Talk:Ann Arbor Railroad v. United States

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article is a stub and thus not approved.
Main Article
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition A 1930 U.S. Supreme Court case which defined the Hoch-Smith Resolution as an expression of Congressional opinion and not a matter of law, thus enjoining the ICC from following it. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories History and Law [Categories OK]
 Subgroup category:  Railroad History
 Talk Archive none  English language variant American English

This article about a 1930 legal decision appears to be in fact about a guy who was 3 at the time and not involved. David Finn 08:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's why we categorize it as a secondary source. Russell D. Jones 12:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
We don't categorize it as anything yet because it comes from the uncategorized pages page. Secondary source is a lemma article started by Howard rather than a policy. Regardless of the status of the source that is printed the current text of this article apart from that source is:
Huntington was an instructor in government, Harvard University.
See also Interstate Commerce Commission
It has been that way for a year and a half. The article does not mention the subject of the article at all. Is there any reason not to nominate this article for removal? David Finn 14:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry for my poor use of pronouns, David. I meant to say "That is why historians categorize the source as a secondary source." I did not mean to imply that "We" meant CZ and that "it" meant the article. So I went ahead and did a CZ categorization of the article by creating the metadata.
Regarding a removal, I would recommend to the EC that if they decide to remove it from MainSpace that it be moved to my user space; that the talk page be retained; that the links to the article be updated to point to the article in my user space (or that a redirect here be made to point to the article in my user space). I, personally as the author and as a history editor, would not recommend removal. The article is basically a lemma article now. Russell D. Jones 14:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. In a lemma article the main page contains a transclusion of the definition, if that is the correct way to put it. That isn't the case with this one but I can probably make things easier by doing it manually. David Finn 15:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)