Talk:Taylor v. Beckham

Taylor v. Beckham has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Taylor v. Beckham is part of the 1899 Kentucky gubernatorial election series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 6, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
July 30, 2010	Featured topic candidate	Promoted
September 27, 2013	Peer review	Reviewed
January 6, 2014	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 30, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in his dissenting opinion in the case of Taylor v. Beckham, U.S. Supreme Court justice John Marshall Harlan wrote that the right to hold elected offices should be considered part of the definition of "liberty" and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment?
Current status: Good article

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.

Law Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

United States: Kentucky High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Kentucky portal This article is supported by WikiProject Kentucky (assessed as High-importance).

Effects?

What effects did this decision have on future elections and laws? RJFJR (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly few, as far as I can tell. Taylor was unseated and fled the state due to being indicted as an accessory in Goebel's assassination, but that's only tangential to the case. Likewise, Beckham attempted to procure some goodwill by calling for and achieving a repeal of the Goebel Election Law, but that wasn't really a result of the court case, either. I haven't found this case cited as a precedent in any future cases, but I'm certainly not a lawyer, nor do I play one on Wikipedia. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my addition of a short Effects section. John M Baker (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the addition. I'd welcome any further additions by folks knowledgeable in the legal field. I just created this article to get Kentucky gubernatorial election, 1899 recognized as a featured topic. One day, I might make a WP:FAC run with it, though. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

I realized today that I neglected to finish leaving comments during the active PR and it was archived. Here are my other comments:

"Republicans organized a test case against the law, but the Kentucky Court of Appeals found it constitutional." I found the construction of the second clause confusing. Would "upheld it as constitutional" be more accurate?
- Your version is certainly accurate, so I've adopted it. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Goebel secured the Democratic nomination for governor at a contentious nominating convention." Shouldn't governor be capitalized in usage like this, since you are referring directly to the office?
- I get this question from time to time, but it always looks better lower case to me. Not sure what the rule is, though. I could be wrong. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You make several references to "armed men" and "armed citizens" in the Background section. Am I correct that they were not part of a militia or organized group? There were just people with weapons preventing the contest committee from going into the capitol? I don't understand why the police wouldn't intervene with a situation like this.
- No, they were not an organized militia. Eastern Kentucky was heavily Republican – really the only part of the state that was for years. Republicans regularly got trounced in the state, so when they saw their man about to get ousted by some partisan shenanigans, they took up arms and headed for Frankfort. As for why the police didn't intervene, I don't know what municipal force might have been in Frankfort at the time, but the official state militia (what I think we would today call the National Guard) was under an adjutant general appointed by Taylor, so they weren't really motivated to intervene. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Later you write "The militia would withdraw from Frankfort"; same group?
- No, this was the official militia under Taylor and his adjutant general. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Despite the agreement of his allies, Taylor refused to sign the agreement." Can you reword to avoid the repeated word?
- Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"As negotiations for a peaceful resolution of the elections for governor and lieutenant governor were ongoing" Same comment as above re: capitalization.
- And same answer as above. :) Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The section discussing the Supreme Court arguments and opinions is very well-written. I didn't find anything worth complaining about.
- Thanks. That's quite the compliment. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! --Laser brain (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. Not sure when I'll get around to taking this to FAC, but hopefully it's sooner rather than later. Watch for it there, and if you know anyone else who might be willing to review it once listed, please ping them. This is a niche subject, and I fear the nom will crash and burn for lack of reviews. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]