Jump to content

Talk:Shadow docket

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History merge notes

[edit]

From February 2021 to September 2021, Sdrqaz worked on a draft for this article at Draft:Shadow docket. On September 1, 2021, Jaydavidmartin published an article in mainspace about the same topic. The content of the two versions of the draft have now been merged together, and to help preserve the attribution required for the merged content, I have also merged the revision histories of the two versions. All of the revisions from 01:04, 6 February 2021‎ to 19:50, 1 September 2021‎ were from Sdrqaz's version, and all the revisions from 22:09, 1 September 2021‎ through 02:48, 2 September 2021‎ were from Jaydavidmartin's version, and the two versions were merged together at 02:54, 2 September 2021‎. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 04:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Nixon announcing the invasion of Cambodia
Nixon announcing the invasion of Cambodia
Fighter jet used by U.S. Air Force in Cambodia
Fighter jet used by U.S. Air Force in Cambodia
Aerial view of bomb craters in Cambodia
Aerial view of bomb craters in Cambodia

Moved to mainspace by Sdrqaz (talk) and Jaydavidmartin (talk). Nominated by Sdrqaz (talk) at 15:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • I've added two images for the Nixon hook, meaning I've had to swap that from ALT1 to the main hook. I'm currently undecided as to which image would be better, so would welcome comments from others. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to three images, unfortunately. I've swapped out the bomber images (too low-resolution for the Main Page, I think) and added what I think would be quite a good Nixon image, where he points out Cambodian targets. I would probably prefer the original hook with the Nixon image: it's quite short and snappy. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: It's a little hard to tell in the page history, but this article was indeed created in mainspace at 22:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC). All of the revisions before that time existed in draft space and were history-merged by me after the content of the draft and the article were merged (see also Talk:Shadow docket#History merge notes). Mz7 (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: The article is new and long. Even if the article was moved to the mainspace on 26 August, it still qualifies as this is exactly 7 days, so I'm OK with that. The article is reasonably sourced, and the extensive criticism section has been, in my view, properly handled (adequate attribution, diversity of authors, etc.). Earwig was spewing plagiarism alerts, but since the hits concerned quotes only, I have no problems with that. The pictures used are all right.

As for the hooks, using school marks, it's an A for ALT0 (hooky and even somewhat sensationalist, but true - exactly what is needed here), C for ALT1 (I don't find it "hooky"), A for ALT2 (also a good one); F for ALT3-ALT5 (we don't include opinions as DYK hooks unless specifically referring to them as such); D for ALT6 (The opinion of SCOTUS on Texas abortion law, which makes quite a lot of news, does have an explanation of sorts, it's just two-three paragraphs long; moreover, they are usually, not always, unsigned; but if this is fixed, it can be an interesting one). Therefore, as it stands, I have no particular preference to whether it's ALT0 or ALT2, so I leave this to the closer's discretion.

Pictures are all fine. QPQ not needed, as this is the first nomination. Overall, I see no reasons for the article not to pass DYK. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Szmenderowiecki. I've added ALT6a, which should take into account your concerns (good catch!). For what it's worth, ALT4 was written in The Economist's voice, so I think it's fine for stating something in Wikipedia's voice. As for ALT3 and ALT5, I thought it'd be more hooky instead of attributing the quote to obscure academics, but that's fair enough. All that said, I still prefer ALT0 with the photo of Nixon with the map, so (in a way) I'm not too bothered about the other hooks' success. Thanks, Sdrqaz (talk) 11:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As for ALT6a, I still can't accept it, because all decisions have an explanation. EVERY one. The hook simply does not support the "unexplained" notion. Unsigned, sure. Not intended to be used as precedent - absolutely. But not "unexplained". Regards ALT4, this sentence is certainly an opinion sentence, not an assertion of fact. Even though I have high regard for the Economist and peruse it sometimes, they do blend in their opinions in the articles and do not explicitly make a division between opinion pieces and regular reporting. So not, ALT4 is also out of question as presented here.
However, since you insist on ALT0 with Nixon and the Cambodian map, I have no reasons to deny that request. ALT0 with photo of Nixon pointing to Cambodia approved. see belowSzmenderowiecki (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In light of your comments, I've struck ALTs three through five. I'm still not convinced that all shadow docket orders are explained, though, unless you count the reasoning behind a dissent as being part of that (an inferred explanation, if you will). This death penalty order, for example, makes no mention of the majority's reasoning. But thank you for approving ALT0. Sdrqaz (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that means not every such decision is with a comment [1], so well, you proved me wrong (dissents do not normally influence the decision, unless of course that's a full-fetched opinion, when judges can address each other's grievances). I still don't see the support in the source, though. The best shot at this claim is this sentence (from Slate): In contrast, the “shadow docket” consists almost entirely of summary orders, usually only one sentence long but that doesn't exactly mean no explanation whatsoever. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided ALT6b, but I guess it doesn't really matter since we're not going with it anyway. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just passing by – the Nixon hook isn't really accurate. As our article on the case, Schlesinger v. Holtzman, correctly explains, the order was ignored by the military and promptly reversed by an 8–1 full Court six hours later. (Back in the day, it was common for an individual Justice, in this case Douglas, to issue "shadow-docket" rulings in chambers. Such orders could be overturned by the full Court, as happened in this case.) It's thus not quite right to say that the order "stopped Nixon bombing Cambodia": Nixon kept bombing, and the order was quickly vacated. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like that hook was too good to be true. I've added ALT0a for review in its stead. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. The source did not provide the info behind that order, so thank you for the correction. ALT0a isn't really gramatically correct. The shadow docket stopped could go, in my opinion, but "shadow docket ordered"... not quite. In that case, I'd rather stick to ALT2. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The grammar's been changed; see ALT0b. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's better, but it lost that hookiness en route. I'd recommend ALT2, rather than ALT0b, still ALT0b is not that bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szmenderowiecki (talk • contribs) 06:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Since it's shorter than ALT2, I would've thought it was hookier. Any suggestions, Extraordinary Writ? Sdrqaz (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'm not having any sudden bursts of inspiration either. I agree that ALT2 is probably the best option: it's hard to say why, but ALT0b just doesn't seem as hooky. Sorry I can't be of more help. (There's always "... that the U.S. Supreme Court can use the shadow docket to issue an extraordinary writ?" [2], but I fear I might have just a bit of a conflict of interest on that one.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're making me wish I chose a cleverer username. Is the grammar in ALT0a really that bad? Inanimate objects can order people to do something, like when a billboard orders you to buy the best toothpaste in town because eight out of ten dentists recommend it or whatever. That'd be hookier than ALT0b. Sdrqaz (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdrqaz and Szmenderowiecki: I think striking ALT0a for being grammatically incorrect is a bit too harsh. I think it's the hookier option, and "shadow docket ordered" sounds fine to me—interesting and mysterious. In any case, I'd much rather promote ALT0a than ALT2. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 09:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a fine line between an omission of one word which makes the sentence mysterious and yet easily understandable and something which doesn't make sense because it doesn't. At least "the docket stopped" makes more sense to me than "the docket ordered". But that's my personal perception of that. Let's ask Extraordinary Writ for ALT0a, and if they agree, I will change it to ALT0a. For now, ALT2 sounds a better option for me. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd tend to agree with Szmenderowiecki regarding ALT0a. "The shadow docket ordered..." just strikes me as confusing, since it attributes intent to something inanimate. While I suppose one could argue that it's metonymy, it still just doesn't seem right. Perhaps it's because no one has ever used the phrase before. I'd still recommend going with ALT2, which is a perfectly good hook. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Argh. Since the winds are blowing away from the Nixon picture hook and towards the Trump one, I've added ALTs 2a and 2b. 2a is effectively a better copyedit of ALT2, with a snappier formulation, and 2b is a better all-round hook, given I doubt people care that much about applications – they want to know about the wins, and there's a larger multiplier there (and maybe some more context). Of course, at risk of beating a dead horse, ALT0b is still available. If one of the ALT2s are to be chosen, I'd prefer ALT2b. Thanks, Sdrqaz (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, according to the source cited, {{The Trump administration won shadow docket requests in 28 of 41 cases during his term ...Just eight were filed in 16 years by the administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, four of which were granted}}, which means that 28 won cases under Trump divided by 4 won cases during Bush and Obama gives us 7x, not 28x (but the per annum rate of winning requests was indeed x28 under Trump, compared to Obama and Bush 43 combined); and, reading deeper, in ALT2, it's the rate that increased, not the absolute number. I corrected both hooks to reflect that. Other than that, any of ALT2 to ALT2b are very good, and if you prefer ALT2b, I will grant it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't change hooks like that; introduce alternatives under. The "hookiness" changes drastically when you change 28 to seven. Added ALTs 2c and 2d. I don't think it's necessary to state it's the federal government either; the link to Trump is evidence enough that it's the federal one. Prefer ALT2c. Sdrqaz (talk) 11:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, but the hook must be both hooky and true, which is why ALT0 fell apart upon closer examination.
ALT2c approved.Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Szmenderowiecki: I'm not seeing how 28/41 is 28 times more than 4/16? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) 05:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: 28÷4=7 and 4÷16=0.25, so 7÷0.25=28. It's the successful requests per year as a raw number, disregarding how many requests there actually are. Sdrqaz (talk) 08:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdrqaz: ah, gotcha. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ALT2c to T:DYK/P3 without image

WaPo source

[edit]
  • Barnes, Robert; Berardino, Mike (2021-09-30). "Alito defends letting Texas abortion law take effect, says Supreme Court critics want to intimidate justices". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2021-10-01.

Just wanted to note that the above article in The Washington Post has some interesting quotes regarding the term "shadow docket" from Justice Alito, and it also mentions Justice Kagan's dissenting opinion in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, in which she became the first justice to use the phrase "shadow docket" by writing: "In all these ways, the majority’s decision is emblematic of too much of this Court’s shadow-docket decision-making — which every day becomes more unreasoned, inconsistent, and impossible to defend." Mz7 (talk) 08:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mz7: Ah, interesting. I had previously removed a statement saying that Associate Justice Kagan was the first to mention it in an opinion, as it seemed like original research. I'm a little doubtful that the reporting is correct, though. Vox had previously reported that Associate Justice Sotomayor had used the phrase in a September 2019 case, Barr v. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant. Admittedly, that use was because she was mentioning Professor Vladeck's "The Solicitor General and the Shadow Docket". Sdrqaz (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yeah, I think the relevant distinction is that Sotomayor was merely citing the title of someone else's work, whereas Kagan was the first justice to use the phrase in the first instance. I wonder if there is a way to mention both instances in the article. Mz7 (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The statement from The Post might have to be attributed. "[F]irst justice to use the phrase when she dissented in the Texas case" is pretty unequivocal and doesn't allow for much wriggle room (if I twist the reporting into "first to use the phrase in the prose of a Supreme Court opinion" we may be straying a little too far into OR territory, frustratingly). I'll try and think of something. Much of the Wikipedia article as written is pretty slanted towards the critics of the shadow docket (as allowed for per WP:WEIGHT in my opinion), but given it's rare to have a vocal advocate for the shadow docket, there's probably some valuable quotes from Justice Alito to add in too. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA?

[edit]

@Mz7 and Barkeep49: I was wondering what your thoughts on the page's viability for Good Article status were (pinging Barkeep because I had spoken to you regarding this page nearly eleven months ago). I think an FA for this is near-impossible (that is, until the Supreme Court stops using it) due to its need to be comprehensive, but GAs need only to address the topic's main aspects. Another hurdle it may face is neutrality, but I don't think the article is unduly weighted – reliable sources have been near-universal in their criticism. There is no rush in replying: I understand that y'all are probably busy, given the time of the year. Best wishes, Sdrqaz (talk) 03:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdrqaz I think just about any article can be brought up to GA with a willing editor and a competent reviewer. I see no reason to think that couldn't be the case here and would encourage you to put it in the nominations queue. That should also give you some time to work on it as that queue tends to be slow. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: Thank you for the encouragement. With the GAN backlog drive coming up, I fear that I won't have as long a "grace period" before a reviewer comes along (the shadow docket is a relatively "in" thing at the moment too). Are there any recommended changes you'd suggest before then? Sdrqaz (talk) 21:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look suggests you have most of the sources I found after a quick search. The one piece I would suggest is some more numerical detail about its use as I think it's missing the last couple of years (certainly missing complete use in 2021). I also hate section titles called "criticism". Could that be rephrased to something more like "Analysis and commentary"? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Barkeep. I've tried to make a bit of a hacky workaround for the statistics, since the analysis did cover most of 2021. The problem with Supreme Court terms is that they begin in October, so we're barely into the 2021 term and analysis hasn't started (at least not a holistic one). I wasn't terribly happy with that section title either: it was a holdover from another user's contributions (I had it previously named "reception"). I hadn't changed it when merging because the section was effectively wholly negative, but I agree that it's not great and have changed it accordingly. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdrqaz: Sorry for my lack of response to your ping. I can see that you've already nominated the article to GAN. Good luck! As you know, I am quite interested in this topic personally, so I'm somewhat inclined to do the GA review myself—but it's not clear to me whether I'm too involved to do so. Mz7 (talk) 09:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mz7: No worries – it's a busy time of year for many. I'd argue that under the regulations, you haven't "made significant contributions to the article prior to the review" in the sense of adding prose to the article itself, though your advice has been very helpful. It seems kosher to me, though it is of course up to you. Best wishes, Sdrqaz (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
The following successful Good Article review is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on Talk:Shadow docket. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Shadow docket/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 17:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'll take this one. Goal is to have it done tomorrow (Monday). --Cerebellum (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful news, thank you. There's no rush: I won't have the requisite time to be available to respond to comments until Wednesday, unfortunately. Sorry about that. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I'll be travelling Tues-Sat anyway and probably won't be online. Just one quick note before I start – according to this source last week's ruling on the vaccine mandate was a use of the shadow docket, but it also involved oral argument. I think this article will have to be updated accordingly. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I'm a little leery of that source: it was taken from a law firm's "client alert" – is it reliable? I'll have a dig elsewhere and if you think it's important to highlight, I'll add it in. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're right! Other sourses say the case was not on the shadow docket ([3], [4]). --Cerebellum (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'm all done, this was an engaging, timely, and well-written article and I enjoyed reviewing it :) Comments are below, I'll place the article on hold until you can respond to them. Feel free to disagree with any of my suggestions. I'm bringing my laptop on my trip so hopefully I'll be able to find WiFi and close out the review expeditiously. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough review (and kind comments), Cerebellum. I've interleaved my responses to your comments below, as there seems to be a tolerance of that practice at GAN and I think it makes things clearer (no need to keep scrolling up and down). I've learned a lot from this process. Please let me know any further thoughts. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, you've addressed all my concerns :) Happy to pass as GA. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your hard work, Cerebellum (and for dealing with this during your travels). I'm confident the article is in far better shape because of it! Sdrqaz (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]
  • Prose: Prose is excellent! One minor comment below.
  • References: Article is thoroughly referenced to high-quality sources. In a few years maybe it could be written entirely with law review articles, but since it's a current events topic it makes sense to use newspapers.
  • Coverage: Pretty good, comments below. Since this a live issue I expect the article will need to be updated every year or two, but that doesn't mean it can't be a GA.
  • Neutral: I don't think so, but I'm open to being proved wrong.
  • Stable: Yes.
  • Illustrated: Yes, images are correctly licensed and captioned. One comment below on image selection. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Neutrality: I think the article needs to include the views of those who don't see the shadow docket as a problem. It does mention Alito’s criticism of the term, but I found a couple other sources:
    • Josh Blackman in Reason says that, “I think after this term, criticism of the shadow docket will fade" ([5]).
    • Someone named Mark Rienzi writes in the National Review that, "'shadow docket' is a fun term...but it is actually somewhat misleading," and claims that most of these cases are emergency death penalty appeals.
  • What do you think? Are these fringe views or are they worth including in the article? According to this media bias chart Reason and the National Review are both right-wing outlets, but this article already cites Slate and Vox which are left-wing.
    • Not sure. I had originally focused on the criticism of the shadow docket because the reception in reliable sources was pretty uniform, especially from non-politicians, fearing that doing otherwise would be undue. plus Added some more from Justice Alito in the "Increased use" section, in the "Rigor" section, and some from politicians defending the practice. I haven't added the National Review source as there seems to be no consensus on its reliability and having read the Reason source, it doesn't actually seem like a defence of the practice, more that from Blackman's view, the shadow docket was running out of steam or out of fashion. Interested to hear your thoughts. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Makes sense, I'm happy with the changes you made. I agree that the reception seems uniform, I read in one of the sources that criticism came from "across the ideological spectrum." But I think including the (minority) views in defense of the shadow docket helps with neutrality. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coverage: A couple of the sources mention a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the shadow docket in February 2021, do you think it is worth mentioning the hearing in "History"?
  • Layout: I recommend moving "Procedure" above "History", the history section is hard to understand without the background info from "Procedure".
  • References: I think it would help to add a page number for ref #4, looks to me like you are citing page 2.
  • Prose It is dealt with on an accelerated time frame It's not clear what "it" means, maybe replace with a more specific word.
  • Images: I don't think you need two Cambodia images, I'd remove one or replace it with one of the Rosenbergs or something else.
  • Procedure: (there were 150 shadow docket cases in total). This confused me since the article says above that there are 7-8,000 petitions for certiorari per term, and Vladeck in ref #4 p. 1 says, "the 'shadow' docket comprises the thousands of other decisions the Justices hand down each Term". Shouldn't there be more than 150 of these cases per term?
    •  Fixed here, I think. The "150" refers to the emergency applications made to the Court, while the shadow docket is made up of emergency applications and petitions for certiorari. The Reuters refers to the number as being "emergency applications" at the start, but changes that to "shadow docket cases" later on in the article. I've attempted to clarify what the number refers to, and have mildly restructured to make the distinction clearer. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precedential effect: Is there another source saying courts are using these cases as precedent? The only source supporting the idea is Vladeck in Slate, and he makes the claim a bit weakly, saying "these orders tend to receive...far less attention and precedential weight from lower courts" and then "they’re also starting to be cited as precedent by lower-court judges". He doesn't give any examples or statistics to back up the claim. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The successful Good Article review above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on Talk:Shadow docket. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Photo error

[edit]

The supposed photo of the Rosenbergs is not in fact J. and E. Rosenberg. Georet5813 (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

good article

[edit]

This is a really good article. Kudos to @Sdrqaz for getting this going. Hannahthom7 (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shadow_docket&oldid=1208778961"