Talk:Moyer v. Peabody

A fact from Moyer v. Peabody appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 October 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the United States Supreme Court held in Moyer v. Peabody (1909) that the U.S. government may imprison citizens without probable cause during an insurrection so long as it acts in good faith?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/October.

Wikipedia

U.S. Supreme Court cases Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Organized Labour Mid‑importance

	Organized Labour portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

presentation of quote is misleading

In the current last paragraph of this article, the last three sentences apparently are really a quote from someone and comprise someone's opinion, but in its current form it initially reads as if part of the factual content of the article. Shouldn't such a quote be qualified as such with a lead-in or other additional text rather than just plopped into the paragraph like that with a couple quotes and a footnote???

The current paragraph follows:

After the 9/11 attacks, however, Moyer took on new significance. In 2004, the case was thoroughly discussed in the Supreme Court's "illegal enemy combatant" decision, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004). The Moyer case may take on increasing significance in the future as the "War on Terror" continues. "The ruling's appeal to present-day government lawyers is obvious. The administration has taken pains to emphasize that the Padilla detention order—like the order establishing the ground rules for military commissions—was signed by President Bush in the exercise of his authority as commander-in-chief. And if a state governor playing commander-in-chief can persuade the courts to rubber-stamp his abusive actions, surely a President can, too."[23]

The quote strikes a false cord in it's current form -- I'm surprised this got through whatever screening is performed prior to showcasing a Wikipedia article, as this one was today.

Gloryroad 18:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verb tenses and other minor changes

There were some edits made to this article on Oct. 26 which, while very helpful, in some cases used the passive past tense (for example, "was deployed"). A better style, which makes for more dynamic reading, is simply the past tense (for example, "deployed"). I hope I did not step on any toes to revert them to the past tense. Another change was "Holmes stated." Technically, Holmes wrote; he did not speak. I changed that back to "wrote". Finally, two sentences were amalgamated into one ("using the rationale provided in 'Moyer,' but..."). However, this created a run-on sentence. I reverted the change back to two sentences. - Tim1965 19:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]