Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Errors in the United States Constitution


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   merge to United States Constitution. This article constitutes WP:SYNTH as there is no indication that the topic as a whole is notable. However, since many individual errors do have reliable sources, we can merge any relevant content into the main article. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Errors in the United States Constitution

 * – ( View AfD View log )

An unregistered user has been blanking a section of the article, and expressed an opinion on the talk page that the page should be deleted. That said, it IS poorly referenced. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. You would think that something serious like the Constitution, there would be strong and reliable sources. I'm going have to say delete on this one. SwisterTwister (talk) 07:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge the verifiable and noteworthy aspects of this topic into United States Constitution. The subject matter is clearly a subset of the US Constitution and it seems appropriate to include any discussion of typographical errors in its drafting in that article. Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge The BBC should be a reliable enough source. This is kind of a minor topic, but in fact much more interesting than many found here. It could be a section in United States Constitution or left where it is. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as notable. Reliable sources exist.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep There are sources out there, but not in abundance. Protonk (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note The BBC article is not a reliable source. It is not published by the BBC but on a BBC-hosted self-publishing platform. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep its notable. It is a rather notable topic. The current source is not strong but sources are available, I did a small search and found this which shows the importance of the issue: "The Case of the Half-Million Dollar Typo: The Supreme Court Traps Property Owners in a Catch-22". This article needs more attention, not deleting. And to be noted that this consideration for deletion has started on the semi-vandalism of an anonymous source. Farmanesh (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The FindLaw article you refer to does not specify in what document this costly typo appears, but refers to it as "the fateful typo designating the San Remo as a 'residential' hotel". The Bill of Rights does not mention the San Remo, a hotel in San Francisco that was in fact only built much later, so it is not the document in question. Although the FindLaw article contains a paragraph explaining the Takings Clause, it does not refer in any way to typos or punctuation in relation to the Constitution, and does not support any of the material in the Wikipedia article under discussion here. --Lambiam 11:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sources are not reliable. The BBC may generally be reliable, but in this case the only apparently serious source is actually a somewhat tongue-in-cheek entry on h2g2, and, as the site states: "Anyone can write for the Guide". In spite of the grandiose title of this article, the fact is that when the Constitution was written there was no authoritative source for the orthography of English, nor an authoritative grammar or manual of style that could have mandated the use of punctuation. Thus, variations in spelling in documents of these days (e.g. musick vs. music) should not lightly be classified as "errors", and no inference can be drawn as to the restrictiveness or lack thereof of a clause from the presence or absence of commas. Even if you could, the absence or presence of an optional comma can not be called an "error". The h2g2 entry was undoubtedly inspired by the West Wing episode. Note further that the quotation of the h2g2 entry refers to "commas" in the plural. The full entry commits an unexplained switcheroo from singular "comma" to plural "commas", and then states, without specifying any source, "Some would say that there are two commas surrounding the words 'for public use'." But no other source even vaguely suggests there might be a comma in front of the words "for public use"; the claim that "some" would say that appears to be made up for dramatic purposes. We should not enshrine this specimen of unreliable original research on our reliable encyclopedia. If there are reliable sources concerning the comma issue, then the information on that belongs in our Takings clause article. --Lambiam 10:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Would require better sources. Doubtful that spelling in the U.S. constitution could be seen as errors since spelling had not yet been standardized.  TFD (talk) 04:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge - into existing Constitution article due to limited content jsfouche &#9789;&#9790; Talk 02:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge - I have heard these argumentxs before and even if they aren't currently used on the article they do exist. Due to limited content though I would be ok with merging this with the US Constitution article as long as it doesn't adversely affect the assessment of the Constitution article. --Kumioko (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is WP:SYNTH, not a singular and meaningful topic and not notable. The question of whether there is a comma in the Takings Clause can, if reliable sources are found discussing the possible anomaly and its significance, be added to the article on the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  As noted above, however, the supposed BBC article is not a reliable source because it is not authored nor edited by the BBC, but is instead merely hosted on their website; the disclaimer at the bottom of that page makes that clear.  Everything else in this article is just a WP:COATRACK added afterward (compare to original version) consisting only of unsourced and informal observations of historical shifts in the language, which has nothing to do with "errors" or typographical ambiguity.  postdlf (talk) 03:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (in other words, "per Lambiam." postdlf (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC))


 * Delete due to the complete lack of reliable sources discussing this concept. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  directorate  ─╢ 21:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.