Talk:Independent state legislature theory

Is "doctrine" a contentious term here?
I was listening to Akhil Reed Amar's podcast on ISL, and they commented that the term "Independent state legislature doctrine" is contentious (see "Season 2, Episode 24 (Show 76): The Real Steal – Part One" at 52:00). The news media calls it either the "[ISL] doctrine" or "[ISL] theory", with similar frequency. Can someone with some more expertise (maybe Aa2709, if they're still around) comment on whether this article should be moved to Independent state legislature theory? Endwise (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that both supporters and detractors tend to refer to ISL as the "independent state legislature doctrine". The times when I have heard resistance to that terminology involve contexts in which an ISL-detractor wants to suggest that there is no real legal basis for ISL, so there would be no reason to refer to it as a legal "doctrine" in the first place. I take this point to be a semantic one made mostly for rhetorical effect. With all that said, I'm not sure how any of this should impact the article itself--I think either "[ISL] doctrine" or "[ISL] theory" would work equally well. Aa2709 (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks! Endwise (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with Aa2709 opinion shot from the hip, see below. And THANK YOU for asking the question. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Dictionary: "a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group". Nothing says a doctrine has to be uncontroversial, or true. 15:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.156.160.80 (talk)

What we have here is an excellent example of technical WP:JARGON combined with advocacy. The technical definition of "doctrine" (black's law dictionary) obviously includes written in stone handed down from on high by-god established law.... but it also encompasses theories. However, the average Wikipedia reader doesn't know that the term is ambiguous or that the intended meaning is the "theory" side of the technical definition. Partisans in favor will want to say "doctrine" to take advantage of the greater clout most people would perceive, while detractors will want to say "theory" to tamp it down.

Well, we're all bias-free Wikipedia editors, right? All we should care about is helping our readers understand. So we should avoid tech jargon and write (at least) WP:ONELEVELDOWN and should rename this article to the simple English that most folks understand "independent state legislature theory ". This is supported by a long line of RSs that are not at all hard to find.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hmm. It certainly seems like ISL "doctrine" is the name more commonly used in technical sources; when I do a search on Google Scholar, I get about 89 results for ISL doctrine, and about 25 for ISL theory. Searching on Google News though, I get about ~1.5x as many results searching for "[ISL] doctrine" than for "[ISL] theory", so it seems both are used in lay news media (albeit with "doctrine" being a bit more common).
 * AFAIK, Wikipedia articles are principally titled by the name most commonly used in reliable sources (WP:COMMONNAME), with neutrality issues playing more of a role when the common name is less clear (WP:NPOVTITLE). So, IMO, the neutrality issues should be clear or well-documented if we want to go with "theory" given that "doctrine" is used more. I'm not sure it is so clear. For example, The Washington Post and The New York Times both called it the "Independent state legislature doctrine" in recent articles of theirs, and neither of those papers have reason to be particularly supportive of ISL. Are there sources (other than the offhand remark in a podcast which led me here) which specifically discuss the terminology/neutralness of calling it "Independent state legislature doctrine"? Endwise (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We agree that the policy section you linked, WP:COMMONNAME provides the way forward. However, notice that section says " Ambiguous... names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * PS In a forthcoming issue of Michigan Law Review there is a paper that explicitly discusses the ambiguity of "doctrine" in this context: "While some refer to the “independent state legislature doctrine,” I refer to the “independent state legislature theory.” The word choice – doctrine v. theory – matters. The word doctrine suggests the view is embedded in established precedent. I reject that word choice because the U.S. Supreme Court has not adopted independent state legislature readings of the Elections and Electors Clause in binding holdings. I use the word “theory” because it more accurately reflects that this proposed reading of the clauses advances one view, a highly contested one, on how best to interpret the U.S. Constitution. (bold added, footnotes omitted)"
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that source. I think if critics regard the term "doctrine" as an inaccurate description of this legal theory, but there wouldn't be much reason for proponents to argue that "theory" is inaccurate in the same regard, then [ISL] theory is the more neutral term to use. Given both terms are used in lay common parlance (i.e. newspapers and the like), I think it does make sense to move this article to Independent state legislature theory. Endwise (talk) Endwise (talk) 07:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Your most welcome. Just to be clear, I don't think that source is claiming that it is inaccurate, only that it is dangerously ambiguous, where "dangerous" means"impediment to clear understanding among the lay public".  In legal techspeak, edoctrine works just fine. But this isn't a journal for the legal profession, so I agree with you, we should use theory to help our lay readers.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Your most welcome. Just to be clear, I don't think that source is claiming that it is inaccurate, only that it is dangerously ambiguous, where "dangerous" means"impediment to clear understanding among the lay public".  In legal techspeak, edoctrine works just fine. But this isn't a journal for the legal profession, so I agree with you, we should use theory to help our lay readers.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

"Low" importance?
Given that the "independent state legislature" theory / doctrine / notion / claim is the subject of a case currently before the Supreme Court, should this article perhaps merit a higher importance level? — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For a change, you'd have to make a persuasive argument on the basis of the Content_assessment NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)