Talk:Wisconsin v. Yoder

Cleaned up the External Links
I cleaned up the old links in the extra work they caused section to the new links if I could find one. One I could not find, but most of the links are current as of now. Next week I will be on a podcast with Torah from Amish Heritage Foundation who is trying to organize an overturn of the Yoder case. - Joseph Slabaugh AKA Mrdeleted

What's wrong with relying on primary sources?
Why is this saying it to too heavily relying on "primary sources"? I am former Amish and this case affected me personally, but what improvements are needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdeleted (talk • contribs) 01:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I do not get it either surely primary sources are BETTER than secondary or tertiary sources - that is what historians believe. Best is original language primary sources, many wikipedians seem to want to have National Enquirer journalism sources rather than the original ones. Translations and journalism and popular science will be less accurate and thus not as good as original sources. I am all for showing what most people believe, but popular misconceptions and errors will be more prevalent and so not such good articles if originals are spurned for this second and third class inferior stuff.Put original language and reliable translations etc. not just tertiary sources has got to be better practice than relying on hack journos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.38.246 (talk) 04:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

What was the ruling?
In other Supreme Court cases on Wikipedia, it says the ruling for the case (like 9-0). Why it doesn’t say that for this case? 2600:8804:B8F:3700:5928:1ADF:B14B:59D6 (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)