Jump to content

Talk:Roe v. Wade

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PauAmma (talk | contribs) at 19:53, 3 February 2023 (Undid revision 1137263650 by 2601:198:4100:24F0:1815:9489:6474:4CA (talk) WP:NAF). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Former featured articleRoe v. Wade is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 22, 2005.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 26, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
February 5, 2007Featured article reviewKept
April 21, 2012Featured article reviewDemoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 22, 2005, January 22, 2006, January 22, 2007, January 22, 2008, January 22, 2009, January 22, 2010, January 22, 2011, January 22, 2015, and January 22, 2023.
Current status: Former featured article

Template:Court Case Task Force


Please insert the hyperlink to the wikipedia page on Norma McCorvey : Norma McCorvey BBagioli (talk) 12:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Conferred" vs "Granted"

@IrishLas You changed the language of the sentence from "granted" to "conferred", asserting that the word is hard to understand for those without a law degree. In addition, you stated that my reversion of your edit was "condescending". To avoid violating 3RR, it would be best to discuss the change here.

I don't believe anything in my original reversion was in any way "condescending," and I certainly did not intend it to be so. In fact, as I mentioned, the word "conferred" is also used to describe Roe vs. Wade in legal text (e.g. it is used as such in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization on its very first page ) in addition to being just a general term in the English language. Partly the reason why I reverted your edit was because of uniformity, since the page for Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization uses "confer" aswell. As a non-lawyer myself, I found no issue with "conferred" in either the pages. GuardianH (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are 100% correct! Thank you for comments. You believed correctly. Sheesh, I was the one being condescending, so I'm sorry, very sorry for using that word describing you and/or your actions. Again, I'm truly sorry. TBH, I didn't know the meaning of "conferred" and I'm concidered "pretty smart" by my professor, and my parents as well :p I pretty much lacked tact for sure. I'm so sorry, my excuse is lack of sleep, though an excuse is an excuse and is me being an arse. I'm sorry. So please forgive me. IrishLas (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries GuardianH (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Composition II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2022 and 30 November 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Italian.johnson1 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Sierrabasden (talk) 05:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blackmun's "Chronological" Entry

The only reason I've been mentioning about Harry Blackmun's "chronological" entry in the Supreme Court decision is to sum up the day. He wrote "Abortion decisions down. LBJ dies." I only note this to mention the role that the Supreme Court also played in paying tribute to LBJ. It is relevant, not trivia, because of who led the SCOTUS tributes. -- SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk)