Talk:Korematsu v. United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of high-importance within WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
Korematsu v. United States was a Social sciences and society good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: June 6, 2008

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)

helur wut up homies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.169.76.10 (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the page needs to be longer

I agree. Is there anyone doing a research paper on Korematsu v. United States? Even the background information of the case isn't very thorough. I'll have to do some more research for this article. Baltakatei 16:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I added a bit to it. --67.186.146.170 21:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) - this is User:Alxt

Well who cares how long it is as long as we get the information am i not right.

lol. who put "Apple Pie is great" in there? dork :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.232.116 (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] POV?

"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)

Beyond your fair point, the case isn't the "only one in which racial discrimination in the United States has been upheld despite the strict scrutiny standard." 2003's Grutter v. Bollinger also a race-based discrimination scheme at the University of Michigan Law School after applying the strict scrutiny test. "Discrimination" is loaded here, too, but applicable. I suggest striking the entire sentence, or revising it to reference Grutter.

I've edited this for accuracy and to sidestep the whole NPOV issue. In fact, regardless of whether one considers Grutter to be a legitimation of "racial discrimination," one other modern Supreme Court case has upheld the use of race-based classifications: Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81 (1943). --Lawt 08:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

BOW CHICKA WOW WOW CHICKA WOW WOW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.125.221 (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Response to UM's "race-based discrimination scheme"

I think the writer of this statement needs to understand the definition of discrimination. Discrimination denotes the unequal treatment of two parties standing in equal relation to the priviliges granted. However, the logic of the affirmative action scheme clearly supposes a disproportionate starting point with regard to members of minority races, because of their historical experience in this country. Your revision hints of a disappointingly vindictive tone; nevertheless, if you choose to opine the way you do, at least know the facts - your claim is completely ahistorical. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.23.49.27 (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Speaking of "P.O.V."

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)

[edit] Second sentence

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)

[edit] GA review

I am quick-failing this article because of the presence of a cleanup banner. Since April, the article has been tagged as needing additional references. Please ensure that it is thoroughly referenced before its next nomination. References should also be placed after punctuation and should be formatted properly. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for the {{cite web}} template.

Please note that this is not a thorough review and that other problems may exist with the article. I recommend placing it for peer review before it is renominated. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)