Talk:Four Horsemen (Supreme Court)

"Bitter" and "Unfair"

The current edit warring is over the following two sentence fragments:

They were bitterly opposed to the New Deal policies

added with a citation in August 2008 [1]; and

state laws that tried to eliminate unfair treatment of labor by big business

added into the same sentence and same citation that same month [2].

Clearly, the objection is to "bitterly" and to "unfair". For starters, since the sentence is referenced, both fragments added by Rafael, perhaps he can provide us with the exact quote(s) from Ball's book. If Ball uses those adjectives, then that's an argument for keeping them as is in the article, and "balancing" them would require citations from elsewhere, rather than a simple removal or blunting of Ball's analysis.

Of the two, "bitterly" is probably more difficult to justify in abstract; if Ball does not use that adjective, then I would argue for changing it to "strongly" or something along those lines. Even if Ball uses that adjective, perhaps "strongly" is a better word anyway.

"Unfair", I think, is not as problematic. Whether or not a particular labor condition was unfair is of course a matter of ideology and debate, but there is little argument that this was the intention of the legislation that was often struck down. Whether or not one agrees that the effect of the legislation was indeed this, or if the issue being addressed was in fact an instance of unfairness is where ideology comes in, but not that the legislation was intended to do this. If Ball uses the word, then I would argue for keeping it in the article. Magidin (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The book is on Google Books, and "bitterly opposed" and "unfair treatment" are used on page 90, along with "prevented from expeditiously acting." Not sure this link will work, but: http://books.google.com/books?id=OurB10COyVcC&dq=hugo+black+cold+steel+warrior&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPA90,M1

RafaelRGarcia (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Great! It worked for me. Here are the paragraphs in question:

"Bitterly opposed to the policies created by New Deal legislation created to end unemployment and encourage economic recovery, the conservative quartet caucused each day in the car that drove them to the Supreme Court from their separate Washington, D.C., residences, as well as on the golf course where they were a regular foursome. [...] By invalidating these federal statutes, as well as a spate of state laws that tried to eliminate unfair treatment of labor by big business, the conservative Supreme Court majority, led by the Four Horsemen (as they were labeled by their critics) created a "no-man's land" in which government, whether the national Congress or the state legislatures, was prevented from expeditiously acting to regulate the economy."

Okay, here's my proposal: first, let's put the words bitterly opposed in quotation marks, to indicate we are taking them verbatim from the cited source; second, modify the end clause of that sentence so it is Ball's phrasing, which I think is better (indicating the policies were created to do something, rather than "policies for unemployment and economic recovery") . And let's do something along those lines for the second part of the sentence and the final clause, to be explicitly clear we are quoting a reliable source rather than making a judgement in the page. How about adding the no-man's land statement in quotation marks? Here's my proposed phrasing:

They were "bitterly opposed" to the New Deal policies created to end unemployment and encourage economic recovery, and they invalidated state laws that "tried to eliminate unfair treatment of labor by big business".[3] The Supreme Court majority, led by the Four, "created a 'no-man's land'" where Congress and the states were prevented from "expeditiously acting to regulate the economy."[3]

It's a bit cumbersome, though. Perhaps some other solution might exist that is both faithful to the source and does not appear to be making a judgement? Magidin (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That works, or we could just add quotation marks to the quoted phrases. I tend to stick close to the wording of what I cite. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's see what the other party thinks; of course, contrary views from suitable reliable sources could be added, if any are provided. Magidin (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You'll note I never touched the word "bitter", although it's not fully unproblematic. Yes, Ball is a good (reliable) source for facts, but his opinions and judgemental language are his alone and should not be duplicated just because they're in a book.

"state laws that tried to eliminate unfair treatment of labor by big business" is bloated and tendentious-- "big business", for instance, is a term of opprobrium-- and needlessly so. Just say "labor law". A labor law is a law that tries to protect labor from business; that's what it is. We could include a link to labour law for any reader so clueless to need this explained.

The "expeditiously acting" (whatever that means) sentence imparts nothing. We know they were striking down interventionist laws left and right, the whole article is about that. That sentence just hints that what they did was bad. So does mixing in the word "unfair".

It was a routine clean-up edit, but apparently my detractor decided the only appropriate response was to smash it down with a chained fist-- and then have the gall to declare that I should be seeking consensus.

I don't see what purpose quoting serves. If it would be helpful to quote a historian at length, then do that. Better, just state the facts and there's no need. 76.115.137.137 (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for finally deigning to show your face on the talk page. Using this page is not an "exhaustion tactic;" it's established Wikipedia policy when a disagreement arises. Your repeated edit is too reductive, removing details because they happen to hurt the image of the justices, and I think you misunderstand the scope of labor laws. I don't think I should have to post the definitions of words like "expeditiously" here.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 03:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

First, please, let's all avoid personal attacks. Now, to the anonymous editor: what you were requested to do originally was to make your case, as you did above, so that we all may achieve consensus.

You are, I believe, incorrect in claiming that a "labor law is a law that tries to protect labor from business". See for example the article on Labor Law: the term encompasses much more, such as restrictions on unionizing or union activities, and sundry regulation (anti-strike regulations, for example). It refers to all laws, rules, and precedents regulating working people and unions, both those that establish and protect rights, as well as those that place restrictions on them. The Practical Companion to the Constitution, by Jethro K. Lieberman, University of California Press 1999, begins the article on Labor and Labor Law by noting that Common Law was generally hostile to interests of laborers prior to the New Deal (and those precedents would be part of "labor law"); the Sherman Act was from time to time invoked to justify injunctions against Labor Unions; strikes were routinely declared illegal by injunctions. All of those are facets of Labor Law. And a Labor Law may also be one that restricts rights of workers, e.g., the one that places a time limit on discrimination complaints (see the recent case on unequal pay). So saying that "labor law" somehow automatically refers to laws that protect labor from business seems to me to be incorrect. The Oxford Guide also seems to disagree with that interpretation of "Labor Law". As such, the fact that these were laws that were specifically meant to fall on the side of labor is something that ought to be mentioned. Lieberman, for example, writes: "The courts regularly struck down laws designed to protect labor organization and concerted activities. In the early part of the century, the Court's Allegyer-Lochner-Adair-Coppage doctrine, as Justice Black dubbed it, overturned state and federal laws that restrained and regulated certain working conditions and relationships." You do have a point on "big business", however. I disagree that the 'expeditiously acting' sentence (which means, acting in a fast or quick manner) "imparts nothing". The point is that by striking these laws "left and right", they were denying the legislatures the ability to act (and act quickly) in the face of the economic situation, though perhaps the phrasing may be adjusted. ("Interventionists laws" would be a matter of opinion, of course). From my understanding of WP:NPOV, placing the relevant sentences in quotations achieves the neutrality by making it clear that this is the opinion of the cited writer, though it can be done by explicitly attributing this to the author as well; that was the point of quoting. You can propose an opposing view by a corresponding reliable source for balancing purposes.

In any case, how about:

They were "bitterly opposed to the policies created by the New Deal legislation created to end unemployment and encourage economic recovery"[3], and overturned state and federal laws designed to protect labor by restraining and regulating certain working conditions.[3; add Lieberman citation]. The Supreme Court majority, led by the four, prevented government, both federal and local, from acting to regulate the economy.

As long as we are at it, both Ball and the Oxford Guide identify the nickname as being given to the Four by "their critics", so the opening sentence should make that clear, but it does not do so in its current version. Magidin (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not think we should remove the word "expeditiously," as the Four Horsemen didn't prevent Congress outright; they only prevented it for a time, or slowed it down, or rather, prevented it from acting expeditiously. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't take the word "expeditiously" as meaning that they prevented it temporarily ('for a time'), but rather that it prevented them from acting quickly or with short notice. Magidin (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing special about Ball's opinions, so I don't see why his quotes should be used in lieu of a bald statement of the facts. If it was something FDR himself said or the justices said, that might be worth quoting.

This seems like a lot of ado about nothing. Yes, "labor laws" might be construed broadly (though I doubt most would do so), and if in this context there is confusion another two or three words ("laws favoring labor", "... protecting labor", "labor protections", etc.) could help. Really, everything in that paragraph but the automotive collusion seems kind of superfluous, e.g., to the extent that one could infer their mental state, their "bitter" opposition seems kind of obvious.

I'm inclined to ignore Mr. Garcia entirely in light of the above comments, but the point is "prevented from expeditiously acting" is a verbal mess.

Your point about "Horsemen" being derogatory was one I considered addressing myself, at the risk of a further flare-up. 67.42.2.70 (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, it's not up to you to decide which sources are reliable and which are not. I'll be quoting the book more when edit protection is lifted, to stay in line with NPOV. Feel free to add material from reliable sources. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing special about Ball's opinion, which is why his opinion is not to be used in exclusion of other opinions. However, Wikipedia recognizes the use of reliable sources and of opinions from reliable sources, and the NPOV doctrine also indicates that making "bald statements" about opinions is perfectly legitimate. Other opinions from other reliable sources can be added, of course, but statements from reliable sources ought not to be removed simply because one disagrees with their content or believes them to be biased, whether it be statements of fact or of opinion. At least, that is how I interpret the Wikipedia policy. The reason why your changes were reverted and you were asked to make your case was precisely because you were removing sourced material from reliable sources. Such material is generally not removed, and on disagreeing with it one is expected to locate alternative reliable sources to counterbalance, or argue why the source is not reliable. At least, again, that is how I interpret the Wikipedia policy.

I disagree that a simple two or three words is sufficient to be clear about what kind of laws were being struck down, and I fail to see exactly what is your objection to the phrasing given: "laws designed to protect labor by restraining and regulating certain working conditions". This is what made them run contrary to the Freedom of Contract doctrine, and it is what was objectionable to the majority: that they restrained and regulated working conditions from without the two-party contract between employer and employee. Being clearer and more exact, without overburdening, is generally a good thing. This is not an excessive digression, and it is both clear and to the point. Even the possibility of confusion (which you grant possible though consider unlikely) is avoided by not relying on your implicit restrictive definition of "labor laws", which runs contrary to all sources I've cited and to Wikipedia's definition. And why rely on the reader infering when it can be stated in a short and simple manner? We are not, and neither is the reader, being charged by the word. What is it that you find objectionable or unverified about that phrasing?

Finally, saying the nickname is derogatory would not be appropriate, absent a reliable source that makes that statement. Both sources identify it simply as originating "with their critics", and that is the phrasing I would favor. Magidin (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree on the treatment of the nickname The Four Horsemen. Good thinking with that. I had never even thought of it as being derogatory. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It was probably meant to be at least accusatory, as it clearly alludes to the "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse"; but then, it's not about whether this is truly the case or not, but rather whether it is verifiable or not. Since the two sources so far identify it only as originating with their critics, without making any further judgement, I think that is where we ought to leave it at this point. But the origins of the nickname need to be included. I have not found a similar source for the nickname of the "Three Musketteers" yet, but the origin of that ought to likewise be included in that article if it can be found. Magidin (talk)

I see Mr. Garcia's policy of incivility is unchanged.

You've got the point about sources all wrong. All the facts that Ball gives can be easily phrased in a neutral fashion. There is no need to sift through numerous sources to find someone else who gives the same facts but with different, positivity-connoting adjectives. Just list the facts.

Quoting is inadequate and pointless. Imagine an article reading: Jimmy Carter was "a terrible president"[3] who "destroyed the economy"[3]. Is that now NPOV because it's safely quoted? (No, it isn't.) And as noted it's pointless in this case as you can list the facts given by Ball without the flourish and be done with it.

I'm not removing sourced material but phrasing it to comply with number 2 from WP:5. Stop accusing me of something I am not doing. And no, not all reliably sourced material belongs. If I copied the entire 1930 U.S. census into this article, it would be rightly removed. Similarly, long, opinionated rants by credible historians should not simply be copied en bloc because the source is "reliable". One must use judgement and common sense on what to include.

The paragraph at issue just lists a few facts about these judges. All I am saying is that these facts should be related in an unbiased fashion. Mr. Garcia in particular appears to have a huge problem with this.

If you must be wordy about labor laws, so be it. Just make sure it isn't flagrantly POV-pushing.

I didn't say we should say it was derogatory, just that it obviously is. If you think comparing judges to pestilence, famine, war, and death is meant as a compliment, you need your head checked. But fine say it's used by their critics. 64.91.124.161 (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that you did not answer my question. What exactly is it that you find objectionable about the phrasing I suggested, "laws designed to protect labor by restraining and regulating certain working conditions" ? I do not see any bias in that phrasing, nor does it constitute a "long, opinionated rant". Your rephrase removed relevant information, apparently under the mistaken belief that "labor law" somehow implicitly meant something it simply does not; you even recognize that there is a possibility of incorrect inference (though you find it unlikely) without the qualifying description of which kinds of labor laws were being struck down. Your two or three words simply do not provide the relevant information, and this is a simple, objective description of these laws which does and removes the possibility of incorrect inference. That's what the laws were designed to do, certainly, by their framers and writers, and they attempted to do so via restraint and regulation of working conditions. So, what is it that you find objectionable about that phrasing? We are beyond justifying the original phrasing or the changes made and reverted, we are attempting to reach a new consensus on what the phrasing should be.

I also think that you failed to understand the point I was making. It's not that the opinions themselves become neutral when they are provided quoted and cited; what is neutral is the reporting of those opinions when they are identified as opinions and properly attributed. What I am talking about is described in WP:SUBSTANTIATE, and providing it as a sourced quotation was my attempt to do so. It fails to do so in your view, it seems. I get the feeling that you would also object to these opinions being added and described as such (i.e., as opinions), even if they were done in addition to your desired phrasing and separately; is that the case? Because if not, we can probably reach a simple enough compromise by moving them into a separate paragraph.

Finally, whether something is "obvious" or not is irrelevant: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true" (Wikipedia:Core content policies). That was my point. I have been behaving civily, I believe. You have not reciprocated, and your parting shot was both baseless and uncalled for. Magidin (talk) 05:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

My response to the "labor law" issue was brief and to the point-- "If you must be wordy about labor laws, so be it. Just make sure it isn't flagrantly POV-pushing." The points about rants and so on were in response to the implicit assumption that if a reliable source said it, it must be included. The opinionated rant was a reductio ad absurdum.

It is not you I accused on incivility, but Mr. Garcia. However, I do feel you've misrepresented me.

My points are that (a) editorial judgement dictates what to include, e.g., what to excerpt, what adjectives to use (e.g., quoting Ball's entire book, though that would be a reliable source, would not be good editorial judgement); (b) there is no need to quote Ball or anyone else at length for the simple statements of fact made in the paragraph, as it suffices to impart them using neutral phrasing (that is, why bother quoting when it is possible and easy to just say it neutrally). 64.91.124.161 (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Your reply on labor laws was short, but it failed to provide me with an answer; in fact, I find it ambiguous. I provided (twice now) specific wording I am suggesting. Your first reply was to criticize "that paragraph" (whether you refered to my suggested wording or the original one I am left to guess, since you made only general comments rather than specific points); your second is again unclear: are you accepting the proposed wording, or are you finding "flagrant[] POV-pushing" in it that you find objectionable?

Tweaking it a bit more, let me propose the following for the first sentence in that paragraph:

They were strongly opposed to the policies created by the New Deal legislation[Ball, others as applicable], and overturned state and federal laws designed to protect labor by restraining and regulating certain working conditions.[Ball, Lieberman, etc].

Is the wording I propose on this acceptable to you, or not? If not, do you have a compromise to suggest beyond your original wording?

Yes, editorial judgement plays a role; and there may be disagreements (which the policy you cited directs be resolved in the talk page, as we are now trying to do). It was certainly not my claim that anything which is in a reliable source must be included (and if that's what I implied, it was both unintentional and inadvertently done); but relevant information generally should. I am looking for other sources on the second part of the paragraph; if there is general agreement with Ball (that the actions resulted in blocking government action on the economy, or in the general perception that action was blocked), then citing this general agreement becomes relevant, even if that opinion is not neutral on the Horsemen themselves. Even if it is only widespread opinion, then mentioning it is also relevant. To quote from Wikipedia's Neutrality Policy,

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is "POV". Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view.

As far as I can tell, you are advocating elimination of article content on the grounds that it is "POV". If there is controversy on the role played by the Horsemen, or on how their actions affected government action, then the article should describe this controversy. If there is no controversy and there is general agreement, then this agreement should be mentioned, again even if it is not neutral on the Horsemen. The absence of cited sources for the contrary position does not, in and of itself, mandate an elimination of language describing the affirmative position (and I am using "contrary" and "affirmative" as merely descriptive terms of one position vs. the other, not as value judgements on the contents of this particular instance of the situation), so long as this is provided in a way that makes it clear that this is the opinion of the sources and not a statement of fact by the impersonal author. My attempts may have been deficient in doing so, but being laudatory or critical does not, in and of itself, render material as improper or violatory of the neutrality policy, even if neutral alternatives exist.

In addition to Ball, the article on the New Deal in the Oxford Guide contains similar wording on the actions leading to the general perception that government would be unable to act through legislation to regulate the economy. It's at home, but I'll provide exact quotes later today. I will look up a couple of other sources as well. Once I do, I will again propose specific wording for the second part of the paragraph, and invite you to comment on that specific wording.

I know you did not accuse me of incivility. What you did do, however, was take a cheap shot at me based on a straw man, a shot I do not believe I provoked (and if I did somehow provoke it, kindly point out what it was I did in my talk page so I can learn from that mistake and not repeat it). Magidin (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok I see (re labor law sentence). You seemed to be toying with several phrasings, so it wasn't clear you were mooting a specific one. Yes, the phrasing you propose is fine. I would prefer it less wordy of course, but I saw what happened last time I aimed for conciseness.

Re the "parting shot", I did not mean to imply you actually thought the term was a compliment, but I guess in this charged environment I should avoid rhetorical flourish that might even be perceived as a PA.

The scope of my edit was limited to a small paragraph. You seem to be proposing a massive expansion. That's not a bad thing, but until I see the new proposed article it's hard for me to comment.

I disagree that a reliable source being relevant is enough for inclusion; if so, the article George W. Bush would be thousands, perhaps millions, of pages long. Rather, one must extract and summarize, in a neutral fashion. The facts in the disputed paragraph were few and easily phrased neutrally, which is all I was trying to achieve.

Example: If a RS says, "George W. Bush foolishly invaded Iraq in 2003", that is a good source for a sentence in an article reading, e.g., "The invasion of Iraq was in 2003", but not a sentence that says, "Bush acted foolishly." The latter is clearly just the source's opinion and is controversial. It should only be used in a description of different views of the event, which might not belong in that section (perhaps in a separate section on "criticisms" or the like).

Reliable sources include controversial assertions and uncontroversial ones; the former can be sources for the fact that certain opinions are held, the latter for the facts of the matter itself. The paragraph in question listed facts and was not evidently about the perceptions of the Horsemen, and so it would ill serve the flow of the article to suddenly switch into an extended debate. (We could add a perceptions section of course, though we should avoid bloating the article with minutiae.)

67.42.2.70 (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Quotes on the effect of the Horsemen on government.

I have two quotes for now. From the article New Deal in The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, edited by Kermit L. Hall; Oxford University Press, 1992. Article written by Carol E. Jenson, identified in the Directory of Contributorfs as Professor of History, University of Wisconsin, La Crosse (internal references ommited):

Despite the presence of a conservative bloc dubbed by journalists the Four Horsemen (from Revelation 6:2-8), the Court at first accepted some New Deal initiatives as well as important state regulatory legislation.[...] But the conservative bloc, with the accession of Justice Owen Roberts, and joined sometimes by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, struck powerful blows at the New Deal program in Schechter v. United States (1935), voiding the NIRA [National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933], and United States v. Butler (1936) voiding the AAA [Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933]. Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936) exhumed the discredited United States v. E.C. Knight Co. (1895) to strike down an exercise of the commerce power. Together with decisions negating state regulatory effots (e.g., Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo 1936), these decisions justified reasonable observers in concluding that the Court was likely to be blindly obstructive to all efforts to cope with the depression and to be wedded to the obsolete and regressive precedents of the Lochner era. [emphasis added]

I was curious about the cases mentioned in the part ommitted after the first sentence (I provided it for context), so I looked them up, in case the Horsemen (or some of them) had originally upheld New Deal policies earlier in the Depression. This turned out not to be the case. The cases cited were: Home Building and Loan Association v. Blasdell (1934), Nebbia v. New York (1934), the three Gold Clause Cases of 1935, and Ashwander v. T.V.A. (1936); all were decided 5-4, with the Horsemen in dissent in each of the six cases.

The second is from Closed Chambers: The Rise, Fall and Future of the Modern Supreme Court, by Edward Lazarus, Penguin Books 1999. pp. 282-284. Lazarus seems to be a secondary source, giving as his two main sources Alpheus T. Mason, Harlan Fiske Stone: Pillar of the Law (New York: Viking 1956) "for a detailed view of this period in the Court's history"; and Arthur M. Schlesinger, The Politics of Upheaval (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1960). After describing the opposing camps and their philosophical positions and the goings on and personal attitudes, Lazarus writes (p. 284):

The result of these dinamics was a steady drift into the Court's most serious crisis since Dred Scott. As the Justices finished up the 1935 term - deemed by Stone "one of the most disastrous in its history" - popular and political outcry against what New Dealers of every stripe viewed as the Court's "economic dictatorship" moved toward crescendo. Some communities responded to the Court's paralyzing jurisprudence by hanging the Justices in effigy. Even sober academics concluded that the Court's aversion to regulated capitalism confronted the country with "the question not how governmental functions shall be shared, but whether in substance we shall govern at all." [emphasis added].

After the quotation marks there is a footnote referencing Schlesinger, pp. 483-88. Magidin (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Great work. I think you should incorporate them. We shouldn't feel the need to talk about *all* additions on the talk page. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I want to locate one or two other primary sources, and check up on Lazarus's references (Lazarus writes mainly about his personal experience as a clerk for Justice Blackmun, and for those discussions I would consider him a primary source; but for this section the flavor of his presentation changes a bit and I think it would not be appropriate to consider him a primary source). I also hope to take a look at some of the on-line newspaper archives to see if I can locate some contemporary write-up. With that, I think a full (short) paragraph discussing the way in which the Court's (i.e., the Horsemen-led majority's) actions were "generally perceived", in lieu of the one sentence we had before, would be an appropriate addition (and one in which the contrary position, suitably cited, could be added later). In short: I would suggest that we remove the sentence part that is there now, finishing the paragraph as I suggested in the section above, and replace it with a separate paragraph discussing these issues and leading up to Roosevelt's Court-packing plan. Magidin (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

April 2010

AfD

Much of the discussion herein is not based on what an audience might expect in an encyclopedic platform such as Wikipedia, which is, meaningful civil discourse based on actual fact to the best of anyone's knowledge. Instead, this "Talk" is similar to a blog platform in which discourse of any kind, including name calling and unsubstantiation of any facts whatsoever is rife. Though a writer may claim "free speech" expressing personal bent on figures in history, backed up by various and sundry opinionated authors painting broad statements as indisputable truth, characterizing at least three of the Justices as "anti-semetic" "failures". The fact is, such unfounded statements could be thought to be libelous, a tactic going rampant and unchecked today, dominating blogs and media, defaming the reputations of otherwise well-regarded public officials, especially easy to inflict on those now deceased whose thoughts and opinions over 75 years ago do not equate with modern writing or thinking today, not that is was lesser by any means, or would the Horsemen have ever written or spoken in such epithets as people casually spout on such forums as this, so freely. Many Republicans today in Congress think they are acting on the same premise as the Four Horsemen by en masse blocking legislation proposed by Democrats, again New Deal type legislation, using the very power abdicated to them by the Court after they fell under criticism for blocking New Deal legisation. However, ingraining prejudice and malice on the good names of public officials in the minds of the public, mis-casting them as historical misfits, professionally and personally, may forever diminish them as well. Such tactics and calling "moron" anyone who deigns to think differently is unacceptable. And quoting Schlesinger and Lieberman as the last word of authority on this subject? The Horsemen are probably turning over in their graves.FleetGhost (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC).

I find no instance of "anti-semitic" (or any its misspelling) in the article. I also find no instance of "failure" (or even "fail") in the article. There is one isolated instance in the talk page, which occurred a year and a half ago. Magidin (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Quotes from Talk: Four Horsemen Supreme Court "Hugo Black is one of the greatest Supreme Court justices of the 20th century, not a dictator. Besides, George Sutherland had a productive career, but a 1970 poll of Supreme Court experts shows the other three horsemen were considered "failures.""

What poll and for what reason(s) were they considered "failures"? What were the persuasions of the Court at that time. One poll does and should not ingrain a lasting, or even equates to a prevalent general opinion of the Justices as being "failures" professionally and personally.

Quote: "I would suggest that the author/editor of this stub delete that unsigned assihine initial statement. I can't imagine a more offensive string of fecal material about the Supreme Court. Anyone who would equate Justice Hugo Black with Hitler is too dumb to know how to pour urine out of a boot, even with instructions printed on the sole. But the fact that moron calls the Four Horsemen of the Apocolypse "Brave Americans" who took their "oath seriously"--no one with an IQ in at least the upper two digits would believe that...especially given the open Anti-Semetic attitudes of the Horsemen. I'm so mad, I can hardly type. Oh--and Magidin is incorrect to say that the Horsemen are "excellent examples of conservative judicial activism." The Horsemen are not good examples of anything. Most lists rating Supreme Court Justices give that gang the lowest rating." Bill Abendroth, Nov. 2008

Name calling another poster and others a "moron" and the Court an "anti-semetic""gang" is offensive in its attempt to dominate discussion with shock gutter talk, not at all conducive to making valid points of fact to be reckoned with seriously, only inflammatory in the way this obviously angry poster choose his words, and to cast the Horsemen out of history with statements such as "The horsemen are not good examples of anything". Most lists rating Supreme Court give that gang the lowest ratings". What lists, who made them, and why do you call the Four Horsemen a "gang", Bill Abendroth? Nov., 2008

One "1970 poll" makes the four justices "failures"? as Rafael Garcia states in, Oct., 2008 This is an attempt to totally diminish these men in stature with the smallest of relative matter he can grope for.FleetGhost (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)all>—Preceding unsigned comment added by FleetGhost (talk • contribs) 00:13, April 20 2010

First, it is not terribly polite to change the text of your previous writing if you have already received responses. It could be seen as altering the record; the usual practice, if you feel you must modify, is to strike through old text before adding new one. Use <s> and </s> to do so. Second: you should sign your posts. Use four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your contributions. Thirdly: yes, the quote you provide is what I refered to as the "isolated" case in the talk page. You'll see that Mr Abedroth did not continue to participate, nor did he edit the page, so his outbursts are confined to the talk page and are not reflected in any way on the page itself. From his contributions, it is plain he did not modify any page (only User pages and talk pages), and from his comments in this page that he was not very clear on how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Hence, "isolated." In any case, you do not seem to be addressing my point, which is that all that you are complaining about (i) is not reflected in any way on the page itself; and (ii) happened over a year and a half ago and then died down almost immediately. So, other than a general complaint about the attitude and actions of some people 18 months ago, what is it you are trying to accomplish here? The forum is supposed to be for discussing improvement in the article. And finally, it seems to me that if any of your complaints relate to the page (as opposed to users/editors), then they lie in the issue of whether or not reported events or perceptions are factual. I direct you to the wikipedia verifiability standard: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Now, with that out of the way, exactly what are you proposing be done to improve the article? Because I confess I do not understand what it is you are proposing in that regard. Magidin (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I perhaps was not polite changing my wording, but I am new to Talk pages, so pardon me if that is considered offensive. It did cross my mind that my paragraphs had been commented on by that time but I did not change the context in any way. It was the same, just expanded on. It was just an oversight that I forgot to put the FleetGhost (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC) ending my comments. My aim is to have this Talk page deleted as the talk is trite and serves no purpose of history when truth is not a standard. I will read the "verifiability, not truth" standard and pursue arguments in that regard.FleetGhost (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It was not "offensive", just not usually considered very polite. So I was just pointing you to how to do it in the future. Likewise, you can also use : to indent your replies; put them in front of each paragraph so the replies appear indented. Usual practice, again, is to have each reply indented "one further" from the previous reply, for readability. (If there is a lot of back-and-forth, one often "de-indents for readability", going back to the left margin. As to your aim: the talk page will remain archived in the "history" tab no matter what happens. The record will not be changed. The talk page is not supposed to add anything to "history" (in terms of the history the article itself addresses); talk pages are not part of the article. You might want to take a look at the talk page guidelines. Since the thread in question has been dormant so long, we could archive it, though because of the size of the page this has not really been an issue. I'll go ahead and do that. However, I think from your comments that you have some misconceptions of how Wikipedia is supposed to work or what it is that it is supposed to reflect. I will post the welcome banner to your talk page, so you can take a look at Wikipedia's core content policies,verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view, and what they mean or how it is attempted to implement them. Magidin (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge

Might it make sense to merge this article with The Three Musketeers (Supreme Court)? They deal substantively with the same thing: blocs of Supreme Court justices during the New Deal era. It might also make sense to merge The switch in time that saved nine too, and make each of these things a section of larger article about the SC during the New Deal. Just in an organizational sense I think this would be prudent: they're related and it's unlikely someone is going to read one article without also being interested in the others. (There might also be other articles that would make sense in such a new article. I only list these three because I did just in fact read all of them because they're so related to each other.) 68.35.40.154 (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)