Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Taylor v. Beckham/archive1


 * 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 User:Ian Rose 10:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC).

Taylor v. Beckham

 * Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I created this article in response to a request at my featured topic nomination of Kentucky gubernatorial election, 1899. This article covers the Supreme Court case that settled said election, which was very contentious and resulted in the only assassination of a U.S. governor in history. The article was promoted to GA shortly after its creation, has been peer reviewed, and is part of the aforementioned featured topic. I'm not a legal expert, so a review from someone who is would be great. I'll try to respond to comments promptly, but no promises with a fairly new baby at home. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. I fully reviewed this article during the peer review phase and any concerns I had were addressed. -- Laser brain  (talk)  12:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Images are all fine, captions are good. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments by Coemgenus:
 * In "History", I'd replace "pursuant to" with "under". My fellow attorneys and I often overuse that phrase where a simpler word would do just as well.
 * Done. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The militia in Louisville: something is unclear here. Were they seen as helping the Republicans? Why was this so, given that the rest of the state government seemed dominated by Democrats? Was Louisville a Republican city? Was the militia commander connected with that party?
 * In trying to do a quick review of the source material (it's been a while since I looked at it in-depth), Tapp notes that both sides thought Louisville would be critical to their candidate's election, so it is doubtful that it leaned heavily one way or the other. Tapp also notes that Taylor won by over 3,000 votes in Louisville, which is why the Democrats wanted the vote there thrown out. While I can't source this right now, I suspect the issue was this – the sitting governor was Republican William O'Connell Bradley, the first Republican ever to hold the office. As governor, he was commander-in-chief of the state militia and had broad appointment powers under the state constitution that included naming the state's adjutant general, the next in line over the militia. He was pretty free in his use of the militia during his term, trying to quell racial violence, and even to restore the peace in another contentious election, the 1896 senatorial election that finally chose William Deboe to succeed incumbent J. C. S. Blackburn. For several years after this, Democrats charged that Republican governors were too quick to utilize the state militia. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, that makes sense. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * In "Lower court decisions," you use "opined" twice in the second paragraph. Some other synonym would stand out less.
 * Hehe. Not the first time my fondness for "opined" has shown up. Thanks for pointing this out. Fixed. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 19:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In "Arguments", maybe it's a pet peeve of mine, but the one-sentence paragraph looks bad. I'd combine it with the previous paragraph, but if you think this is out of line, feel free to disregard -- it won't make a difference in whether I support.
 * I am also generally averse to one-sentence paragraphs, so I feel certain another editor made this change at some point, and I either missed it or didn't care enough to change it back. Merged with the previous paragraph. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 19:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In "Opinion, concurrences and dissent," I think there should be a comma after "1910 book".
 * Not sure about the rule, but changed anyway. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 19:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Same section: is there any evidence in the sources that Harlan's connection to Kentucky influenced his decision? Not to imply anything improper (Harlan is one of my favorite justices,) I just wondered if there was anything said about it.  --Coemgenus (talk) 13:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't see any implication that his heritage swayed his opinion, although he was unquestionably one of the best-known Republican leaders in Kentucky prior to his appointment to the bench. He made a couple of unsuccessful runs for governor, and if I remember correctly, was an associate of both Governor Bradley and Augustus Willson, counsel for Taylor and future Republican Kentucky governor. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 19:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. I am happy to support this excellent article.  Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Quadell
This is a fascinating bit of history, and as a native Kentuckian, I'm surprised I hadn't heard of it before. The article's prose is excellent, as is the sourcing. I have just a few comments and suggestions.


 * The "Subsequent developments" section is quite short. Are there any cases that cite this as precedent? Has it been notably cited by commentators regarding the nature of property or political offices, or in relation to other times when the Supreme Court has had to weigh in on the outcome of an election? How did Republicans and Democrats react in the immediate aftermath? Would a (very) brief summary of Taylor's or Beckham's subsequent career be warranted as a "subsequent development"?
 * I'm not a lawyer, and this article is a bit out of my usual area of interest, so I can't say with any degree of certainty that it hasn't been cited as precedent. Another editor, who seemed to have legal experience, added this section in response to a similar query on the article's talk page. I did try to search for citations as best I could given the sources I have access to and my meager understanding of jurisprudence, but I didn't find anything. As for how everyone immediately reacted, folks were surprisingly civil given the tense situation prior to the decision. Taylor fled to Indiana and never held political office again. Beckham served out Goebel's term, then was elected to one of his own, did one term in the U.S. Senate, and went on to be a factional leader within the state Democratic Party. Neither is especially relevant to the case at hand, in my opinion, but I could expand along these lines if you think it appropriate. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, it would be good to have a sentence or two about how the various parties fared in the immediate aftermath. And given the high level of tension before the ruling (armed men filling the capitol, blocking legislatures from convening), I think it's notable that nothing much happened. I have asked if he has any more advice about what belongs in this section. – Quadell (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a minor inconsistency of capitalization for "governor". C.f. "legally the governor of Kentucky" and "former governor John Y. Brown" vs. "ex-Governor Bradley". I've found it difficult to nail down exactly when "governor" should be capitalized, but there should be a consistently-applied rationale.
 * I've also had difficulty finding a consistent rule. I try to capitalize it only when it is a title applied to a name (e.g. Governor Beckham or Governor Taylor) and not when it is in reference to the office (e.g. office of governor, elected governor, or became governor). Two instances from this article are potentially problematic under that rationale – former governor John Y. Brown and future governor Augustus E. Willson. In this case, I'm note sure whether it is more properly a title or and office. I would appreciate your thoughts. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This same issue came up at a different FAC. In my view, "Governor" should be capitalized when it's attached as a title to a name (e.g. "Governor Beckham") or when giving the full, official name of the title (e.g. "Governor of Kentucky"), but should be lowercase when used as a simple noun (e.g. "Kentucky's governor, Augustus E. Willson"). I'm pretty sure "ex-Governor So-and-so", "former Governor Such-and-such", and "future Governor Whatsisname" should all be treated the same, but whether they should be capitalized or not, I don't know. In the absence of something definitive, I'd say anything consistent would be fine. – Quadell (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to your responses. – Quadell (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay, but you know how the holidays can be. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. – Quadell (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose.
 * Opinion of the Court section needs to be retitled as Supreme Court or the Arguments subsection needs to be moved into the Background section, see WP:SCOTUS/SG.
 * OK, I think I changed this after someone gave me some feedback that said the "Opinion of the Court" heading was standard, but I have no problem changing it. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If the section is retitled per above, the Opinions, concurrences and dissent subsection needs to be broken down into separate subsections. One subsection for the Opinion of the Court, no Concurrence subsection is needed, and one for each of the two dissents, identified by justice, i.e., Dissent of Justice Harlan.
 * Done, except as noted about dissents below. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The article has only one thin paragraph on the majority opinion. This needs to be expanded.  Fuller explains his decision and distinguished why the Court did not have jurisdiction in this case when it had exercised jurisdiction in earlier cases that appeared similar.  Remember, in a legal article, the primary source (the opinion) can be used as a reference, see MOS:LAW.  There can also be more information on why the offices are not "property" and therefore not subject to judicial review under the Fourteenth Amendment.  The Court also mentioned that it considered the issue of guaranteeing a republican form of government to be a political question, not suitable for judicial review.  It held that the discussion belonged in other forums, not at the Court.  None of this is in the article.
 * This is not something I'll be able to do soon, but I will take that into account. I do usually avoid primary sources, and as this kind of article is out of my bailiwick, I wasn't aware that I should be using them here.
 * The article misidentifies Justice Brewer's dissent as a concurrence. "Mr. Justice Brewer dissenting:  I am unable to concur in all that is said by the Chief Justice in the opinion just announced, and will state briefly wherein I dissent." Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U.S. 548, 581 (1900).
 * Tapp specifically says Harlan was the only dissent. Hughes also implies that it was a concurrence, but for a different reason. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and changed it, since the primary source (the opinion) specifically said that it was a dissent. It's not the first time that a secondary source has done this on a SCOTUS or legal matter, which is why primary sources have primacy when dealing with factual accuracy.   GregJackP   Boomer!   00:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The Subsequent development section is way too thin for an article on a SCOTUS case. Some of what is listed in the opinion section does not deal with the opinion, but with later analysis and commentary on the opinion, such as the paragraph on Willoughby's book.  This more properly belongs in the Subsequent development section.  Additionally, there are plenty of book that refer to the decision and give analysis, and plenty of scholarly articles, such as Equity Jurisdiction over Issues Involving Title to Office, 17 Va. L. Rev. 814 (1931), etc.  This also needs to address the justicability issue that guided the Court until the decision in Baker v. Carr in 1962, where the Court departed from the Taylor line in cases of redistricting.
 * Yep, this is totally out of my depth. I'll have to do some real study to even see if I can get my head around it. Thanks for giving me a place to start, though. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * At the present, I have to oppose as the article is not comprehensive (1.b.) nor well-researched (1.c.).  GregJackP   Boomer!   18:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly, this is the review I've been expecting for some time. To expect that someone with no formal legal training and only a passing knowledge of jurisprudence in general could write a featured article on a Supreme Court case was a bit far-fetched. I listed it as much to find the holes as because I thought it could be promoted as-is. Thanks for the feedback, GregJackP. Any chance you'd be interested in working with me to get this up to snuff after the holiday nuttiness has settled down? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If I have time, I will help. GregJackP   Boomer!   00:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Note -- The nominator hasn't been editing for some days. Given it's the silly season I'll leave this open a few more days to give him a chance to respond to Greg's concerns, otherwise we may have to archive it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If we can leave this open a little longer than normal, I would appreciate it. The nominator did a very good job on the history part, it's just the legal part that needs some work.  And, like you noted, this is the holiday season, when a number of people do not get on as much.  I think we should give him every opportunity to fix it.   GregJackP   Boomer!   15:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the leeway, folks. It was my youngest daughter's first Christmas, and a big one for my three-year-old as well. It's fine to archive this, as it will take some serious study and work to address GregJackP's comments properly. Hopefully, this won't be the end of the line for this article. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- Based on AC's response I think we'd best archive the nom at this point so that he, perhaps with assistance from Greg, can improve it at leisure and then renominate. Thanks all for your input. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 06:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.