Talk:Korematsu v. United States

message: Strict scrutiny is survived in more than a handful of cases. If that sentence indicates that laws fail strict scrutiny of racial issues frequently, I cannot argue either way without data. However, 30% of strict scrutiny cases in general survive, making it far more than "just a handful"
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=897360 (and the strict scrutiny wiki page)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.24.251.13 (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Strict scrutiny

message: Amusingly touched on by Lord Bingham in the sixth Sir David Williams  Lecture, "The Rule of Law": "In our country, and in the United States, decisions have been made of which neither country can be proud.48 ... 48 [...] in the United States, notably, Korematsu v United States 323 US 214 (1944) a decision which Scalia J has put on a par with that in Dred Scott, thereby assigning it to the lowest circle in Hades." - 210.84.26.218 (talk) 07:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "This case was the only one in which racial discrimination in the United States has been upheld despite the strict scrutiny standard."
This sentence seems POV to me.  Literally, yes it's true, but discrimination is a loaded word and implies other connotations such as racial prejudice.  The Court's Opinion clearly stated that they did not believe that the case was a case of racial prejudice, but rather a neccesity in times of war.  I'ld say this sentence is trying to give a conclusion instead of letting the readers make their own conclusion.Ziiv 12:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: I was stunned that so little space was given to the discussion of the 1983 case ... I don't have the legal background to put together a proper exposition, but it's an amazing story that deserves more than it gets in this article. I will at least put a link to the episode of PBS's show P.O.V. that tells the story of the 1983 case. Lawikitejana 20:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speaking of "P.O.V."

message: the second sentence in the lead section makes absolutely no sense. it's so bad i can't rewrite it  because i can't figure out what the writer meant.it's not even legalese.Toyokuni3 (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Second sentence

message: :Frankly, I'm amazed anyone would even try to get this entry GA status in its current state. If nothing else, there is absolutely ZERO discussion of the saga of the 1983 coram nobis petition — how it started, what it accomplished, nothing. It's a huge part of the story of this case. Now, before anyone tells me to "be bold," let me state that it's so big I don't feel capable of doing it justice myself. Someone with access to the documentary Of Civil Wrongs and Rights would be ideal, as they could use it as a source, but at minimum, the article will not be a GA so long as it doesn't cover the petition that got the plaintiff the next best thing to having the case overturned completely.Lawikitejana (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: I personally believe that the decision in Korematsu was wrong, and I think that an argument can be made that the road to Guantanamo started there.  But that's a subjective point of view...just as was the statement in the previous edit that Justice Jackson's fears have not been borne out.  I think that this section needs references to specific articles that state the opposing points of view.  LegalBeagle (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Subsequent history "POV"

message: The source for the following line appears to contradict it: 
:The Korematsu decision has not been explicitly overturned, although in 2011 the Department of Justice filed official notice [4], conceding that it was in error, thus erasing the case's value as precedent for interning citizens.
The source in question states:
:The Supreme Court upheld Hirabayashi’s and Korematsu’s convictions.  And it took nearly a half century for courts to overturn these decisions.
My legal knowledge is lacking, but I read this as stating that the courts have explicitly overturned Korematsu v. United States, am I missing something?OakRunner (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: edit: I notice this article also states "Korematsu's conviction for evading internment was overturned on November 10, 1983, after Korematsu challenged the earlier decision by filing for a writ of coram nobis". Can we clarify what this means? Does it mean his conviction was overturned, but the Supreme Court's ruling in Korematsu v. US was not overturned?OakRunner (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy between article and source? 

message: Should the second paragraph in the Decision be in quotes?  Otherwise it seems to me like it would be confusing at first Shrillpicc100 (talk) 09:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, but it is formatted with the template . Graham87 06:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Format?

message: The fourth lead paragraph claims that "in 2011 the Department of Justice filed official notice[4], conceding that it was in error, thus erasing the case's value as precedent for interning citizens."
Nothing in the linked source states that it is an "official notice" or that such notice "erases the case's value as precedent."  The Justice Department is not capable of "erasing a case's value as precedent" - only the Supreme Court can do that by overruling a prior decision.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.192.162 (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable accuracy 

message: The link to List of landmark court decisions in the United States is confined to the single word "landmark" in the opening section of this article, while the proceeding words, "United States Supreme Court", link to Supreme Court of the United States. Seeing how in the former linked article, landmark decisions are described as coming "most frequently from the Supreme Court[,]" and how nearly all of the cases listed therein are Supreme Court cases, I propose the latter link be removed, and the text for the first one be extended to include, "United States Supreme Court case". Ex.:
"Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case..."
If readers still want to go to the article specifically dedicated to the Supreme Court, the linked article above contains a WikiLink to it in the opening. As it stands, there's no real compatibility or stylistic reason why the WikiLink for the noun you're discussing ('landmark supreme court case') is truncated to the foremost word of that noun — in fact, one could say that such truncation is harmful to readers, who most likely intend to go to the List of landmark court decisions in the United States when they click on what appears to be a single link, but can easily and absentmindedly click on the second, much more space-consuming link (a total of 5/6 of term), as I did. If they notice before leaving the page that the link was split in two, this is inefficient because they will most likely have to read part of the article they navigated to in order to first confirm it isn't the correct one before navigating back to this page; if they don't notice, then we have failed in our goal of informing people about what they want to be informed about.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crossark (talk • contribs) 22:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out. Sounds reasonable to me; I've fixed it. Graham87 06:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary Link Splitting 

message: What has been concealed is the major role of that Liberal icon Earl Warren in this shameful episode.  He was atty. general in California--running for governor and campaigned to jail all Japanese. (Many of his buddies were able to scarf up Japanese properties as a result.)  So ignorant and racist was this man (as his later Supreme Court cases confirm)that in congressional hearings J. Edgar Hoover (who was, after all, then in charge of counter-espionage)testified that there wasn't a single known act of espionage or sabotage by a Japanese in the U.S.  Warren's response?  "That just shows you how organized they are--they're waiting for the right moment."  I honestly believe that Warren's later looney liberal Supreme Court decisions were some kind of penance for the horrible crimes he had earlier committed.  Rot in Hell!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:184:C300:7E6C:E0F6:8DAF:C1BB:62E5 (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Koramatsu v. US 

message: * WP:RS says not to use opinion pieces as reliable sources
*WP:NPOV says not to push opinion pieces into wikipedia body text, or give undue weight to synthesis of opinion pieces.
* WP:COATRACK means that articles on Korematsu should mention Korematsu in the body text.
Huffington Post blog articles do not meet RS.
-- Callinus (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion pieces and Coatrack issues 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Korematsu v. United States. 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/20130219025113/http://blogs.justice.gov/main/archives/1346 to http://blogs.justice.gov/main/archives/1346
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) 22:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In Footnote 3 of his majority opinion in SFFA v. Harvard, Chief Justice Roberts writes:
Is this enough to conclude that the statements made in Trump v. Hawaii are more than just dicta? Glad Tidings from New York (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It was definitely dicta. Chief Justice definitely got this wrong, although, I'm not sure how to handle it. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''SFFA v. Harvard'' footnote 3