolfson?  Dale?  Frankly, I would prefer a gallery of all of them, including the Boy Scouts counsel.  As it is, images make the article more real, and since there is room for several, I think the Wolfson photograph adds value.  --DavidShankBone 15:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's do a gallery, then. I prefer more images to less, too.  I looked for an image of Dale, and found one on the inclusiveness web site, but couldn't figure out how to contact them for permission.  (It seemed an odd juxtaposition to have the losing lawyer's image right in the middle of the majority opinion.)  --NThurston 16:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Ideally, we should have a photograph in the article, and four for a gallery.  Rehnquist for Majority, Stevens for dissent, and then Dale, Boy Scouts (prez?), and two opposing counsel would be good.  --DavidShankBone 16:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I found a good image of Dale on the Economist website at: http://www.economist.com/node/304702 Flaxin (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Majority/dissenting views and weight
I happen to notice that the length of the "dissenting views" section happpens to be longer than the "majority views" section - apparantly as if the "minority were the majority". Doesn't that violate undue weight? If so, I'd like to shorten that down a bit or extend the "majority view" section. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There is something to be said for a longer minority opinion. The majority decision was (and is a source of controversy for being) brief. The majority decision is 2 pages long whereas the minority decisions take up approximately 26 pages. There may just be more to say about the minority opinions than the majority merely due to the brevity of the latter. See. --Triptenator (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Majority opinion needs paraphrasing
The original author directly copied most of the text in the majority opinion section from the opinion without quoting or paraphrasing. I'm going to try to correct this as much as possible, but it's something others should watch out for. I've also tried to add citations throughout the opinions.

-Legalskeptic (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

James Dick name change to James Dale
I think it is very relavant to this article that James Dale was born and raised with the name James Dick, changed his name in 1999 to James Dale just before bringing his case against the BSA.

See article: http://www.economist.com/node/304702

Flaxin (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)