Talk:Vaughn Walker

Edit warring

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaughn_Walker&oldid=566346555&diff=prev

(cur | prev) 15:21, July 29, 2013‎ Bbb23 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (17,625 bytes) (-291)‎ . . (Reverted edits by Elvey (talk) to last version by Bbb23 - inaccurate and unnecessary - please stop making these incorrect even if well-intentioned edits)

(cur | prev) 15:15, July 29, 2013‎ Elvey (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,916 bytes) (+181)‎ . . (contrary to California Supreme Court's ruling)

(cur | prev) 21:46, July 17, 2013‎ Elvey (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,735 bytes) (+110)‎ . . (This is stated in the SCOTUS decision.)

(cur | prev) 11:30, July 12, 2013‎ Bbb23 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,625 bytes) (-405)‎ . . (→‎Cases: removed inaccuracies, simplified wording, copy edits)

(cur | prev) 11:26, July 12, 2013‎ Bbb23 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (18,030 bytes) (-9)‎ . . (remove template)

(cur | prev) 11:09, July 12, 2013‎ Elvey (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,039 bytes) (+1,522)‎ . . (→‎Cases: ArchiveDate should be auto-filled using the date usually in the archive URL. {{botrequest}} :-) +2 GI cases Tighten recusal section; keep ref. Prop 8 final ruling! (Based off http://enwp.org/w/index.php?oldid=563960826 ))

I don't get it. Inaccurate? If my edits (July 17 especially) were any more closely sourced to the SCOTUS decision (which is certainly a Reliable Source), they'd be a copyvio (if the decision wasn't PD).--Elvey (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This is your edit:

On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 5-4 that proponents of Proposition 8 did not have standing to appeal to the Supreme Court or (previously) to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, disagreeing with the minority and the California Supreme Court's view that the proponents did have standing to defend the law their proposition had added to the state constitution. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and directed the Ninth Circuit to dismiss its decision, although neither the court nor the parties disputed the right of the proponents to do so in Walker's court.

I've bolded your changes. The first change by you is inaccurate. The majority did not disagree witih the California Supreme Court. If I recall correctly, you've been told this over and over, but you insist on putting this stuff in this and other articles. It's also poorly worded. Frankly, I'm tired of these edits. You appear to have little grasp of legal principles, and you have no sources to support what you're saying. The second part is not inaccurate but, in my view, unnecessary. If you insist on leaving it in, I'm not going to fight over it, but at least remove the first part.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I support the revert by Bbb23. Elvey's version puts too much emphasis on the minority, and gets the facts wrong. Binksternet (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You can't just keep repeating "inaccurate" and call that an argument. If my description is wrong, then how would you describe the majority's stance on the view of the California Supreme Court? If it's not disagreement, what it it? Is it not the California Supreme Court's view that the proponents did have standing to defend the law their proposition had added to the state constitution? Is it the majority's view that the proponents did have standing to defend the law their proposition had added to the state constitution? How 'bout YOU describe the SCOTUS majority's stance on the view of the California Supreme Court? --Elvey (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The Calif. S. Ct. found that the proponents could defend the initiative under state law. The U.S. S. Ct. found that the proponents did not have standing (under federal law) to appeal the district court's decision.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, how would you describe the SCOTUS majority's stance on the view of the California Supreme Court that the proponents did have standing to defend the law their proposition had added to the state constitution? Your reply doesn't answer that question. I'm sick and tired of you saying they didn't disagree without anything to back that up, while I have the decision itself to back up my edit; it states that they did. So I'm going to put it back, with alternate wording, perhaps I can elicit an actual explanation thereby. The number of times you tell me they didn't disagree doesn't matter; repeating something doesn't make it true, though it may convince more and more people that it's true!--Elvey (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You are saying the majority held x. It's up to you to support that. It's always difficult to prove a negative, i.e., they didn't prove x, so you need to point to where in the opinion you get that holding from. Please.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

AXIOMS: The California Supreme court had been asked to rule on "the rights under California law of the official proponents of an initiative measure to defend the constitutionality of that measure upon its adoption by the People" and it ruled that proponents had the standing to do so. The SCOTUS minority wrote that the views of the California Supreme Court on the proponents' standing should have been respected. You said that the SCOTUS majority found that the proponents did not have standing (under federal law) to appeal the district court's decision. Do you dispute any of these axioms?

And yet in doing do, you claim the SCOTUS majority was neither ignoring nor disagreeing with the minority and the California Supreme Court's view that the proponents did have standing to defend the law their proposition had added to the state constitution?

Please help me to see what you see as the the unwarranted leap(s)!

If you don't dispute the axioms, do you dispute this?: "On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 5-4 that proponents of Proposition 8 did not havestanding to appeal to the Supreme Court or (previously) to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, … even though, according to he SCOTUS minority, the California Supreme Court opinion of extant "rights under California law of the official proponents of an initiative measure to defend the constitutionality of that measure upon its adoption by the People" was correct."--Elvey (talk) 02:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring?

Elvey, you wrote that the 5-person majority of the US Supreme Court were "ignoring" the minority position of their fellow 4 jurists as well as the position of the district appeals court. This cannot be represented to our readers in Wikipedia's voice, or even at all, because the cited sources say nothing about how the five judges decided the case in purposeful or accidental ignorance. To me, it appears as if you wish to present the majority decision in the worst possible light, to emphasize the minority viewpoint and the previous viewpoint of the appeals court. Such an emphasis is not a neutral representation of the actual decision. Frankly, this pushy emphasis of yours has little to do with Walker's biography and more to do with one specific case which developed twists and turns after Walker was finished with it. But I don't recommend taking the non-neutral slant of yours over to the California Proposition 8 article as Wikipedia does not tolerate POV editing. Binksternet (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I hoped that with "alternate wording, perhaps I can elicit an actual explanation", hence the word ignoring. Ignoring doesn't necessarily imply ignorance; you should look up the meaning of the words if you think otherwise. I agree that Prop 8 takes up too much of this article. Your unsupportable ascribing of motives to me at the same time saying that one mustn't ascribe motives to the US Supreme Court is ironic. It's as if you're trying to be hypocritical. --Elvey (talk) 02:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

"Ignoring" is your own personal interpretation of what happened. The majority decision actually discusses the minority position as well as the preceding court positions, so nothing was ignored. Do not try to put a negative slant on the majority court decision. Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I've no interest in defending language ("Ignoring") that failed to elicit constructive dialog. I can't force you to acknowledge or rectify your ignorance. If the majority decision truly discusses the minority position as you claim, prove it with a quote actually showing the SCOTUS majority's stance on the view of the California Supreme Court that the proponents did have standing to defend the law their proposition had added to the state constitution! --Elvey (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The burden is on you to prove the validity of any wording you wish to add. Binksternet (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The burden is on you to back up your claim, or you look obstructionist (and some other things I won't mention).--Elvey (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Tighten?

How 'bout cutting the last sentence down to just this:

On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of ruled 5-4 that proponents of Proposition 8 did not have standing to appeal to the Supreme Court or (previously) to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and directed the Ninth Circuit to dismiss its decision. The opinion left Walker's 2010 ruling as the final decision on Proposition 8.<footnotes>--Elvey (talk) 03:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

That would again be untrue.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

If you had said something constructive… how 'bout it? I've cut the section down without adding anything.--Elvey (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)