Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Saxbe fix/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:32, 27 January 2009.

Saxbe fix

 * Nominator(s): ).--TonyTheTiger
 * previous FAC withdrawn

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is a rare example of United States Constitutional Law that became watercooler conversation. As such the page was highly trafficked and highly edited. Based on preliminary results at WP:DYKBEST it was the most viewed DYK hook during the month of November. Thus, I think there is a lot of interest in fully developing this article in the best form possible. If I can get this to pass it is about a ten-pointer at WP:TFAR on March 4, 2009 (the centenary of the first Saxbe fix).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment I realize the urgency, Tony, but isn't there a rule against nominating a second article until you've resolved concerns from a first article and built support for it? And you have Jack Kemp on the page which seems to be having a hard time of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm one of the editors who's worked on this some, but while I think it probably merits the GA status it has, I don't think it's at FA level in terms of content. It would need a much more detailed and thorough examination in the "Legality" section, for instance.  Right now, the only person cited as supporting the legality of the fix is a TV reporter.  And the Reagan administration's opposition to it would need to be highlighted more; right now, it's buried in the "20th century" descriptions of fixes that were used.  Are there any other cases where administrations shied away from appointments due to the clause?  This article doesn't give me full confidence that it's giving us a comprehensive accounting of the Saxbe fix.  Also, some of the sourcing and footnoting is very rough: what makes blogger "Adam B" at Dailykos (the very first cite) a WP:RS?  And there are a lot of blog entries overall used as cites; this kind of article needs law review articles as sources, not bloggers.  On more minor points, "Special to The New York Times" doesn't need to be in a cite (it just means no byline), "S.J. Res. 1 (1989)" as a bare cite doesn't cut it, and the date formatting in cites is very inconsistent (some month-day, some day-month, some ISO).  Wasted Time R (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Daily Kos is WP:N. In most cases in the article either the blog or the blogger is notable.  I believe this is sufficient.  I will format S.J. Res. 1 (1989)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Op-ed columnists, talk show hosts, opinion bloggers, and the like may very well be WP:N, but that hardly makes them WP:RS.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that blog postings by unknown commentators in well-recognized blogs are in need of supporting references from more reliable sources or are you saying that they are so unreliable that they should be expunged from articles? I am doing the former right now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Kemp FAC is dead in the water and can be withdrawn.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That rule only applies to some people and not others. Otto4711 (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I will request that it be closed, if it hasn't been already.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It has been closed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) You might also want to see if you can find a friendly law student. Many get free unlimited access to LEXIS and WESTLAW, which I believe includes law review articles. I am a lawyer, but I use the online research service provided by my state's bar, which does not include law reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Comments -
 * Oppose I worry about comprehensiveness on this article. The article gives "examples" from each century, but whether or not there were other instances in which a fix was attempted (or the whole question ignored) is covered over.  There is a statement that presidential nominees were voted on quickly in the 19th century.  What's that got to do with the price of bread?  Were any sitting representatives or Senators appointed to the cabinet under circumstances in which a fix should have been applied?  I feel like 100 years of history is being glossed over because the editors of this article just don't know whether there were any before 1893.  And I second WTR's concern about the legality being glossed over.  Certainly, such a case is rather unlikely to be adjudicated under the political question doctrine (as well as standing, just like the oath screw up yesterday) but that's the kind of meat that law review articles, or at least notes in law reviews (i.e., student articles, not published under an individual name, but RS because they are intensively reviewed).  I'd expect to see a flurry of law review articles and notes after each instance, just like there will probably be a few over the next two years.  Or what do authors of constitutional law treatises, such as Laurence Tribe, say about this?  It just seems an article put together out of a few random facts and more or less cemented together.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears you are asking for research that a legal scholar would do much better at producing than I would.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * However, it is not fair or proper to object over WP:CRYSTAL expectations of future secondary sources on this topic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A number of scholarly articles have been written about the emoluments clause and the issues around it. This Google Scholar search would provide some starting points, for example.  So it's not WP:CRYSTAL.    Wasted Time R (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hardly WP:CRYSTAL. Just running Saxbe fix through Google scholar, I see what looks like a good article from the Hofstra Law Review in 1995.  In my experience as an attorney, most courthouse law libraries (except, no doubt, on Long Island) wouldn't carry that, but call a law school library near you and see what they got.  Or it might be online someplace.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Tony, personally I think it would be kinda cool for you to get this through and TFA it, though maybe you are a little too "fixed" on the points record. But I'm gonna hold your feet to the fire and make sure if this does pass, that it is an article on a legal topic that a lawyer could consult and take seriously.  Right now, it is not at that stage.  I think it is fixable, but someone's gotta do the research, and it's kinda looking like you right now!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a good standard. I have been busy overhauling Fountain of Time for an upcoming WP:GTC for the last two days.  I am going to spend much of the rest of the day on this seeing what I can find.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Few google scholar articles can be accessed online. Does anyone have access to HEIN online? Many sources are listed on this database.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * COMMENT According to this Law review article there are almost no law review articles on this clause.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Per the MOS, curly quotes aren't used in articles. Nor are quotes put in italics.
 * Is the quote box O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.volokh.com/posts/chain_1227548910.shtml
 * Eugene Volokh is WP:N.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He may be notable enough to have his own article, but what makes him reliable as a WP:SPS? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that WP:SPS supports his reliability as an exception.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. isn't SPS for cases like Eugene Volokh writing about www.volokh.com and not when he as a legal scholar writes about constitutional law.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, SPS is for when someone noted in the field is writing in a non-standard published form (such as a personal website/letter to the editor/etc) about a subject they are considered an outstanding scholar in. Just having a wikipedia article doesn't necessarily make them an outstanding scholar. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm also concerned with the number of citations to newspaper blogs and opinion pieces.
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose; while I agree with Tony that the subject "is a rare example of United States Constitutional Law that became watercooler conversation," the article needs work. It has some POV problems that must be addressed before featured article status obtains.Simon Dodd (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you care to point a few out so that I can understand how to improve the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll happily work with you on doing so. :) The most serious POV issue, to my mind, is branding those who think the saxbe fix doesn't work "literalists." That's a pejorative term, one not used by anyone to describe themselves, and it's not even particularly accurate (a literalist would have to say that the clause has no application to Hillary since it uses the masculine pronoun). In addition, there are some writing issues that I'm in the process of cleaning up.Simon Dodd (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If the term is pejoritive, it seems to be politically correct, since it is in one of the few law journal articles on the fix.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would avoid using such terminology entirely, and suggest language such as "those who hold that the plain meaning of the Constitution should govern"--Wehwalt (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.