Talk:United States Supreme Court Building

message: What exactly is the point of mentioning that Ingraham is "a critic of the National Basketball Association"? Was the writer implying that it's hypocritical of her to play basketball because she's a critic of the NBA? It's the most bizarre aside I have ever seen. Lcduke (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 06:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Laura Ingraham

message: Something about the Architecture, the inspirations and the like would be a nice addition to the article, and very approproiate given the article is about the building itself and not the institution as a whole...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.15.153 (talk) 12:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Architecture

message: Per YHoshua's edit, I do think this deserves some discussion here, expecially in light of the continuing atheist crusade to rid America of references to religious faith. However, I can't vouch for the accuracy of the information currently there, and I think that - suitably expanded - it belongs in the main section (or a subsection thereof), rather than under misc. Simon Dodd 19:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2006/02/11/news/religion/satrel04.txt
MX44 01:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Courtroom Frieze

message: A certain user took out my photo and that of another person several weeks ago and unilaterally replaced them with his/her own.  I was too busy with lawyer stuff at the time to catch it.  I am reverting that now because (1) the quality of the new photos was terrible; (2) there was no captions or detail offered, increasing the chance that the photos were probably copied off of an existing Web site; and (3) the user failed to properly warn anyone of the proposed deletion in advance. --Coolcaesar 09:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why I put back in the photos that were here before Wikibophop's edits

message: I knew someone would complain. The name of the building should always be capitalized. APK (If You Wanna) 15:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: capitalization

message: I added references to the Visiting the Court section taken directly from the US Supreme Courts website and online PDF's. This section was marked for previously not citing sources and that it could be challenged or removed. Please review and either remove the field indicating lack of sources and/or comment here so that we can further discuss and provide any additional references that may be required to bring this section of the article into compliance with expected standards. Thank you for bringing attention to this oversight, I am hopeful that any outstanding requirements can be sorted out through discussion and collaboration. 24.188.207.20 (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Any takers on this? Is it alright if I remove this box in a few days if no one has additional requests for references? 24.188.207.20 (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Visiting the Court

message: Opinions are requested at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Naming conventions for United States federal buildings, which affects this article, which would be moved to U.S. Capitol in accordance with an abbreviated standard, as the NRHP uses. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to "U.S. Supreme Court Building"?

message: Is it somehow impossible to take pictures of the building's north and south sides? I realize that the grand east and west facades would tend to draw one's attention, but a better idea of the building's overall shape and size could be given by adding coverage of the rest of the building. Pass it on to Wikimedia as well, please.--172.190.185.207 (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage.) Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/bronzedoors.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  —George8211 / T 14:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: The infobox lists the building as being on the National Register of Historic Places and gives its numerical designation in that register. The lede section specifically states that the building is not on the register and has a note explaining why. Does anyone know which it is? Reschultzed|||Talk|||Contributions 22:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  NRHP status? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States Supreme Court Building. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051128142350/http://www.supremecourthistory.org/02_history/subs_sites/02_d.html to http://www.supremecourthistory.org/02_history/subs_sites/02_d.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Editor Hiss221Kumi has three times added the following paragraph:
:Furthermore, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes was appointed as a Supreme Court Justice by William Howard Taft in 1910 when Taft served as President of the United States.[15] Justice Hughes' confirmation to Chief Justice in 1930 was opposed by many because of his the abundant frequency of cases he took part in as a lawyer defending the corporations that were responsible for the depression,[15] nonetheless he was instrumental in continuing Taft's legacy within the judicial branch of the United States government. 
The citations are to "FDR and the Supreme Court fight" by Frank Brown Latham. I removed it twice and requested that it be justified in talk the second time, but instead it got added again. These sentences follow the statement that it was Hughes whose commitment allowed the completion (no problem there); and that Frankfurter and Hughes had been vocal opponents of their old quarters (don't really see why that would be in this section, but that is neither here nor there for this discussion). Here we have a "Furthermore", indicating that this somehow relates to either the commitment of Hughes or the complaints of Frankfurter and Hughes; the latter makes no sense, so it must be the former. The insinuation then appears to be that Hughes somehow "owed" Taft due to his original appointment as Associate Justice and that his is connected to Hughes's commitment to complete the building. If that's the claim, then it needs to be explicit and properly cited; otherwise, it's either rank opinion or original research. The opposition to Hughes based on his politics seems utterly out of place here; how is that related to Hughes commitment to completing the project? Again, make the case explicit, or remove this. And finally, "nonetheless he was instrumental" insinuates again that this commitment is somehow connected to the opposition that existed to his appointment as Chief Justice, or that the commitment existed despite that opposition. But there is no causal connection to that opposition; at least no explicit one. These comments seem like out-of-place innuendo and unclear at best. Those are the reasons I removed this paragraph in the first place. I've invited the editor to make his case here to seek consensus. Magidin (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this material is irrelevant to the article. A reliable source relating these matters far more directly to the building that is the subject of this article would be needed to justify its inclusion here. bd2412 T 21:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph under "Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes" 

message: As long as we are at it; that new section, "Motivations for the Creation", seems like a mess right now. The material under the heading of Taft and the short part under Hughes are certainly relevant to the header, but I don't see why it needs the sub-headings. And the section on Cass Gilbert is completely out of place there. That is discussing, perhaps, the motivation for the design of the building, but not for the creation of a building for the Supreme Court. Magidin (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have consolidated the material on Cass into the design section, and removed some repetition. bd2412 T 23:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

text: The main issue was you reinstating three times material that had been removed, even after you were asked to discuss the material before re-adding it (it's the stuff you had on Hughes). If there is some obvious disagreement, with material being added, removed, added, removed, then there needs to be a discussion about it. Otherwise, it's edit warring. Magidin (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  As long as we are at it... 

message: large chunks regarding the building's history are repeated in quick succession. I'm not savvy enough to say which iteration should remain and which should be removed. PurpleChez (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  redundancy