Talk:West Virginia v. B. P. J.
Appearance
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the West Virginia v. B. P. J. article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A few changes
[edit]Hello! Just wanted to note I made a few changes to the article.
- First, the intro previously—I think a bit awkwardly—characterized the law by who it would "only" allow on women's/girls' teams. I looked at the coverage of the case and the law itself, and I think it's fair to say both really speak in terms of who is banned from participating, not who is (exclusively) allowed to participate. Just by example, the bill's title includes "
prohibiting biological males from participating on athletic teams or sports designated for biological females where competitive skill or contact is involved
", and the text says "Athletic teams or sports designated for females, women, or girls shall not be open to students of the male sex where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport.
" In terms of the coverage, here are articles that reflect the focus on who is banned (rather than who is allowed): NPR, Reuters, Bloomberg Law, New York Times (which is already cited). - I was a little apprehensive about the characterization of the district-court order, which I couldn't find a source backing. If the plaintiff challenged the law on both constitutional and statutory grounds (which she did), I feel almost certain that the district court order must have ruled on both of those grounds (both because a partial ruling wouldn't dispose of the case and the principle of constitutional avoidance). Of course, that's OR, but I couldn't find a reliable source saying the district court exclusively ruled on the constitutional grounds, and I did find primary sources discussing the district-court opinion, which said it had ruled on both matters.
- I also couldn't find a source saying that the mother was a co-plaintiff. She very well may have been, and the Washington Post came close to saying she was (saying something like "the girl and her mother say ..."), but I wasn't sure. (I could always get on pacer and look it up, but 10 cents a page adds up.)
That's all for now!--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Jerome Frank Disciple: thank you for the good work! Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 19:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Appeal to the SCOTUS
[edit]I added the July 2024 appeal of the Fourth Circuit's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Once the SCOTUS decides the appeal, the article will need to be updated with the closure and an proper infobox. Thanks. Path2space (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Categories:
- Stub-Class law articles
- Low-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- Stub-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
- WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
- Stub-Class WikiProject Women articles
- All WikiProject Women-related pages
- WikiProject Women articles
- Stub-Class U.S. Supreme Court articles
- Low-importance U.S. Supreme Court articles
- WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases articles
- Stub-Class Human rights articles
- Unknown-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles
- Stub-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- Stub-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- Stub-Class West Virginia articles
- Low-importance West Virginia articles
- WikiProject West Virginia articles
- WikiProject United States articles