Talk:Dred Scott v. Sandford

African Americans

This article needs to be re-written without the term "African Americans". The legal discussion in question specifically states that people of African origin cannot be or become Americans, so this modern term for Americans of recent African descent with African physical features is contradictory to the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.122.29 (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

"American" doesn't necessarily mean "American citizen". Prior to 1775-1788, there was no country called "the United States of America" and thus no American citizens, but there were plenty of Americans. In general if someone was born in Country X and has lived there his entire life, the default presumption is that he is an X-ite, independent of legal status. ± Lenoxus (" *** ") 12:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree with the IP's comments and after 9 months with no dissenting comments have edited the lede to use the language used in the Supreme Court at the time.

This change to less politically correct and confusing language also has the bonus of being more intelligible to the plurality of English language users outside of the US that do not suffer the logic-twisting exigencies of US fashion. (My Ugandan friends who had to jump through hoops to obtain a visa to visit the US are always appalled to be termed "African Americans" - rather than Kenyans, Africans or blacks - when they have finally passed the ordeal of US Homeland Security interrogations and searches and emerge blinking to try and find a cab.) BushelCandle (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Sandform or sanford?

The article uses these lastnames interchangeably. Clarification is needed. Giorgi Eufshi (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I assume you meant to write "Sandford" (not "Sandform"). This issue is mentioned in footnote #1: While the name of the Supreme Court case is Scott vs. Sandford, the respondent's surname was actually "Sanford". A clerk misspelled the name, and the court never corrected the error. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 15:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

"No rights which the white man was bound to respect"

I have a feeling that the section "Opinion of the Court" is a bit too long and contains too many and too long quotations. Still, I found it necessary to add one more quotation, i.e. "no rights which the white man was bound to respect" and context. These words are given by Frederick Douglass as the essence of the ruling in his "Life and Times" (p. 298 of the online edition at Docsouth, https://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/douglasslife/douglass.html#douglass298). They are also alluded to by Harriet Jacobs (p. 281 of the online edition at Docsouth, https://docsouth.unc.edu/fpn/jacobs/jacobs.html#jac281) in a way that makes it clear that they were common knowledge among abolitionists in the late 1850s. So I conclude that these words are pretty important (and also pretty shocking). Rsk6400 (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd also like to chime in that this quote is by far the most famous from the court's opinion, and is frequently cited in histories of the era. It's not only shocking to current sensibilities, but was considered dynamite even at the time, when African Americans outside the south did in fact have rights that they expected white men (and the law) to respect. The entire passage doesn't necessarily need to be in the article, but this sentence does; in fact, I'd think it belonged in the lede. --Jfruh (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The two quotations in the current section on the opinion (the two I added) are those that are quoted from in the major legal treatises (Chemerinsky and Nowak). I normally put a "quoted in" citation but didn't here, though I can add them if it would help.  White Whirlwind  咨  23:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Which parts of the passage should be in the article ? Ibram X. Kendi, Stamped from the beginning (p.204), quotes the passage from "They had for more..." to "...bound to respect". I'd like to include also Taney's reference to the Constitution (because that's why the passage is important in his logic) and to the Declaration of Independence (because the passage in combination with the Declaration is evidence that in Taney's opinion "unalienable rights" had been "endowed" only to white "men" - while blacks might have rights granted to them by the legislature - and this question is extremely important even in today's discussions on the universality of Human rights).

I'd like to see also some reactions to the passage in the "Reaction" and the "Later references" sections. I'd also like to chime in that it belonged in the lede. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Free encyclopaedia

That it is free is one of the core policies of Wikipedia. You may only include small amounts of non-free text under very specific criteria. "I just like the look of this text" is not one of those criteria. At least three editors of this article don't understand that, or are pretending not to understand that because they enjoy reverting more than they enjoy creating a free encyclopaedia. Kapanar (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kapanar: Three other editors—Dave souza (talk · contribs), FeRDNYC (talk · contribs), and I—reverted your change in succession. When that happens, continuing to try and implement it without gaining consensus is called "edit warring" (WP:EDITWARRING) and is not allowed on Wikipedia. I didn't notice your creation of this section—try just pinging us next time rather than continuing to edit war and/or place comments of questionable civility on our talk page(s).

Now, you seem to think that a quotation from a source is problematic. I'm not sure why you think this. You said in an edit summary that "it isn't a quote. If it were, the person who said it would be named inline, and it would be because it was crucial to report their exact words". But that would only apply to a spoken/written quote by a specific individual, not just to a quote of material from a particular source of information. The text you objected to was a snippet from a well-known monograph in the relevant literature that had particularly striking language that was used to illustrate a point, hence the exact quote. This is a common practice in English prose, and I am surprised that someone would find it objectionable. Your later edits mentioned "non-free text, not a quotation", which seems to be an amalgamated confusion of copyright infringement plus the issue I just described. Using brief verbatim quotations for specific effect with citations to their original source is an extremely common practice in English writing. It is unequivocally legal under the fair use doctrine of Anglo-American common law and U.S. statutory law—which are the only relevant laws to us here, since the English Wikipedia's servers are in the United States (WP:NFC). The quote in the lead may not have had an inline citation, but its full quote certainly has one in the body of the article, and Wikipedia's Manual of Style does not require inline cites for cited text in the body that is also used in the lead (MOS:LEADCITE). Instead of coming in guns blazing, try to stay calm, and remember that it is imperative here to assume good faith (WP:AGF) and be civil (WP:CIVIL).  White Whirlwind  咨  05:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The first user reverted as a knee jerk reaction, clearly having not understood why the edit was necessary. The second and third users reverted just because the first user had. This is an exceptionally common occurrence on Wikipedia.

And as for the reason for the edit, I am amazed that you would have trouble with the concept. Wikipedia is a free encyclopaedia. Non-free content can only be used when there is no alternative. If you are describing what someone said or wrote, then clearly, there is no alternative to quoting from whatever source their words appeared in. Fair use applies and you can say person X said "exact words". But if you merely rather like the turn of phrase someone uses in their non-free work, it is obviously ludicrous to claim that there is no alternative to lifting their non-free text. Kapanar (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kapanar: I'm afraid you are quite wrong. First, the "free" in "Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia" refers to the fact that Wikipedia is free to access, not that it uses only free content. Jimmy Wales has said this explicitly in his statement preserved at "WP:Free encyclopedia". How anyone misunderstands that is beyond me. Moreover, this should be patently obvious to any rational reader who bothers to look at the policy page at WP:NFC and sees language like the Text subsection's: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." Such language cannot square with such a narrow reading of "no free equivalent" (hint: much of the policy's language is aimed at image use). Second, it appears you did not carefully read WP:NFC or my explanation of fair use, or if you did you badly misunderstood them. There is not now, nor to my knowledge of U.S. copyright law has there ever been, a requirement that fair use be purely descriptive in nature. Read the policy and browse articles. Or go amuse yourself by reading Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music or Nimmer's treatise on copyright.  White Whirlwind  咨  06:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Hahaha, that really is too funny. The word "Free" in "The Free Encyclopedia" refers first and foremost to the licensing terms of Wikipedia's content. Everyone who knows anything about Wikipedia knows that. Did you genuinely not know it, or are you pretending not to because you think you will "win" an argument by doing that? Kapanar (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kapanar: I'm afraid you are wrong again. Do you see the "This is an essay" box at the top of that page you linked? That means it is merely a user's opinion, and has zero connection to any Wikipedia policy. You need to be aware of those boxes, because essays have no effect on us here. The box itself tells you that: "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community". If you decide to become a regular Wikipedia editor, you will need to learn to read policies carefully and listen to the advice of other more experienced editors.  White Whirlwind  00:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Kapanar (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kapanar: I won't warn you again about civility. Your reasoning is still illogical: WP:5P3 says that Wikipedia's content is freely available under the CC license. It does not say anything about what the "free" in "the free encyclopedia" refers to, but "WP:Free encyclopedia" does. If you cannot or will not comprehend that reasoning, I can't help you. But this is really irrelevant, because your original point regarding fair use was wrong anyway, for the reasons I've previously described—what the "free" in "the free encyclopedia" means has nothing to do with the substantive policies of WP:NFC. Plus, the whole business is academic now, since the original language has been changed for valid reasons this time. I hope you take these lessons to heart.  White Whirlwind  01:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Kapanar (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Removed PAs and struck comments from blocked SP. – ².O.^Boxing 18:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: Ah, I see! Next time just give a heads-up on the situation in the edit summary if you can. And it doesn't surprise me that Kapanar was a sock puppet, he seems to either have a bizarre obsession with trolling or else just be mentally ill. Thanks for taking care of it.  White Whirlwind  02:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 20 October 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Nnadigoodluck███ 01:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Dred Scott v. Sandford → Dred Scott decision – Per WP:COMMONNAME. It may be an unusual way to refer to a court case but it is how this one is usually reffered to:

• Google Ngrams: [1]
• Encyclopædia Brittanica: [2]

Since someone might bring this up: most sources that use "v. Sandford" do so out of conformity with formal court case naming conventions, and the nature of these sources suggests this:

• Oyez: [3]
• Legal Information Institute: [4]
• American Bar Association: [5]

Article titles are supposed to reflect common usage so we should not go off the above examples, but the first two I mentioned. mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 00:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per MOS:LAW. We use Bluebook formatting for U.S. legal case name titles. Legal sources typically use the case name, and legal sources should be given priority in an article about a legal case. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This is a fair discussion to have. MOS:LAW doesn't dictate anything here, since it says "normally", not "always no matter what". Anyway, I doubt it could supersede WP:COMMONNAME in the event of a contradiction between the two. On a side note, there are plenty of cases that are famous enough to not follow the normal "Party v. Party" (e.g. The Slaughter-House Cases). Dred Scott isn't quite there in legal usage, but perhaps it is in general usage. I'd like to see a survey of major sources in addition to Ngrams.  White Whirlwind  05:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Agree with survey of major sources. Someone else would probably be better suited to do this though, as I haven't written any legal articles and I don't know what is usually used to do so. mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 11:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Legal sources should be given priority in articles about legal cases such as this. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. In fact its commonest name would appear to be the Dred Scott case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment @Necrothesp: Any evidence for this? mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 14:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Certainly when I studied history at school and university it was always taught as the Dred Scott case. However, I'll give you the Ngram seems to give Dred Scott decision as the most common. Although Dred Scott case/Case certainly beats Dred Scott v. Sandford. I'll support either decision or case over the latter. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: I'm sure it varies how it is taught and I have not (yet, still in HS) had any postsecondary education, but I would also take "case" over "v. Sandford". mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 17:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I dunno, it just feels... off. The Slaughter-House Cases... sure, that's the common name, alright, but it feels formal enough that actual Supreme Court decisions uses that name in citations. To me, though, this feels like the equivalent of moving "SpongeBob SquarePants" to "SpongeBob". It's a shorthand form that is used for abbreviation. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

It is less formal, but I don't think it's used because it's shorter. All the other shortened case names I've heard don't add anything. Brown v. Board of Education --> Brown v. Board, for example. I think there's probably some story as to why it's often called "decision" as this is so unusual. mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 17:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose largely per Brainulator9 above. In addition, I would note that the Slaughter-House Cases referenced above are a unique case (I couldn't help myself) involving multiple cases (hence the name), which is likely why the shorthand name is used. -- Calidum 17:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose What! Um no. I don't get the argument, change because of precedent? WP:Ignore all rules plz see this, ignoring precedent is the only way to maintain the quality of this page. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.